Why NOT??

[KatBradshaw]

Ok, I hope I am not going over old ground too much here but I have been dying to get a good discussion going on this again.

I have been pondering some of the reasons why Martha Tabram is not considered a Ripper victim and have come up with some questions that I feel I haven't been addressed to my complete understanding.

1 - She's not a C5. What gets me here is that there are issues with other things that Sir Melville Macnaughten has said so why is this seeming accepted as gospel?

2. She was stabbed not ripped. This too gets me. Why wouldn't the killer discover that he enjoyed the feel of the flesh where it had given and then move towards that after Tabram's death.

I always doubt Stride and personally see a lot more of the Ripper's work in Tabram than in Stride.

[sdreid]

I essentially treat MM as stare decisis.

Tabram was not only not ripped, her throat was not cut either plus, it seems, she was most likely slain by a soldier who was out with a companion.

The latest theory about Mann being JtR posits that he stabbed Tabram with his clasp knife after coming upon her body, murdered by the soldier with his bayonet. It was here that he acquired his taste for blood, it (not me) so states.

[KatBradshaw]

Hi, thanks for the reply.
I am really not a believer in the idea that someone, never mind The Ripper, came across her already dead body, and proceeded to stab it. Seems too far fetched for me.
Does the throat being slit need to be there? Again could this not have been something which the killer decided was a good idea after this first killing?

[sdreid]

The throat cut is just an indicator but it doesn't necessarily have to be there as with any other characteristic. Perhaps I'll change some day but I'm with C5 for now.

[KatBradshaw]

Fair enough. Thanks for replying to my post!

[robhouse]

First, it is NOT "accepted as gospel" that Tabram was not a Ripper victim. I think polls on here have shown that something like 50% of casebook voters believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim.

"her throat was not cut either" - OK, her throat has not cut open or slit, like the later victims, but her throat was stabbed, I think, nine times.

Finally, I would argue that the significance of the one longer cut in the "lower portion" of Tabram's body has been overlooked. A close reading of the sources suggests that this was in all likelihood a cut in Tabram's genitals, or very close to that area.


Rob H

[KatBradshaw]

Thanks for the reply Rob!! I like your responses.

I agree that the area of the cuts has been over looked and that the nature is not exclusive either. We all change the way we do things if we discover that we get more out of what ever it is by doing it a different way!

[Stewart P Evans]

From The Headmaster

...Sir Melville Macnaughten...

From the headmaster to all students, please ensure that you spell the name 'Macnaghten' correctly.

[KatBradshaw]

From the headmaster to all students, please ensure that you spell the name 'Macnaghten' correctly.

Sorry Sir! Wouldn't want to get a detention!!

[Stewart P Evans]

Unsolved

First, it is NOT "accepted as gospel" that Tabram was not a Ripper victim. I think polls on here have shown that something like 50% of casebook voters believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim.
"her throat was not cut either" - OK, her throat has not cut open or slit, like the later victims, but her throat was stabbed, I think, nine times.
Finally, I would argue that the significance of the one longer cut in the "lower portion" of Tabram's body has been overlooked. A close reading of the sources suggests that this was in all likelihood a cut in Tabram's genitals, or very close to that area.
Rob H

The 'Whitechapel Murders' from Emma Smith in April 1888 to Frances Coles in February 1891 were a series of unsolved murders. No murderer was ever identified, none convicted and no 'shadow of proof' cast on anyone. Ergo there can be no such thing as 'the canonical five' a modern artifice and certainly Macnaghten was in no position to define which of the crimes were committed by a common hand. We will never know who, exactly, murdered whom in 1888-1891.

[Stewart P Evans]

Might

Sorry Sir! Wouldn't want to get a detention!!

You never know, you might have enjoyed it.

[c.d.]

First, it is NOT "accepted as gospel" that Tabram was not a Ripper victim. I think polls on here have shown that something like 50% of casebook voters believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim.

"her throat was not cut either" - OK, her throat has not cut open or slit, like the later victims, but her throat was stabbed, I think, nine times.

Finally, I would argue that the significance of the one longer cut in the "lower portion" of Tabram's body has been overlooked. A close reading of the sources suggests that this was in all likelihood a cut in Tabram's genitals, or very close to that area.


Rob H

Hi Rob,

But to be fair, if someone is stabbed 39 times, is it that remarkable that one of those cuts (longer or otherwise) would land in the region of the genitals?

c.d.

[c.d.]

The 'Whitechapel Murders' from Emma Smith in April 1888 to Frances Coles in February 1891 were a series of unsolved murders. No murderer was ever identified, none convicted and no 'shadow of proof' cast on anyone. Ergo there can be no such thing as 'the canonical five' a modern artifice and certainly Macnaghten was in no position to define which of the crimes were committed by a common hand. We will never know who, exactly, murdered whom in 1888-1891.

Damn, that cut right to the chase. Well put.

c.d.

[miss marple]

I've always believed Tabrum was a ripper victim, an early one before he perfected his technique.
The body may not have had the throat cut but was stabbed 39 times,most of the stabbings in the abdominal area, stomach abdomen and vagina.
She was murdered on a monday night after a bank holiday
The body was 'displayed' with the legs apart and skirt raised to the waist. Ripper victims are the only women who were displayed like this.
The murder was committed silently, no one in George's yard heard a thing' Jack was not a hobnail boot wearer, he could creep about in soft shoes, silence is present in all his murders
If Liz Stide was a victim, he did not finish his work so no display.
If Tabrum was stabbed by a drunken soldier, there would have been some noise, drunks cannot control their movements or sound.
Tabrum went off with a soldier at 11 45 according to PP, she is estimated to have been killed at 2.30 am. Plenty of time to have dispensed with the soldier and met the ripper.
The bayonet is speculation not fact.
As with other victims there was no sign of intercourse. I wonder if the girls did the old whore trick of a stand up between the legs.
Jack's signature was displaying the victims and focusing the wounds on the female parts. I keep on saying this. The modus of killing can change, serial killers often change that, signature dos'not.
Miss Marple

[Simon Wood]

Dear Headmaster,

I agree. We may never know who, exactly, murdered whom between 1888 and 1891, but that does not necessarily imply that we will not discover why some of these murders were laid at the door of the wholly fictional "Jack the Ripper".

In the final analysis "why" is going to prove far more important and interesting than "who".

Regards,

Simon