An emerging pattern?

[SarahLee]

A lot of people like to think of Martha as the FIRST victim...but what if she was the LAST?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hmmmm the last of an earlier series, rather than the start of a new one?
I have to confess to not having looked back into any earlier victims in any great detail after a cursory read convinced me that they were unconnected to any of the accepted Ripper victims.

A connection between Tabram and Smith (reading between the lines) is an interesting proposition though and one that I hadn't even started to consider. Initial instinct without having looked into it would be that Tabram's killing is missing the sexual element of the attack on Smith and doesn't seem to show the same degree of humiliation and sadism . . . but initial instincts without any research really don't count for much. I need to put a lot more thought into this, but it's opened up a while new route to start considering.

[SarahLee]

For me the other victims are a pattern, its trying to fit Martha into this that is the puzzle.

And that's the question really isn't it? Is she a part of this or totally unrelated?

I don't think I fully grasped what you were suggested last night, but working this through, we would have Martha falling asleep on the landing after the soldier friend left - an occurence that was common enough in itself that it was unremarkable and didn't make an impression on Elizabeth Mahoney.

I suppose it would have to depend on how big and how dark the landing was. Tucked into a dark out of the way corner would be a possibility, but in the open where passersby would have to step around her I can't imagine anyone not noticing. Something that I'll add that to my list of things to look into. Although I still have some doubts, as I'd suggest that a lone woman ascending a dark staircase in a rough area would have been hyper vigilant of her surroundings and who might have been hidden in the shadows.

Then we have our killer either stumbling across her accidentally or being caught out having watched Martha and her soldier - and as events transpired, this led to him killing her and acquiring a taste for knife murders. Taking these one at a time :

Accidentally stumbling across a sleeping Martha would have to mean that the killer either lived in that building or had business there at that time of night. I'm not sure that I can see an enraged passerby jumping straight in with a knife on a sleeping woman. More likely to take out his anger with a kick as he was passing, particularly if she was in his way (an effusion of blood between the skull and scalp perhaps?) . . . and then maybe jumping in with a knife if she didn't move or react in the way he anticipated. Hmmm - maybe worth thinking this one through further.

Voyeur turned killer is an interesting proposition if we're looking at an evolving MO. In this instance I don't think it works though. If Martha had spotted him lurking and / or watching I'm fairly sure that there would have been some noise. "Oi You Perv!!!" followed by a struggle???

Pearly Poll is an interesting one and I've been doing some more searching on her tonight. Definitely some very suspicious behaviour in the wake of the killing - was she outright lying or just withholding some elements of the truth? I haven't quite formed opinions on this yet, but I'm giving it some thought.

[Tom_Wescott]

A lot of people like to think of Martha as the FIRST victim...but what if she was the LAST?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SarahLee]

I'm actually more of a vodka girl than a whisky drinker - but I'm not sure that works quite as well served hot with lemon
But hot or cold, I reckon 5 or 6 might still have the desired effect

[Cogidubnus]

Try a hot whisky with a splash of lemon juice for your flu, after two or three who cares about the flu

Obviously my sort of man! After five or six who gives a toss about anything?

All the best

Dave

[Jimi]

Marthas Sleep

Hi All
Hi Bridewell
I agree it would have possibilities if it wasn't for Eddowes, however I was more thinking of Martha being his first victim and the reason why. For me the other victims are a pattern, its trying to fit Martha into this that is the puzzle.
Hi Sarah Lee
I can see your problem with the timeline. Crow did state that he actually saw a body but didn't think anything of it as he was accustomed to seeing people sleeping on the landings. So did she have to have left and come back? Couldn't she have been passed out/asleep but nobody noticed or took no notice till Jack?
May I ask what you think of Connellys(Pearly Poll) actions in the murder? For me, there is a woman with more to tell.

Try a hot whisky with a splash of lemon juice for your flu, after two or three who cares about the flu
Keep Well
Jimi

[SarahLee]

Hi All
Hi Sara Lee
I agree that there is nothing wrong with your reasonings at all. However, at the risk of sounding like i'm trying to teach, may i post some of my own "musings"?
If Martha WAS Jacks first victim why did he pick her?
Was the lack of evidence of any striggle because Martha was asleep? She had been drinking all night.
Would this back up your sternum blow as Jacks first blow? He's in a rage, comes across Martha asleep/passed out and ...well you can guess the rest.

