Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Steven_Rex]

If one considers Martha Tabram as the 'first' Ripper murder (and I tend towards this belief), is it not likely that Jack would have been covered in blood from this frenzied attack? Much has been written about how Jack strangled and then slashed the throats of the canonical five in such a way that he would not be drenched in blood. However, it strikes me that it is possible that if Tabram was his first victim, he perhaps realised that he would have to find a more efficient method of killing. Hence, this might have been a 'trial' in which he was disappointed with both the amount of blood generated by frenzied stabbing, and perhaps also the lack of satisfaction he received from stabbing alone.

My theory therefore is that Tabram was Jack's 'initial' kill, and that he learned quickly that if he wished to continue his gruesome work, a cleaner method of dispatch was necessary to help avoid detection, and a more violent and invasive level of mutilation was necessary to satisfy him (whether that be sexually or merely for his own enjoyment). I'm prepared to be shot down in flames by those more erudite in the case who disagree...

[kensei]

If one considers Martha Tabram as the 'first' Ripper murder (and I tend towards this belief), is it not likely that Jack would have been covered in blood from this frenzied attack? Much has been written about how Jack strangled and then slashed the throats of the canonical five in such a way that he would not be drenched in blood. However, it strikes me that it is possible that if Tabram was his first victim, he perhaps realised that he would have to find a more efficient method of killing. Hence, this might have been a 'trial' in which he was disappointed with both the amount of blood generated by frenzied stabbing, and perhaps also the lack of satisfaction he received from stabbing alone.

My theory therefore is that Tabram was Jack's 'initial' kill, and that he learned quickly that if he wished to continue his gruesome work, a cleaner method of dispatch was necessary to help avoid detection, and a more violent and invasive level of mutilation was necessary to satisfy him (whether that be sexually or merely for his own enjoyment). I'm prepared to be shot down in flames by those more erudite in the case who disagree...

Steven,
I do not consider myself to be all that erudite in the case, but I will take some issue with the points you raise, though maybe not in the way you expected. I agree with you on Tabram being the Ripper's first kill and that he would have been quite blood-spattered in the aftermath. I do not however think it can be taken as established fact that he was not similarly bloodied in the other murders. As you say, a lot has been written about positions he could have taken while committing the mutilations to avoid the blood flow, etc. But I've always thought such arguments are much easier said than done, and I've made some analogies about them several times before. Cutting open a body and sticking one's hands inside it to remove organs while expecting to avoid getting blood on you seems comparable to me to getting a flat tire on your way to work and expecting your clothes to still be sparkling clean after changing it. It is not only your hands you have to worry about. It would be so very easy to accidentally touch yourself, have an itch or have to sneeze and forget about your bloody hands in the excitement of the moment, etc. I contend that even if he was able to clean his hands (which would have been completely red) the Ripper still would have had at least some blood on his clothes or even his face after nearly every murder. I think it was the dark color of his clothes, the dark of night, and the sparsity of people who were out and about in the wee hours that kept the stains from being noticed before he could get back to his home base.

[Steven_Rex]

Kensei, you make excellent points, which I would tend to agree with. Whilst much has been said about the throat-slitting ensuring a lack of arterial spray over the Ripper, he cannot possibly have hoped to have avoided blood spatter when engaging in such a high level of mutilation. However, perhaps his need to mutilate overtook his 'reason' after the throat had been slit; that way, both our suggestions stand. He learned from Tabram that frenzied stabbing caused extensive blood spatter (including arterial spray) and so ensured that he slit throats in future; however, the needed to butcher the women was paramount (this was, after all, his 'motive') and so after diverting the arterial spray, he simply accepted the necessary bloodiness of his subsequent 'work'. This fits in well with the idea, I think, that the Ripper had somewhere nearby to clean up, as he could never be sure of being safe, even in the dark, from a policemen (unless he was sufficiently familiar with the local area that he knew their beats...) or even an inquisitive local. What we must remember is that the only 'possible' sightings of the Ripper come pre-murders. He had to have either gotten cleaned up or escaped somewhere nearby in order to avoid being sighted afterwards.

With regard to Tabram also, I just find it stretches credulity to believe that a woman fitting the description of the canonical victims was killed in such a frenzied, bloody manner almost immediately before the five 'confirmed' victims. Had she been killed by merely strangling or even a single stab, I might buy it, but the frenzied nature of Tabram's attack and the high level of stabbing makes it almost certain, in my mind, that she was an early Ripper victim. After all, is it not likely that Jack didn't leap immediately into his 'efficient' killing method, but rather learned from an earlier try what 'not' to do in terms of getting covered in initial arterial spray and achieving maximum satisfaction.

[kensei]

After all, is it not likely that Jack didn't leap immediately into his 'efficient' killing method, but rather learned from an earlier try what 'not' to do in terms of getting covered in initial arterial spray and achieving maximum satisfaction.

Indeed, and also- just perhaps- in even earlier attacks such as Annie Milwood and Ada Wilson in which the victims survived. There is some precedent for serial killers' earliest assaults to be non-fatal- Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Gary Ridgeway, etc.

P.S. Whoa, just realized this is my 666th post. I promise it is nothing whatsoever to do with the antichrist.

[Steven_Rex]

Yes, I imagine that Jack would have had to have started somewhere, and non-fatal attacks might just have angered him more, and encouraged him to find more suitable and efficient methods of relieving his homicidal impulses. I don't believe he simply started with murder and got progressively more violent and methodical; rather, he probably started small.

LOL! I'd keep quiet about that, Kensei - there are no doubt some authors who would take advantage of that 666 by putting you forward as a suspect!

[Wickerman]

My theory therefore is that Tabram was Jack's 'initial' kill, and that he learned quickly that if he wished to continue his gruesome work, a cleaner method of dispatch was necessary...

