Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[bolo]

Jon,

good points, haven't thought of that.

Regards,

Boris

[Wickerman]

This leads me to another thought: If you pierce the sternum of your victim, you would have to move the knife back and forth and apply quite some force to remove it. This would lead to a bigger and more gaping wound than a normal stab with the same weapon.

The portion of blade extended within the body, beneath the sternum, if wiggled back and forth, would shred the muscle, tissue, and organs. In this case it would be the heart.
It would be very evident what had taken place.

You can do this test yourself. Force a large knife through something like a piece of wood so its truely stuck.
Then place that wood over a bowl of jelly/jello, with the knife extending into it. Now wiggle your knife back and forth until you get it out.
See what a mess the movement of that blade has made in the jelly.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I was merely alluding to statistics, Jon - people who change weapons during a knife attack are quite uncommon, and therefore two killers is a better suggestion. I see what you are saying, but I think one must not forget about the blood effusion - she may have been knocked unconscious. If she was NOT, then you would be on the money, no quibble there!

Agreed, if we have a lone killer, and if he changed weapons, he had a reason that we have not guessed.

Maybe the penknife blade snapped, so he used a second knife, obviously taking away the broken blade with him.

Maybe.... while stabbing her with his penknife, another knife fell out of Tabram's pocket. So he stabbed her in the heart with her own knife?

Alternately, if this killer had an accomplice, the novice stabbed her numerous (38) times and left her for dead, which she wasn't.
His accomplice came back to check, finding her still breathing, so used his dagger to finish her off.

There are so many ways to roll the dice with this murder, we have no clear interpretation of the sequence of events and a wide number of possibilities.

I don't include her as a Ripper victim for the simple reason there are two many ways to interpret the evidence. Thats not to say she wasn't, but her murder is not so convincing as a Ripper-type like we would view Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, and I suppose, Kelly.
Every other murder (Tabram, Stride, MacKenzie, Coles) is only a possible "Ripper" killing, by varying degree's of probability.

Regards, Jon S.

[bolo]

Hi harry,

Bolo.
Only ever herd of one other peson with same nickname?.Just one question.In a random frenzied attack to the upper torso,would you be surprised if one of the several given stabs pierced the sternum,without the person stabbing deliberately targetting that sternum..Similar situation ,I would imagine,if you had covered your eyes and stabbed wildly.

Same nickname... ...pardon?

To answer your question, an attacker who stabs his victim in a fit of blind rage dishes out damage in a more or less random manner (so I wouldn't be surprised about an accidental stab to/through the sternum) but he sure would notice if he'd hit the sternum as his knife would probably get stuck.

This leads me to another thought: If you pierce the sternum of your victim, you would have to move the knife back and forth and apply quite some force to remove it. This would lead to a bigger and more gaping wound than a normal stab with the same weapon.

Hello Cogidubnus,

So a thin clasp-knife blade, (which so far has served you well), snaps on you (flicking the remains ten or twelve feet away) - so what do you do? Shrug your shoulders, curse, pack up and go home...or without too much thought grab the spare knife from your inside pocket and KILL the frigging bitch?

in theory, if I had a second knife in my pocket or boots I would probably use it to finish the job. Then again, if Tabram's attacker really was in a true bloody rage, his state of mind defied any theoretical logic, that's why I'm still not convinced at all that he would be able to think straight in a situation like that, and be it just for a second to pull out knife number two.

Regards,

Boris

[Wickerman]

We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too.

You do not have Killeen's inquest testimony, nor his written report. So "here we go again", you pontificating on what a doctor "would have said", when you don't even know anything that he said.
The quotes that appear in the press are chosen by the press, they were only interested in reporting her wounds. What 'they' choose to quote is not everything that Killeen said.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If it wasn't for manipulation, pontification, and hyperbole, you wouldn't have any arguments at all.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Since when do you need a truncheon to administer a stunning blow to the skull, when you can simply bang her head hard on the wall or the floor...we're talking rough and tumble, not nancy boy love taps!

Dave

I see you have forgotten we were talking about her not crying out. What you suggest gives her ample opportunity to cry for help.

A surprise 'whack' with a blunt object avoids this.

Keep your eye on the ball....

[Cogidubnus]

Blades

I simply can't accept (i. e. have difficulties imagining) a scenario of one killer who used two weapons on her as I don't think that anyone would change weapons in the middle of a stabbing frenzy, that's all

So a thin clasp-knife blade, (which so far has served you well), snaps on you (flicking the remains ten or twelve feet away) - so what do you do? Shrug your shoulders, curse, pack up and go home...or without too much thought grab the spare knife from your inside pocket and KILL the frigging bitch?

Nothing there to prevent it being a Ripper crime....

