Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Belloc]

Hi, Helen. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I must admit I did a double-take on reading your first sentence. 6 or 7 years old! You started early.

We had a B & W TV too when I was growing up. As a young kid, if anything scary came on, I usually got sent to bed.

I think I was a teenager when I first became aware of Jack the Ripper. I saw an old British film of that title at the local repertory cinema. You were supposed to be at least 16 to be admitted, and I was only 14, but I sneaked in anyway. It didn’t make a big impression on me, except I do remember a surgeon was the Ripper.

Over the years after that I’ve borrowed a few library books (I can’t recall the titles) and seen maybe 3 or 4 movies and TV shows on the subject. I’ve even read a couple of stories and novels inspired by the case. But since stumbling across this website last month, I’ve learned much more than I knew previously, and must admit I’m hooked.

Best regards.

[Parisi North Humber]

Hi Belloc,

I first got into JTR when I was 6 or 7 years old.

I had been very poorly and was allowed to sleep on the sofa and watch the tv, yes, it was back in the day when households only had one tv (black and white in our case)....and even then it was rented. A program came on regarding JTR which my parents were not aware I was watching. Dad was packing his seabag and mum was running around after him, looking after me, and dealing with my little sister, she was but an infant back then and it was during the strikes.

As I watched the tv program I became appalled at the actions of this killer yet enthralled at the same time. I couldn't believe what I was watching was true and that this "monster" got away with it. Surely it was a made up story???? As such I wanted to see if what I had seen in the tv program was indeed true. As soon as I was well enough I went to the local library (with my junior library card) and searched for JTR related books/pamphlets etc. And lo and behold it WAS true....from there my quest to know more about how this "monster" did what he did and yet went undetected has fascinated me.

And what about you Belloc? What triggered your fascination with the whole Autumn of terror?

Helen x

[Belloc]

Hi, Helen. It’s reassuring to know I’m not the only newbie on this board, although you’ve clearly already learned a lot. May I ask how you became interested in JTR?

Best regards.

[Belloc]

Ahoy, Ms Diddles! Thank you for the welcome, and especially for the book recommendation. Judging from the description on Amazon, City of Dreadful Delight addresses many of the topics that interest me. I think I’ll buy myself an early Christmas present.

Hi, Kattrup! Thanks for sharing your insights. I hadn’t considered the possibility that Mrs Tabram was dead when most of the stabbing occurred. However, that would certainly explain what seems to be a limited (a more apt description than “modest”, I hope) amount of blood at the scene. So I take it you believe Dr Killeen’s inexperience resulted in him wrongly testifying at the inquest that Mrs Tabram was alive during most of the attack on her, and that the attacker was motivated by anger rather than lust.

Best regards.

[Parisi North Humber]

Hi Belloc, actually I'm not in either camp. I'm stood at a Ripper crossroads waiting to be successfully tempted in. I lurch from yes, she was a victim to no she wasn't.

I would say that if it was a fledgling attack then I think it was not as planned/controlled as his future endeavours and he learned from it. It takes energy and a wee bit of time to stab a human being 30 odd times and it feels more angry/less clinical than the C5 (Stride excluded).

I also agree with you're point regarding crime scene blood distribution. With the killer squatting/kneeling over Martha and all those stab wounds one would expect a large degree of back splatter and that should have been noted in the report, later crime scenes have recorded details of where blood was found so it does seem odd that this crime scene wasn't dealt with in a similar manner.

There is a possible explanation regarding lack of back spatter that would also afford the killer to be relatively blood free apart from his lower legs but that would mean going down the attached bayonet route which I believe has been pretty much discredited by most ripperologists, so not really useful lol. I mention it though as an example of why I'm fencing sitting on this murder.

Like yourself I am relatively new to the boards and all I have are queries not theories so can only offer my very limited opinions. Much wiser and well informed posters will be along and steer you a straight course of facts and details which will be much more helpful to you than my newbie ramblings. The amount of knowledge and educated insight that the ripperologists and researchers on these boards offer is unparalleled and I am very grateful to them for the expertise they share as such I'm sure someone will be along who knows more than a thing or two about Martha's murder.