I do however think there is a possibility that Jack was originally a voyeur.
Could he have been watching Martha with her soldier freind, he finishes and leaves, she spots Jack lurking on the landing and RECOGNISES him. He draws his knife ..... well you can guess the rest.
These are only my own theories and i have no way of proving them. They probably will bring forward some different comments than the 'two knives' comments, I hope.
Keep Well
Jimi

Hi Jimi,

Please post away all the musings that you like, it all helps in trying to piece this together, and I'm really not precious about one particular theory or another.

IMHO an attack while sleeping is as good an idea as any, and would certainly help to explain how she was overpowered and subdued without any sound. Plus we know that people used the landings to sleep on . . . I'm just not sure how the timeline would work in this instance. Martha entered George Yard buildings with the soldier at 11:45. At 1:50am Elizabeth Mahoney returns home, and sees nobody in the stairwell and at 3:30 we have what is probably a sighting of the body.

I'm struggling a bit with Martha finishing with her soldier friend, wandering off somewhere for a couple of hours and then returning to the building later for a sleep. I can see her going back out in search of more business and after having already used George Yard successfully that evening deciding to take another client there . . . but if sleep is all that was on her mind, I don't know why she didn't just stay where she was once the soldier moved on.

I'm off to bed with a Lemsip now but I'll give your musings some more consideration tomorrow and see what they mean to my thought processes.

Good Night all,

[Bridewell]

Was the lack of evidence of any struggle because Martha was asleep? She had been drinking all night.

Hi Jimi,

I did wonder (on another thread) if JtR had attacked his victims while they were sleeping. Eddowes would be difficult though as, if she wanted a kip, she could just have stayed in her cell at Bishopsgate. Chapman, Kelly and possibly Nichols could have been thus taken unawares though.

Regards, Bridewell.

[SarahLee]

There were external stab wounds on Kate Eddowes; three in the left groin. Two of them were also short cuts, but described as being inflicted by a pointed instrument.

Thank you Hunter!!!

I haven't come across reference to that yet - although I have another 3 to go, before I look at Kate in any detail. It's something I'll bear in mind.

A damn shame that I can't find any source for the reference to an incision to the left of Tabram's groin that I linked to. I'm sure it's a mistake or confusion on the writer's part, else it would have been mentioned elsewhere and there would be some corroboration somewhere. I'd just like to be able to trace it back to its origin so that I could really dismiss it from my mind once and for all.

I thought about that some years ago and thought that if the knife were stuck in the chest or difficult to remove that may have been a reason to use a different knife. Or the murderer may have wanted to use a different knife. Nevertheless if two knives were used and the first one being to kill Martha that would fit in with JTRs M.O. nicely wouldnt it!

Hi Mitch,

It certainly does fit very nicely doesn't it?
I've promised myself that I'll stick to the facts that I can establish and draw my theories from there, rather than trying to manipulate facts to fit my theories. It's a tantalising prospect though, and there's just as little to disprove it as there is to corroborate it . . .

[Jimi]

A Different View?

Hi All
Hi Sara Lee
I agree that there is nothing wrong with your reasonings at all. However, at the risk of sounding like i'm trying to teach, may i post some of my own "musings"?
If Martha WAS Jacks first victim why did he pick her?
Was the lack of evidence of any striggle because Martha was asleep? She had been drinking all night.
Would this back up your sternum blow as Jacks first blow? He's in a rage, comes across Martha asleep/passed out and ...well you can guess the rest.

I do however think there is a possibility that Jack was originally a voyeur.
Could he have been watching Martha with her soldier freind, he finishes and leaves, she spots Jack lurking on the landing and RECOGNISES him. He draws his knife ..... well you can guess the rest.
These are only my own theories and i have no way of proving them. They probably will bring forward some different comments than the 'two knives' comments, I hope.
Keep Well
Jimi

[SarahLee]

Hi Sarah,

I agree with everything Dave said. As for the one knife / two knife thing - you will probably get some comments along those lines, but that's the nature of the beast really. The "emerging pattern" conundrum essentially comes down to whether or not MT was a 'Ripper' victim. It's problematic. There are differences which could either indicate a different killer or an experimenting novice, depending on how you interpret them.

My own personal take (but that's all it is) is that you've got it about right. The alternative requires (at least) two killers with a predilection for abdominal mutilation operating (sorry!) more or less simultaneously. Whilst that is not wholly impossible, I think it extremely unlikely. I think, on reflection, I would consider it a refining of technique (experimentation) rather than an emerging pattern, but I do understand where you're coming from with that.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

Re: Two killers with a predilection for abdominal mutilation. I remember arguing that point quite strongly when I first joined the boards a year ago - and I still feel the same way. IMO the chances of it seem remote at best (although I reserve the right to change my mind once I've looked at the other killings in more detail ) In the case of Tabram though, I'd be even more convinced if there was obvious mutilation rather than simply stabbing.

