Tabram Questions

[Michael W Richards]

Yes Tom, I apologize for responding to points that concerned murders other than Martha Tabram in your Tabram thread.

I personally have no objection to your thread, a "catch-all" as it were, so talk of trolling isnt really applicable.. in addition to being impolite.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

Why only one member taking it further? A popular theory at the time of the murders is that JTR was more than one man, explaining (to those who put stock in the theory) the Ripper's confidence in committing the kinds of murders he did, as well as his ability to commit them without drawing attention, and his ability to get away uncaught.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sally]

19 George St was Satchell's Lodging House, Annie Farmer was also there at the time of her supposed attack. A good of prostitutes lodged there, but was the distribution of 'unfortunates' any greater than at any other Lodging house.
In a confined area of London with many lodging houses and unfortunates, the odds of random attacks on women must be pretty high.
Perhaps the RIP gangs targetted George St
I think that the Ripper lived in Spitalfields, he was close to these murders.

Miss Marple

Hi Miss Marple

Yes, Satchells. I'd forgotten about Annie Farmer, so thanks for pointing that out. You are quite right - it may be that the concentration of prostitutes was not particularly higher there than at some other local lodging houses. Some of them were pretty notorious.

The thing is though, that there are no reported violent attacks on prostitutes living at other lodging houses so far as I know - there does seem to be a concentration of them at Satchells, on the other hand; at around the right time.

I think that the idea of a initial gang, one member taking it further, and further, has some merit - even the Ripper had to start somewhere. A gang doesn't have to imply any permanent status either; the gang could have existed informally very easily. If the same men were responible for all the attack on women living at Satchells, they would obviously have been murderers - whether intentionally or not. That's the kind of thing that binds people together in silence. Even if, later on, they suspected that one of their number had taken things to a more extreme level, they might not have said anything for fear of being implicated themselves.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. That is quite plausible. However, one wonders why one wishing to get rid of people goes to all the trouble of mutilating them?

Hi Lynn,

I assume your speaking of escalation after Tabram's murder? I don't consider Tabram as having been mutilated. And I have no answer to your question. What I might conjecture is that amongst the small group of men was one who had a different agenda.

Mike

[lynn cates]

mutilation

Hello Michael. That is quite plausible. However, one wonders why one wishing to get rid of people goes to all the trouble of mutilating them?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

As Caz suggests, perhaps a group of men were initially working together to rid the area of undesirables and one of them ended up going on his own path later. I kind of like this idea because it connects to a progression of sorts and shows that the lone serial killer type need not have always been alone and may have gotten a start by belonging to a group/gang. 19 George Street sounds like a great place to begin the process.

Mike

[miss marple]

19 George St was Satchell's Lodging House, Annie Farmer was also there at the time of her supposed attack. A good of prostitutes lodged there, but was the distribution of 'unfortunates' any greater than at any other Lodging house.
In a confined area of London with many lodging houses and unfortunates, the odds of random attacks on women must be pretty high.
Perhaps the RIP gangs targetted George St
I think that the Ripper lived in Spitalfields, he was close to these murders.

Miss Marple

[Sally]

George Street

I think a good question regarding Tabram would be what was going on at 19 George Street?

Tabram was living there at the time of her murder.
Emma Smith was living next door at the time of her murder
Emily Horsnell was living there at the time of her murder in 1887

Smith and Horsenell complained of being set on by a group of men they didn't know - both were savagely attacked. Are we indeed looking at a gang of men who liked to rough up prostitutes to begin with? If so, then it looks as though there was a connection with 19 George Street specifically.

As an aside, Mary Ann Connelly also lived there from 1886. She would have heard, at least, about the deaths of Smith and Horsnell, and the attack on Margaret Hayes. Given that fellow inmate and drinking pal Tabram was subsequently murdered as well, it's hardly surprising that she was a reluctant witness. Her actions following the death of Tabram - basically doing a runner - are telling.