Helen x

[Kattrup]

Nonetheless, it does seem likely that a great deal of blood was spilled in the course of the attack on Mrs Tabram. According to the medical evidence, she was stabbed 39 times before she died. If a large share of her blood ended up on whoever attacked her, it raises some interesting questions.

The reverse of that "if" is that the blood might not have been smeared on her attacker to any significant degree.

• Did the attacker(s) find it enjoyable to be smeared with blood?
• How did the attacker(s) feel about penetrating the victim’s body so many times?
• Why do witness descriptions of the scene give the impression there were quite modest amounts of blood on the surroundings?
• How did the attacker(s) escape attention after leaving the crime scene if he/she/they were covered in blood?
• Did the attacker(s) kill other women afterwards, using what had been learned from this murder?

I’d appreciate knowing your thoughts.

1. I don't believe so
2. I believe he found it right and fitting, "giving the dirty whore what she deserved" or similar angry sentiments.
3. modest, hmm, it's described as a pool of blood, so not necessarily modest? But there might not have been a lot of blood around, if Tabram was unconscious or dead during the stabbing. One theory is that Killeen was wrong in thinking all wounds were inflicted while alive, rather Tabram was killed quickly by the large wound to the heart, the lesser stabwounds being made afterwards.
4. The killer was probably not covered in blood
5. I think so, he decided that killing the unconscious victims quickly before doing anything else was best, and began cutting their throat immediately. He may also have changed his weapon from a stabby knife to a perhaps curved cutting knife.

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks for the welcome, Helen. I gather you’re not in the JTR-killed-Martha camp.

It certainly appears that, during the killing of the canonical 5, JTR successfully minimized the amount of blood spatter. As you’re no doubt aware, those who are in the JTR-killed-Martha camp maintain that his experience killing Martha influenced the way he murdered his subsequent victims. If, for the sake of argument, we assume they’re correct, it means JTR was able to successfully control his natural inclination for instant gratification. That seems like it might be an important thing to know about his personality.

For myself, I don’t yet have an opinion on who killed Martha Tabram. For now I’m more interested in learning all I can about Martha and the other women who were murdered in the east end of London during the late 1880’s. The excellent resources of this website are really helping me start to do that.

Best regards.

Hi Belloc and welcome aboard!

If you are interested in the lives of East end unfortunates and the social context, I'd heartily recommend Judith Walkowitz's City of Dreadful Delight.

It's fascinating and very readable.

[Belloc]

Thanks for the welcome, Helen. I gather you’re not in the JTR-killed-Martha camp.

It certainly appears that, during the killing of the canonical 5, JTR successfully minimized the amount of blood spatter. As you’re no doubt aware, those who are in the JTR-killed-Martha camp maintain that his experience killing Martha influenced the way he murdered his subsequent victims. If, for the sake of argument, we assume they’re correct, it means JTR was able to successfully control his natural inclination for instant gratification. That seems like it might be an important thing to know about his personality.

For myself, I don’t yet have an opinion on who killed Martha Tabram. For now I’m more interested in learning all I can about Martha and the other women who were murdered in the east end of London during the late 1880’s. The excellent resources of this website are really helping me start to do that.

Best regards.

[Parisi North Humber]

Hi Belloc and welcome,

If you believe JTR killed Martha then I would imagine he didn't much like getting covered in blood or he found it not to be practical. Certainly the idea of him being engrossed in an orgy of blood lust doesn't sit well. I say this as it seems his method of dispatch for his future victims kept initial blood spray to a minimum and their further blood loss contained within a small area around the victims body. The paucity of inadvertent blood spatter and smears on doors/windows/handles/walls etc and lack of footprints indicate a killer who was aware and controlled enough to keep his victims blood off as much of himself as possible.

The above is of course just my thoughts but it would seem that if he did like to revel in blood he waited till he got home and had jollification with his trophy/ies
Helen x

[Belloc]

PI1, thanks for your comment. This killing was indeed horrific.

One concern I have about my interest in the East End murders is that I’ll become numb to the suffering of the victims. Many of the women who died had already lost so much – partners, children, friends, sometimes social position, sometimes economic security. Yet, despite the humiliating things they sometimes had to do for survival, they didn’t give up.