The one thing I'm certain of is that I don't buy the "soldier did it" theory. That was my starting hypothesis, but try as I might I just couldn't make the timelines equate to anything sensible and I struggle to see anybody who's been trained to kill trying to deliver a fatal blow to the heart through the chest bone.

So that leaves me with a 2nd "customer" that night - who might have been "Jack" or might have been totally unconnected to the later murders. If I had to make a call right now, it would be the former.

[SarahLee]

Hi Sarah

For what my opinion's worth (probably not a lot!) I think this is a very well thought out posting...

Subdue
I'd tend to agree with your conclusions, the minor bleeding from the scalp suggesting to me her head was banged either against a wall or the floor.

Dispatch
More difficult to assess, and be aware you're reopening the one knife/two knife controversy! Personally, without commenting either way on the number of blades, I'd go along with the way your footnote was shaping rather than the body of the thread...ie the wound through the breastbone being the coup de grace...I thought the article you linked to was fascinating and may go some way towards justifying some of Dr Killeen's views which have been criticised on these boards.

Mutilation
I'm prepared to keep an open mind on this...if one accepts that this case formed part of Jack's "apprenticeship", from which he (and his choice of weaponry) subsequently progressed, then yes maybe...however, it would appear that all the wounds are "stab" type wounds as opposed to the later incised wounds...progression in MO or different MO?

I don't think anybody can or should simply rip into your musings Sarah, although they will probably take issue with you over them!

All the best

Dave

Ah well, I'm still walking around with a box of tissues surgically attached to my side, but at least I can think a bit clearer than I could last night
And FWIW your opinion's worth plenty.

I'm glad that you found that article of use, I thought it was an interesting read . . . Amazing what internet searches sometimes turn up, and a medical journal is almost certainly a reliable source, even if it is an old one. Just makes me wonder why it was uploaded to the internet in the first place ?!?!

I don't suppose we'll ever get a definitive answer on the order of the wounds. The one to the breastbone feels right to me as being inflicted first, but gut feelings, intuition or whatever you want to call it amounts to nothing in terms of evidence . . . so I do wonder if I'm creating patterns where there are none.

As for your final question of progression in MO or different MO. I'm leaning toward progression when you combine it with the timing of the killing, the position of the body and the rearranged clothing but I'm not ready to completely close my mind to the alternative yet.

[Mitch Rowe]

Dispatch
Most of what I’ve read about MT suggests that the one distinct wound through the sternum was the final killing stroke, but (and this is complete supposition on my part) could this wound have been made first? *
It would fit with the pattern established in later murders where the victim was killed prior to any mutilation taking place. In fact, if this proved an inefficient method it would make perfect sense for it to be adapted to throat cutting in later victims. It could also possibly explain the speculation about the two weapons. Would a stab through the sternum be sufficient to blunt, bend or otherwise damage a long blade? And if so, could this lead to our killer switching to another weapon – possibly a blade that Martha had on her person or another knife that he was carrying?

I thought about that some years ago and thought that if the knife were stuck in the chest or difficult to remove that may have been a reason to use a different knife. Or the murderer may have wanted to use a different knife. Nevertheless if two knives were used and the first one being to kill Martha that would fit in with JTRs M.O. nicely wouldnt it!

[Hunter]

There were external stab wounds on Kate Eddowes; three in the left groin. Two of them were also short cuts, but described as being inflicted by a pointed instrument.

[Bridewell]

Hi Sarah,

I agree with everything Dave said. As for the one knife / two knife thing - you will probably get some comments along those lines, but that's the nature of the beast really. The "emerging pattern" conundrum essentially comes down to whether or not MT was a 'Ripper' victim. It's problematic. There are differences which could either indicate a different killer or an experimenting novice, depending on how you interpret them.

My own personal take (but that's all it is) is that you've got it about right. The alternative requires (at least) two killers with a predilection for abdominal mutilation operating (sorry!) more or less simultaneously. Whilst that is not wholly impossible, I think it extremely unlikely. I think, on reflection, I would consider it a refining of technique (experimentation) rather than an emerging pattern, but I do understand where you're coming from with that.

Regards, Bridewell.