These women were all prostitutes, all lived in the same place, and all died violently. With Tabram, are we looking at an escalation of violence that we can first see with the murders of Horsnell and Smith?

[Tom_Wescott]

Major Rules & Consequences

8. Do not engage in trolling behavior. For the purposes of these forums, trolling is defined as any behavior designed to disrupt a thread. If you believe a thread is too silly, stupid or offensive to be discussed seriously, ignore it. Remember, just because you don't find a topic worthy of serious discussion, doesn't mean there aren't others who do. Disrupting someone's thread with off-topic posts because you personally don't agree with it is trolling. Abide by the OP's stated intentions in starting the thread. This does not mean you can't take issue with the thread or point out silliness or flaws in the topic as long as your posts are on topic.

I'm the 'OP' (original poster). Only one poster is trolling, but please let's stop encouraging the troll.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I'm not talking about the 'death evidence'; I'm talking about the women themselves. While every last one of them could be said to be typical of the kind of victim a serial offender will target - poor, vulnerable, available and defenceless - not one presents us with a sound argument, never mind any evidence, for a one-off act at the extreme end of savagery. No obvious cases of murder for gain; crime of passion; silencing spies or punishing blackmailers. On top of this, where are all the one-off acts of comparable savagery in the murder stats for surrounding years, committed for motives of this sort?

Idle speculation in the absence of a solution is one thing; assuming that no solution after all this time makes it in any way likely that we have a whole lot of individual solutions to work on, featuring individual motives, would be quite another.

I'm not saying you are assuming any such thing. That would be barking mad in my view.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

To address your response, the part I emboldened in the first paragraph holds my first point. We have savagery without any known motive occurring simultaneously within the alleged series of murders timeframe, the Torso found Oct 3rd. Not the first one either. And women and children had been blown to pieces in London in the 80's.

What we have are some terrifying murders committed in a city that had been under terrorists threat for most of the 1880's and was at the time assessing the penetration of that threat within HMG. I believe that Terrorism is indeed still a possible motive with one or more victims.

As Ive said before Caz, most of the Canonical Group could have been killed for reasons beyond that of a random serial killer, and some then made to appear as savagely murdered as the previous women. Kate Eddowes for example, she could have been killed for a myriad of reasons but mutilated to resemble C1 and C2 victims. And its possible that the killer of those first 2 women was in custody for the rest of the series.

If Im reading you correctly you seem to believe that the savagery evident in most of the Canonical Murders is something that demonstrates mental illness clearly, and if so Im suggesting that some people in the East End and abroad at that time would be pleased to blow up women and children into tiny bits. Or to carve up some woman after killing her. Terrorists do heinous, savage acts and no-one calls them serial killers.

My point is that Terrorism could be just one clear possibility here, (not in Martha's case in my opinion), its not my thesis.

Lets say that Im suggesting the motives that seem to be consistent with C1 and C2, which was murder in order to mutilate....is not present in C3, is modified in C4 to include some superfluous cutting and is followed by the grand dame of overkill in C5. First is the obvious speed bump in the acceleration of savagery. And second is the notable appearance in C4 of cuts not intended to access or excise anything.

Subtle changes might well indicate attempts at replication.

Best regards Caz,

Mike R

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Could have been, yes. Highly doubtful, in my opinion, that someone with no prior history of violence could stab 39 times and one of those stabs being a massive penetrating wound. It is possible, yes, but doubtful, though I don't believe you are implying any likelihood in this regard.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Good Michael,

Thats correct, I wasnt implying that the same man made the larger wound.

On whether a man without a previous clinical or police history indicating a violent personality might stab someone 38 times, I think thats quite possible and even perhaps likely. Its impossible that everyone in the area with malfunctioning grey matter had been previously recognized and/or diagnosed with their individual mental problem, in fact unpredictable, sudden violent episodes are usually what brings those individuals problems to light.

The circumstances are unknown with Martha....was the man drunk, did she withhold services or cheat the man, did she insult him.....I think extreme behavior can be created by just the right provocation and circumstances.