Abby, I’m not very knowledgeable about forensic pathology, so you may be right about the amount of blood. Reports at the time say her body was lying in a “pool” of blood, which doesn’t sound like very much, and there was no blood on the stairs leading to the landing. I assume this refers to the stairs going down from the landing. Alternatively, could she have been killed somewhere other than the landing and her body dumped there? This would explain the modest amount of blood and why none of the building’s tenants seem to have heard anything during the attack, including the building superintendent who lived with his wife in an apartment whose door opened onto the landing.

Best regards.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks so much for the warm (?) welcome, Abby, and for sharing your thoughts.

Regarding the actual attack on Martha Tabram, may I remind you of a couple of points I’ve gleaned from the very informative timeline for her found elsewhere on this website?
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume in this post that the attack was carried out by a single male.
The attacker tore open the front of Mrs Tabram’s clothing and pushed up her skirt so as to have better access to her body. He stabbed her throat and torso 38 times before administering the fatal strike.
The post mortem revealed that the victim was a healthy woman approaching middle age. With her heart still pumping for most of the attack, unlike the canonical victims of Jack the Ripper, there must have been a lot of blood spurting from her body during the onslaught. Even if Mrs Tabram was unconscious and prone, there’d have been a considerable effusion of blood, unimpeded by clothing. The attacker was using a fairly short weapon, so must have been in close contact with his victim. By the time Mrs Tabram’s ordeal was over, I suggest the murderer was covered in her blood from head to foot.
Since you feel the attacker probably enjoyed penetrating his victim again and again, do you think it’s possible that being spattered with her blood might also have heightened his exhilaration? Perhaps the intense pleasure the attacker experienced overcame any natural caution, so that he couldn’t stop himself until the physical exertion and sensory overload of inflicting so many wounds finally exhausted him, leaving him with nothing to do but administer the final fatal blow.

So what drove the attacker to inflict so many wounds wasn’t anger, it was ecstasy.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but it does explain why the killer stabbed Mrs Tabram so many times.

Best regards.

Hi Belloc
Again, I dont think the ripper was necessarily covered in blood, even if she was still alive when he commenced the attack. remember there were signs of strangulation and blunt force trauma. She could have been dead or dying when he started the stabs. and from what I understand there dosnt have to be copious amounts of blood spurting everywhere with stabs-that usually only happens when you hit a major close to the surface artery.

Ecstasy? hmm not so sure about that. I would say more anger or perhaps frustration or panic she wasnt dying quick enough? She could have been the rippers trigger kill and or clumsy early attempt to kill a victim quickly. IMHO the ripper probably left in an agitated frustrated state, as he didnt really accomplish his real fantasy which was cutting the open abdomen and privates and removing internal organs, as we see in his later completely developed signature.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks so much for the warm (?) welcome, Abby, and for sharing your thoughts.

Regarding the actual attack on Martha Tabram, may I remind you of a couple of points I’ve gleaned from the very informative timeline for her found elsewhere on this website?
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume in this post that the attack was carried out by a single male.
The attacker tore open the front of Mrs Tabram’s clothing and pushed up her skirt so as to have better access to her body. He stabbed her throat and torso 38 times before administering the fatal strike.
The post mortem revealed that the victim was a healthy woman approaching middle age. With her heart still pumping for most of the attack, unlike the canonical victims of Jack the Ripper, there must have been a lot of blood spurting from her body during the onslaught. Even if Mrs Tabram was unconscious and prone, there’d have been a considerable effusion of blood, unimpeded by clothing. The attacker was using a fairly short weapon, so must have been in close contact with his victim. By the time Mrs Tabram’s ordeal was over, I suggest the murderer was covered in her blood from head to foot.
Since you feel the attacker probably enjoyed penetrating his victim again and again, do you think it’s possible that being spattered with her blood might also have heightened his exhilaration? Perhaps the intense pleasure the attacker experienced overcame any natural caution, so that he couldn’t stop himself until the physical exertion and sensory overload of inflicting so many wounds finally exhausted him, leaving him with nothing to do but administer the final fatal blow.

