Ripper Victim?

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Michael! And I of course also add the cut-wound on the lower body, and couple it with my knowledge of how rational a man the Ripper was in all his madness. And then I come up with two wounds that seem to have a rational reasoning behind them (the interest in the abdominal cavity and the need to ensure that Tabram could not give him up), and 37 that seem not to have this feature. And I find it much intriguing that these two wounds are the only ones that need not have been inflicted by the smallish weapon.

Very many speak of a scavenger scenario as a scenario that craves too much of a coincidence. But I say that when we find a victim like Tabram, it would also be a hefty coincidence if there was nothing useful to read into the fact that the only wounds that could have been inflicted by the larger blade, are also the only wounds that seemingly display an intent and a rationality that lacks in the other wounds. And, of course, if the cut was a stab gone wrong, we are faced with another coincidence - to think that the botched stab just happened to end up at the one place where our man needed to cut ...

Good to see you around too, Michael - as always!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Not to disparage your thinking on this FM, but the different personalities that I spoke of... perhaps evidenced by the single stab wound to kill possibly as the finale, and 37 stabs in fury, could be representative of anyone that was with that fury stabber. We know soldiers traveled in pairs, thats how we see Martha last, and we know a soldier is seen near the murder scene later, waiting for a chum...and we know that on Bank Holidays, which this was, soldiers often wore their bayonets or swords legally as part of their uniform.

We know Martha has 2 types of wounds. We can reasonably assume that one large weapon was used only once....logically, that would be last...also based on the evidence. We know Martha wasnt sliced, or ripped, or lay down and cut open...we know her throat was stabbed, not cut...we know that. We know that soldiers have a very special connection with other men in the service...particularly one that they might go out on the town with on a Bank Holiday. We also know that soldiers are trained to kill with weapons...not stab recklessly with small knives.

I think this could easily suggest a soldier either being part of this attack, even if only the final blow...or he may have come looking for his chum and come upon this madness, which he ends with a kill stroke with a large weapon. He gets his chum, and they leave. Another story of watching the others back, only this one not during war time.

Best regards my friend.

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

The thing I´ve got against the two soldier theory is that it all went down silently. With three people involved, the chances of them making sounds rise dramatically.
But of course, there is no way that we can say that it was´nt two simultaneous stabbers. My sentiments point away from that, though.

One thing; you write:

"We can reasonably assume that one large weapon was used only once....logically, that would be last...also based on the evidence."

Don´t forget, Michael, that a cut does not give away the size of the blade! That means that the wound to the lower body may ALSO have been inflicted by the larger blade.

The best!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi again FM,

That lower body wound sounds to me much more like a cut than a stab, maybe a stab that became a cut?...but I think the evidence suggests the opinion was the larger blade was used just once. Obviously a pivotal point to me based on my last post.

Cheers mate.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"That lower body wound sounds to me much more like a cut than a stab, maybe a stab that became a cut?...but I think the evidence suggests the opinion was the larger blade was used just once."

Well, Michael, no matter what the wound in the lower body was intended as, it came out as a cut! Don Souden made a guess that it could have been a stab that skidded of the pubic bone, and yes, maybe it was. But the fact of the matter is that we are not left with a stab - we are left with a cut, and therefore we should treat it like a cut too.
On your point that the evidence suggested that the larger blade was used only once, all we have is Killeen saying that all wounds but the one to the sternum could have been made by the same blade. He does not say that they would have or must have been made by it, though, and that is wise - for it is a pretty awkward task to establish blade width and thickness from a cut.

What you need to do is to take a sausage, one smallish pen knife and one large heavy dagger. Then stab the pen-knife into the sausage first and thereafter you do the same with the dagger.
Then you have a look at the sausage. Can you tell which blade caused which damage? Of course - the entrance holes will differ totally in size, and determining which hole belongs to which blade is an easy task.
Now, take another sausage and cut it in three pieces. To do that, you need to cut twice. Do it first with the pen-knife and then with the dagger. Then you tell me which blade caused which cut!

See what I mean? A cut does not give away blade size, width and thickness. And therefore, the cut to Tabrams lower body could easily have been produced by EITHER blade, something that has been previously overlooked since Killeen stated that 38 of the wounds MAY have been inflicted by the same blade. In 37 cases he could be reasonably sure, but in case 38 my guess is that he just moved with statistics.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

What Killeen said was that Tabram lived throughout the stabbings. That would mean that the blow to the heart came last, for it alone would have put her to death.

Perhaps not, Fish. A wound to the heart need not necessarily cause instantaneous death, and an initial wound there could still have meant that she remained alive during the infliction of some of the other wounds.