So if frenzied stabbing was too noisy & messy?, what is the next step?
Where is the learning curve?
Wouldn't it be simpler to smack his next victim over the head?, no screaming, no physical contact, no excersion, no struggle.

Strangling is quite a leap from random stabbing. Strangling takes strength, physically demanding, takes practice. Also, to strangle without leaving pressure marks is more a sign of a learned hand at work than a novice working on his 2nd victim.

You have suggested the killer started at 'A' then jumped to some unrelated method like 'D', so where are steps 'B' and 'C' ?

You might guess, I don't buy this 'progressive-type' killer.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Martha Tabram could well be his second or even third victim, imo.

[corey123]

David,

You are quite right my friend.

Jon S,

Come on, quit this close-minded crap. It is possible whether you buy it or not. Closed minds are a curse, think of all as possibilities, it does us no good to completely alienate our prosecutions to one area because you don't "buy" the other. That is ridiculous.

Steven,

I actually think the fact the he may have been saturated in blood may be resposible for why the next victims had their throats cut.

[Dr. John Watson]

Greetings, friends. I've always felt that Tabrum was the first victim, but I don't see the attack as "frenzied." I believe Jack simply got behind Tabrum, reached around and slit her throat. Any blood spurt would have stained the wall, not Jack. With sounds perhaps from nearby apartments and fear of someone using the stairway at any time, Jack would have felt rushed, thus the limited mutilations. Once finished, he would likely have wiped his bloody hands and knife on her clothing, as he did with other victims. And if I'm not mistaken, there was a handy outdoor WC nearby to rinse off. Fear of discovery in the building and the limited escape routes it offered may account for Jack's subsequent preference for outdoor locations. As for the later victims, I see no evidence that Jack ever acted in a "frenzied" manner. I see him acting cooly, purposefully, quickly but carefully, always with an escape route in mind. I do believe the intensity of his attacks increased as time went on, until his growing need for ever greater mutilation led him to seek the "perfect victim" - a woman he could kill and rip apart without fear of interruption; someone with an apartment of her own; someone just like Mary Jane Kelly.

Open-minded John

[Steven_Rex]

Well, Jack might not necessarily have leapt immediately from stabbing (as with Tabram) to strangling then mutilating; is it possible that he had strangled in the past, but found this means of dispatch ultimately unsatisfying, and therefore stabbed Tabram to 'test' the 'pleasures' of mutilation? On realising his preference for this, he could then have moved on to combine the two, strangling to death his canonical victims before slashing them for sexual release. Of course, this is all conjecture, but I would reiterate that I don't believe the Ripper simply all of a sudden started strangling, slashing and mutilating his victims. I believe he had to start somewhere else, and learn what he was capable of and what gave him maximum satisfaction.

Dr Watson, hello! You raise another point that has always interested me: we all seem to see Mary Kelly as the perfect victim - one whom Jack was able to butcher at his leisure and live out all his fantasies to a hitherto unknown level of savagery. However, we all know Mary as the last canonical victim. The question is, do you think the Ripper saw Kelly as his 'ultimate' fantasy, and if so, could this be a contributing factor in why he stopped? After all, where else could he have gone after Kelly? For my money, I can't see him stopping simply because Kelly had provided him any final release, but I also cannot even begin to envision what he might have wanted to move onto if he were still at liberty to kill.

[Wickerman]

...but I would reiterate that I don't believe the Ripper simply all of a sudden started strangling, slashing and mutilating his victims. I believe he had to start somewhere else, and learn what he was capable of and what gave him maximum satisfaction....

Agreed.
He had to start somewhere, but when you say "he", are you talking about Tabram's killer, or Jack the Ripper?

I have to assume you have read all news articles and all that is available on the Tabram murder. That being the case, I wonder why you so easily dismiss the 'Soldier' argument.
The two weapon theory is difficult to rationalize, if the attacker attempted to kill Tabram with a penknife, stabbing her 38 times!
The one single stab wound through the breasbone leaving a "bayonet or dagger-like" trace, in itself speaks volumes.

The triangular, long, 'spike-type' bayonet had recently been phased out of military use and replaced by this 1888 model:



The weapon which made the hole in the breast was significantly larger than the other 38 stab wounds, so what does it suggest - thats the big question.

If, and only an "if", it suggests the killer of Tabram was a soldier what does that do to any "killer on a learning curve" hypothesis?

Alternately, if you are right and Tabram's killer was also Jack the Ripper, this suggestion 'Jack' had military training will require a complete re-evaluation of the killer, his state of mind, his training (to kill) and even possibly his motives.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

One knife was used, and Killeen's "dagger hypothesis" is just one of his various mistakes.

[Wickerman]

One knife was used, and Killeen's "dagger hypothesis" is just one of his various mistakes.

And, the authority is....?

[curious4]

Martha Tabram

Hello - poking my inquisitive nose in again!

Martha´s face in the photograph I have seen appears swollen. Also, quote: "her hands lying by her sides and tightly clenched." (said to be a sign of strangulation.) Is there a possibilty that she was first strangled but that the doctors missed this, taking for granted that the many and gruesome stab wounds must have caused her death - these being the most obvious. In that case, as with the other victims, there would have been less blood.

As this murder was early on, and she was a poor prostitute, perhaps the doctors were less exact in their examination.

Best wishes,
C4

"Follow your inclinations with due regard to the policeman round the corner" Somerset Maugham

P.S. This has apparently been suggested ( I now discover a little late,) in the Police Illustrated News, 18 August 1888 but cannot be corrobarated due to the police files being now lost.

[DVV]

And, the authority is....?

Quite simple : the numerous mistakes done by Dr Killeen.
Add to this that he said "it could be a pen knife"...which does not mean the knife was for sure a toy.