So what drove the attacker to inflict so many wounds wasn’t anger, it was ecstasy.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but it does explain why the killer stabbed Mrs Tabram so many times.

Best regards.

While I'm recovering from reading that, horrifying though it be, it doesn't sound like the work of the Whitechapel Murderer.

[Belloc]

Thanks so much for the warm (?) welcome, Abby, and for sharing your thoughts.

Regarding the actual attack on Martha Tabram, may I remind you of a couple of points I’ve gleaned from the very informative timeline for her found elsewhere on this website?
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume in this post that the attack was carried out by a single male.
The attacker tore open the front of Mrs Tabram’s clothing and pushed up her skirt so as to have better access to her body. He stabbed her throat and torso 38 times before administering the fatal strike.
The post mortem revealed that the victim was a healthy woman approaching middle age. With her heart still pumping for most of the attack, unlike the canonical victims of Jack the Ripper, there must have been a lot of blood spurting from her body during the onslaught. Even if Mrs Tabram was unconscious and prone, there’d have been a considerable effusion of blood, unimpeded by clothing. The attacker was using a fairly short weapon, so must have been in close contact with his victim. By the time Mrs Tabram’s ordeal was over, I suggest the murderer was covered in her blood from head to foot.
Since you feel the attacker probably enjoyed penetrating his victim again and again, do you think it’s possible that being spattered with her blood might also have heightened his exhilaration? Perhaps the intense pleasure the attacker experienced overcame any natural caution, so that he couldn’t stop himself until the physical exertion and sensory overload of inflicting so many wounds finally exhausted him, leaving him with nothing to do but administer the final fatal blow.

So what drove the attacker to inflict so many wounds wasn’t anger, it was ecstasy.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but it does explain why the killer stabbed Mrs Tabram so many times.

Best regards.

[Abby Normal]

I hope it’s permissible to add an entry to this topic, which has been dormant for more than 10 years.
The issues concerning blood spatter raised in the thread’s early days quickly got forgotten in favour of a lengthy discussion on the number and type of knives used to dispatch Mrs Tabram.
Nonetheless, it does seem likely that a great deal of blood was spilled in the course of the attack on Mrs Tabram. According to the medical evidence, she was stabbed 39 times before she died. If a large share of her blood ended up on whoever attacked her, it raises some interesting questions.

• Did the attacker(s) find it enjoyable to be smeared with blood?
• How did the attacker(s) feel about penetrating the victim’s body so many times?
• Why do witness descriptions of the scene give the impression there were quite modest amounts of blood on the surroundings?
• How did the attacker(s) escape attention after leaving the crime scene if he/she/they were covered in blood?
• Did the attacker(s) kill other women afterwards, using what had been learned from this murder?

I’d appreciate knowing your thoughts.

Hi Belloc and welcome to the nut house lol!

1. Probably not
2. he probably enjoyed it
3. not sure, but I think so
4. I dont think he was neccesarily covered in blood. he may have taken precautions, it was dark, and was probably wearing dark clothes. his hands probably had blood on them, but he could just stick them in his pockets and or probably brought a rag to wipe hands.
5. yes

[Belloc]

I hope it’s permissible to add an entry to this topic, which has been dormant for more than 10 years.
The issues concerning blood spatter raised in the thread’s early days quickly got forgotten in favour of a lengthy discussion on the number and type of knives used to dispatch Mrs Tabram.
Nonetheless, it does seem likely that a great deal of blood was spilled in the course of the attack on Mrs Tabram. According to the medical evidence, she was stabbed 39 times before she died. If a large share of her blood ended up on whoever attacked her, it raises some interesting questions.

• Did the attacker(s) find it enjoyable to be smeared with blood?
• How did the attacker(s) feel about penetrating the victim’s body so many times?
• Why do witness descriptions of the scene give the impression there were quite modest amounts of blood on the surroundings?
• How did the attacker(s) escape attention after leaving the crime scene if he/she/they were covered in blood?
• Did the attacker(s) kill other women afterwards, using what had been learned from this murder?

I’d appreciate knowing your thoughts.