[Supe]

Fish,

Don Souden made a guess that it could have been a stab that skidded of the pubic bone, and yes, maybe it was.

Guess is such a charged word, as if I were simply making a blind stab at beyond which of three doors the big prize lurks. I believe I wrote something to the effect "it is possible that . . ." There is a difference between a guess and a studied possibility. And, fair disclosure, it is a possibility that Sam also proposed and, I am sure, countless others.

But the fact of the matter is that we are not left with a stab - we are left with a cut, and therefore we should treat it like a cut too.

No, we shouldn't therefore treat it like a cut. Without knowledge of intent by the knife-wielder it could be either a stab gone awry or a singular cut and we ought not presume one over the other to bolster a thesis. Moreover, that there was, at most, one "cut" in the region of the genitalia does not suggest great interest in that area by the assailant.

Don.

[Malcolm X]

it does seem damn odd that another much larger blade was used, especially at the end of a frenzied attack, it always has felt odd....... two killers explain this, but then again, two killers dont make much sense either .....maybe the lower cut was supposed to be a stab as mentioned.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"A wound to the heart need not necessarily cause instantaneous death, and an initial wound there could still have meant that she remained alive during the infliction of some of the other wounds."

That is correct, Sam - It seems that the heart can go on pumping blood for a minute or two even with such a wound. So in that respect you make a good point.

Gordons scenario from the podcast, though, involved the first man piercing the heart initially - with the larger blade - and Jack arriving more than an hour afterwards, and I think we can safely assume that no blood would have been pumped through her body at that stage.
I also think that Killeens assertion that she lived throughout the whole business tells us that there was a large loss of blood through the holes in her body caused by the smaller blade. That would be how he established that she was stabbed while the blood was still pumping. And to me, that suggests that there was a time lapse inbetween the minutes in which these stabs were inflicted and the sequence I am suggesting followed, with the cut to the lower body and the stab to the heart.
I think that all them little details fall nicely into place with such a scenario - but I am not a big enough fool to rule out other possibilities because of that! But I will gladly tell you that I have not seen any other scenario that takes care of all the odd details involved ...

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Don writes:

(My words) "Don Souden made a guess that it could have been a stab that skidded of the pubic bone, and yes, maybe it was.

(Dons words) Guess is such a charged word, as if I were simply making a blind stab at beyond which of three doors the big prize lurks. I believe I wrote something to the effect "it is possible that . . ." There is a difference between a guess and a studied possibility. And, fair disclosure, it is a possibility that Sam also proposed and, I am sure, countless others.

(my words) But the fact of the matter is that we are not left with a stab - we are left with a cut, and therefore we should treat it like a cut too.

(Dons words) No, we shouldn't therefore treat it like a cut. Without knowledge of intent by the knife-wielder it could be either a stab gone awry or a singular cut and we ought not presume one over the other to bolster a thesis. Moreover, that there was, at most, one "cut" in the region of the genitalia does not suggest great interest in that area by the assailant."

Okay, Don - before we get bogged down in semantics here, I will begin by saying that I am the first one to admit that any guesswork coming from you would be both intelligent and grounded in a vast knowledge of the case. And sure enough, I never meant to take anything away from you by using the word "guess". But the fact of the matter is that we know so very little about where that wound was situated, and we have no information about whether it ran fro head to toe or across the body, just as we don´t know the exact appearance of it. And therefore the "studied possibilities" that are available to us are somewhat limited by the lack of information we are dealing with.
As for myself, I would not mind if anybody told me that my thoughts that the wound may have been situated over the reproductive organs is nothing but a guess - for I have nothing factual to bolster such a claim. Even though I feel sure that Killeen would have told us if that wound was inflicted on the left buttock of Tabram, I cannot prove that this was not the case - the buttocks belong to the lower body too.
So what we are dealing with here is a case where you think that there may be some sort of disrespect or a failure to recognize the worth of your opinion. And that there is not, and there never was, simple as that, so I don´t think we have an issue here. If I offended you, I´m sorry, but I am very happy never to have meant to, sort of.