[bolo]

Hi Jon,

The variety of wounds has no bearing on the number of assailants, nor even the number of weapons.[/quot

We do not know if Tabram was attacked by one, two or even three assailants.
All that can be reasonably determined is at least two types of weapon used, which does not automatically mean two knives.
There could have been two teenagers carrying a clasp-knife each, as well as another with a dagger.
Three males attacked Emma Smith, we don't know how many attacked Martha Tabram. Certainly the wounds give no indication either way.

that's not what I'm getting at. Kileen's professional opinion notwithstanding, I simply can't accept (i. e. have difficulties imagining) a scenario of one killer who used two weapons on her as I don't think that anyone would change weapons in the middle of a stabbing frenzy, that's all.

Even a scenario with two assailants gives me headaches, just like the suspicion against the soldier(s) seen loitering outside of George Yard. That stuff was based on Thomas Barrett's and Pearly Poll's testimonies (and unsuccessful parades) who I don't rate as reliable witnesses.

Ben,

Timing, location, victimology and a century's worth of insight into serial crime all speak very much in favour of Tabram being a ripper victim.

My thoughts as well. There are too many hallmarks here to ignore the possibility of Tabram as one of the Ripper's early victims.

Regards,

Boris

[Cogidubnus]

Moi aussi

i see a progression through them and Tabram to the C5 in which the ripper is learning how to kill more efficiently and what he gets off on

I find this argument compelling. I see a progression in learning (ie which weapon gets the job done...which methods work best etc), in parallel with a growth in excitement (call it blood lust or whatever you will)...the one fuels the other perhaps...I also think here is a man who loves his tools and learns to revel in what they'll do...so perhaps he does initially have/use more than one...

I don't think Tabram is actually the first...but I'm not convinced either that we've yet even heard the names of his earlier attempts ...and yes I too think the dates may just hold significance.

[Sally]

Hi Sally
I agree. Especially if one takes in account the attacks on Wilson and Millwood being early victims of the ripper, i see a progression through them and Tabram to the C5 in which the ripper is learning how to kill more efficiently and what he gets off on. The deciding factor for me that Tabram is a ripper victim (other than time, location, type of victim, murder weapon, etc.) is that she was found with her skirt raised up. case closed.

Hi Abby

I agree with you: Tabram, killed in a public place where she would be quickly discovered; stabbed in the abdomen and 'privates'; left on display with her skirts raised. Then there is the timing - Tabram killed on the 7th August; Chapman killed on the 8th September - almost a month to the day later. I think the dates in the case are interesting - connected.

But that's another thread, I think!

[Sally]

Since when do you need a truncheon to administer a stunning blow to the skull, when you can simply bang her head hard on the wall or the floor...we're talking rough and tumble, not nancy boy love taps!

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Well that's quite right, isn't it?

I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim - the only real objection appears to be the stabbing - as if this is enough to rule her out.

I think this view is simplistic. It doesn't take account of the fact that Tabram's murder was considered shocking (and thus unusual) at the time; it doesn't take account of the fact that the Ripper must have progressed from earlier episodes of violence against women - he didn't suddenly wink into existence overnight.

There are sufficient similarities in Tabram's death to include her with some confidence in my view.

Hi Sally
I agree. Especially if one takes in account the attacks on Wilson and Millwood being early victims of the ripper, i see a progression through them and Tabram to the C5 in which the ripper is learning how to kill more efficiently and what he gets off on. The deciding factor for me that Tabram is a ripper victim (other than time, location, type of victim, murder weapon, etc.) is that she was found with her skirt raised up. case closed.

[Cogidubnus]

The blow on the head or the dagger....

Carrying a truncheon(?) seems to be a bit redundant when you have a knife or two in your pocket.

Since when do you need a truncheon to administer a stunning blow to the skull, when you can simply bang her head hard on the wall or the floor...we're talking rough and tumble, not nancy boy love taps!

Dave

[Sally]

Well that's quite right, isn't it?

I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim - the only real objection appears to be the stabbing - as if this is enough to rule her out.

I think this view is simplistic. It doesn't take account of the fact that Tabram's murder was considered shocking (and thus unusual) at the time; it doesn't take account of the fact that the Ripper must have progressed from earlier episodes of violence against women - he didn't suddenly wink into existence overnight.

There are sufficient similarities in Tabram's death to include her with some confidence in my view.

[Ben]

Not so for Tabram, her inclusion is mere guesswork given the notorious gangs that were known to prey on these women.

A point that is often overlooked is the sheer frenzied brutality of the Tabram murder. This wasn't just another victim of mob thuggery. It was remarked upon at the time that hers was the most extraordinarily savage murder that London had witnessed, possibly in living memory. It was speculated that in the absence of any obvious motive for the murder, the killer must have been a maniac, which is a theme constantly thrown up in the wake of later ripper-attributed murders. However "notorious" the gangs may have been, they certainly weren't notorious for the type of attack that Martha Tabram fell victim to.

Timing, location, victimology and a century's worth of insight into serial crime all speak very much in favour of Tabram being a ripper victim.