My best regards,

Mike R

[The Good Michael]

The man may have had no prior violent history other than perhaps being surly when drunk, and would have had no intentions of killing anyone until Martha gave him what he felt at the time was a reason. Another man perhaps involved with some crime may kill a woman he thought was spying on him. Another might kill a woman he thought was cheating on him.

I take it that you are not suggesting that these kinds of "clear" motives signs are not present in any Canonical death evidence,.. just that they have not been interpreted and validated as such. Martha Tabram could have been killed by someone like I suggested in the just the manner she was with all the required physical evidence present to support that conclusion.

Hi Mike,

Could have been, yes. Highly doubtful, in my opinion, that someone with no prior history of violence could stab 39 times and one of those stabs being a massive penetrating wound. It is possible, yes, but doubtful, though I don't believe you are implying any likelihood in this regard.

Cheers,

Mike

[caz]

Hi Mike,

I'm not talking about the 'death evidence'; I'm talking about the women themselves. While every last one of them could be said to be typical of the kind of victim a serial offender will target - poor, vulnerable, available and defenceless - not one presents us with a sound argument, never mind any evidence, for a one-off act at the extreme end of savagery. No obvious cases of murder for gain; crime of passion; silencing spies or punishing blackmailers. On top of this, where are all the one-off acts of comparable savagery in the murder stats for surrounding years, committed for motives of this sort?

Idle speculation in the absence of a solution is one thing; assuming that no solution after all this time makes it in any way likely that we have a whole lot of individual solutions to work on, featuring individual motives, would be quite another.

I'm not saying you are assuming any such thing. That would be barking mad in my view.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

One assumption I am prepared to make is that whenever there is a clear motive for the murder of a particular person, the killer should be easier to catch than one who attacks a complete stranger, apparently for no more than the temporary feeling it gives him inside.

There is no evidence with Tabram (nor indeed with any of the Whitechapel murders) that the killer or killers had clear motives for wanting the victim dead - which just might explain the difficulty we continue to face when proposing any kind of solution - for any of these crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

That "clear" motive might well be one that happens spontaneously just before the murder and it could well be that the killer just wanted the victim dead. For example.....if Martha withheld or did not comply with an agreed liason's particular act or acts, a man less in control of his emotions and faculties due to alcohol consumption might lash out in anger at her. Such a man wouldnt likely stop to change weapons for a single stab either.

The man may have had no prior violent history other than perhaps being surly when drunk, and would have had no intentions of killing anyone until Martha gave him what he felt at the time was a reason. Another man perhaps involved with some crime may kill a woman he thought was spying on him. Another might kill a woman he thought was cheating on him.

I take it that you are not suggesting that these kinds of "clear" motives signs are not present in any Canonical death evidence,.. just that they have not been interpreted and validated as such. Martha Tabram could have been killed by someone like I suggested in the just the manner she was with all the required physical evidence present to support that conclusion. Liz Stride could have been silenced for being a spy on the Socialists. Mary Kelly could have been cut up by an ex lover. None of the known physical evidence would eliminate those as possible motives. The circumstantial evidence might.

The interpretation of the data is I believe the issue. Sometimes the story comes straight from the data, sometimes a story is required to better understand the data.

Best regards Caz,

Mike R

[caz]

Hi Mike,

You were off topic with your initial post. This thread is for discussing the very many questions we have about the Tabram murder. Very little knowledge here, but equally I am not aware of too many unsupported assumptions being made in relation to Tabram.

One assumption I am prepared to make is that whenever there is a clear motive for the murder of a particular person, the killer should be easier to catch than one who attacks a complete stranger, apparently for no more than the temporary feeling it gives him inside.

There is no evidence with Tabram (nor indeed with any of the Whitechapel murders) that the killer or killers had clear motives for wanting the victim dead - which just might explain the difficulty we continue to face when proposing any kind of solution - for any of these crimes.

Love,

Caz
X