Question two; should we treat the cut as a cut? I think we should. That is not saying that we should close the door on any other possibility, for that would be a daft thing to do. Just like you say, we do not know the intent of the man who inflicted the damage - but we do know the outcome! So to me it is a cut that could have been intended as a stab. It is not a fifty-fifty deal the way I see it.
Finally, does the fact that there was a cut in the region of the genitalia - speaking theoretically, since we do not know this for a fact at all - have to evince an interest in the reproductive organs?
No, not necessarily. But since we both know that there was a killer on the loose who seemed to take an almighty interest in that exact area, it of course increases the possibility that Tabram was cut by the Ripper. There can be no doubt about that.
If we want to take the position that the cut had no connection at all to any interest in the organs of the reproductive organs, then we may as well say that there was no significance at all in the fact that it ended up at that very place - it could just as well have ended up anywhere else on her body. Same thing goes for the suggestion of a skidding stab - there are a lot of bones around in the body against which the knife could have skidded.
If we accept this, then we should regard the fact that there was a cut to the lower body as nothing but a coincidence. And that would be a dangerous thing to do with an eviscerator in the vicinity.
And this is not all! For if it was not intended as a cut but as a stab, then why is it not grouped with any other stabs? Why is it the only wound to the lower body, an area in which Tabrams killer showed no further interest, and that was not otherwise subjected to the flurry of stabs - that flurry restricted itself to the chest area and the upper body.
Once again, I take good care not to tell you that you are wrong. I just point out that the coincidences - an eviscerator on the loose, a cut to the lower body, no other wounds to that area but dozens of them elsewhere - are piling up, and to my mind, they urge us to look at Tabram with more canonical eyes than we usually do!

The best, Don!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Moreover, that there was, at most, one "cut" in the region of the genitalia does not suggest great interest in that area by the assailant.

Hi Don

Polly Nichols had two small stab wounds to the same area.

[Chava]

Also I think we have to take care not to be too influenced by Killeen's report one way or the other. He was inexperienced and could have made a number of mistakes.

If the kill was a frenzy brought on by Tabram having, say, tried to pick her trick's pocket, then I'd expect the blows to land quickly, and I'd expect them to be inflicted by one weapon. No one stops in the middle of a frenzied attack to change weapons over.

However, supposing Tabram was killed in a frenzy by Private X, and his pal Private Y fetches up and asks what's gone on. Private X says 'the bitch tried to rob me so I dealt with her'. Private Y says 'oh yeah? Lemme show you what I think of her!!' yanks out his bayonet and stabs her himself. But if this happened, it's probable Tabram was already dead at the time. So that wound would bleed significantly less than the others, and might not bleed at all. And in all honesty, I don't think this is likely to have happened.

I think it's entirely possible that, no matter who killed Tabram, one weapon was used, and Killeen mistook various factors in the wound pattern to come up with the idea of two.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I think it's entirely possible that, no matter who killed Tabram, one weapon was used, and Killeen mistook various factors in the wound pattern to come up with the idea of two.

That seems the most probable scenario.

[DVV]

I think it's entirely possible that, no matter who killed Tabram, one weapon was used, and Killeen mistook various factors in the wound pattern to come up with the idea of two.

Hi Chava,
agreed - that's always been my opinion.
Bayonet, dagger... I can't believe...
The knife, as we know, was strong enough to inflict 38 stabs. So why not 39 ?

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Dvv asks:

"he knife, as we know, was strong enough to inflict 38 stabs. So why not 39 ?"

Because of the simple fact that stab number 39 was required to travel through the breastplate, and Killeen tells us that the blade that was used at the 38 other stabs would have been to frail to do this.
It is not as if the 39 stabs all travelled through tissues with the same density, David!
And Killeen spoke of a pen-knife resemblance of the blade that made the smaller punctures. Why would he do that, if he could not establish it from the appearance of the wounds? It was not a guess, David - it was a conclusion grounded on the looks of nigh on 40 stabs, and that represents one helluva lot of material to work with.
He KNEW that this blade was smallish, and after the autopsy he also knew that though it was a narrow, thin blade (leading the thoughts to a pen-knife), it was also a long one. And the blade that pierced the sternum was a strong, dagger-like one. The two blades would have been totally uncomparable for Killeen to make this assertion. And those who think that the stab to the sternum was made by the smaller blade, that was afterwards wiggled to create a large hole in the sternum, need to think of two things:
1. It does not take very much wiggling to free a blade from bone; bone is hard material, and once a fraction of a millimetre spearates the blade from the bone, it will travel out with no effort.
2. Killeen performed the autopsy; if the blade that pierced the heart had been wiggled, he would have recognized this from the shape of the hole in the heart. But no such mention was made. Instead he remained firmly at his stance that the sternum blade belonged to a long, strong instrument - and the other blade belonged to a weak, frail, thin pen-knife-like blade.

It is all very convenient to diss a medico that presents evidence that does not tally with our own picture of what went down in George Yard. Two blades make the whole thing so much more mysterious. But that is what we are dealing with!

The best,
Fisherman