Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Sam Flynn]

Those are simple facts. Interpret them as you may but the facts remain -they are similar.

It's not just about interpretation, but the "granularity" of the facts. As they stand, they're too generic, so let's look at the specifics:

Victimology: Prostitute murders not uncommon, either then or now. They're easy targets, whether for serial or one-off killers
Same general location: Same as for the non-canonical victims
Same general time frame: Fair enough, but how "general" do we make "general"? If we set the time-frame at Aug-Nov 1888, then that's cheating
Same time of day: So, too, for the non-canonical victims; also, among the C5, Chapman was killed much, much later in the morning
Knife used: Way too general. To be specific, the knife was used in a (multiple, frenzied) stabbing manner, which is not seen once in the C5 murders
Abdomen targeted: Not so. The upper abdomen sustained several stabs wounds, but also the chest and neck; there were some lower abdominal wounds, but the "target" seems primarily to have been from the stomach and upwards, i.e. the top half of the body
Knife wounds to neck: Stabs. Not one cut
Evidence of strangulation: By no means certain either in Tabram's case nor in every one of the C5; and inconclusive, because strangulation is very common among killers, and nowhere near being specific to the Ripper
No sound of struggle was heard: So, too, for the non-canonicals. Besides, in terms of the C5, it's arguable that sounds were heard in Chapman's, Stride's and Kelly's case
Position of victim when found: Inconclusive, because (a) she was a prostitute and could have "assumed the position" herself; and (b) bodies being laid on their backs can naturally end up that way without being posed
Skirt raised: Inconclusive, because she was a prostitute potentially serving a client. Even if her killer did raise her skirt, he did not inflict any long, deep incisions to her abdomen
Unsolved: So, too, the non-canonicals. Besides, it was the authorities who didn't solve the cases, so we can't use this as a criterion to characterise the killer
Police attributed to the series: It's a fact that some of them opined that this was the case, but their opinion doesn't mean that it was part of the series

[Michael W Richards]

I think there may be an explanation for 2 weapons with the soldier who was seen waiting for his mate.

If the man with the prostitute is in a rage over something and is stabbing the victim repeatedly with the only weapon he had on him, then a mate who comes looking for him and sees the scenario might draw his bayonet or short sword, and since the victim is dying anyway, ensure that she does with a single strike to the heart. A targeted blow. The others seems wild.

I see collusion between 2 soldiers as very possible, the alliances formed by soldiers are strong.

Its not just coincidental that we see a bayonet wound on a night where it was legal to wear one on the streets.

[Abby Normal]

Well, thankyou for providing that, it saved me asking what those similarities were, in your last reply to me.
Prostitutes were victims of different types of killers, and especially through the night, they were often drunk and easy pickings.
Personally, I think more is needed to make a case for 'similarity' with the subsequent Ripper murders.

Hi wick and sam
Here are the similarities as I see them:

Victimology
Same general location
Same general time frame
Same time of day
Knife used
Overkill
Abdomen targeted
Knife wounds to neck
Evidence of strangulation
No sound of struggle was heard
Position of victim when found
Skirt raised
Unsolved
Police attributed to the series

Those are simple facts. Interpret them as you may but the facts remain -they are similar.

[Wickerman]

You may not find the similarities compelling in terms of defining the murderer, but they do exist, a few as a reminder:
* victim was a 40ish, 5' and a small bit tall
* victim a prostitute
* the murder was at the weekend in the same locale
* killled with a knife (albeit different use of the weapon)
* killed in the early hours of the morning
* positioned in the same way as the next (first) ripper victim.
* it was not just about murder, some mutilation involved (albeit less extensive compared to later victims).
.

Well, thankyou for providing that, it saved me asking what those similarities were, in your last reply to me.
Prostitutes were victims of different types of killers, and especially through the night, they were often drunk and easy pickings.
Personally, I think more is needed to make a case for 'similarity' with the subsequent Ripper murders.

[Sam Flynn]

You may not find the similarities compelling in terms of defining the murderer, but they do exist, a few as a reminder:
* victim was a 40ish, 5' and a small bit tall
* victim a prostitute
* the murder was at the weekend in the same locale
* killled with a knife (albeit different use of the weapon)
* killed in the early hours of the morning
* positioned in the same way as the next (first) ripper victim.
* it was not just about murder, some mutilation involved (albeit less extensive compared to later victims).

Thanks for those, but I don't read much significance into any of them. Certainly not enough to bracket Tabram with the Ripper murders, but enough to bracket her with the non-canonical victims, not that I'm saying that she was killed by the same persons who killed, say, Emma Smith or Frances Coles. I would say that Tabram's murder, on account of its utterly frenzied use of a knife in a stabbing manner, was unique among the Whitechapel Murders, and whoever did it was responsible for her death and hers alone.

[etenguy]

There are hardly any similarities, other than this was another violent murder of a prostitute in a district well known for its violence and vice. In that regard, I'd argue that Tabram's murder had more in common with Emma Smith's than it had to those of Polly Nichols et al.

You may not find the similarities compelling in terms of defining the murderer, but they do exist, a few as a reminder:
* victim was a 40ish, 5' and a small bit tall
* victim a prostitute
* the murder was at the weekend in the same locale
* killled with a knife (albeit different use of the weapon)
* killed in the early hours of the morning
* positioned in the same way as the next (first) ripper victim.
* it was not just about murder, some mutilation involved (albeit less extensive compared to later victims).

What about dozens of frenzied, vertical stabs versus a small, but effective, number of long horizontal incisions?

I can only speculate, my previous post (on page 42) provides a potential, what I consider plausible, explanation.

[Sam Flynn]

However, the similarities with the other Ripper murders are, at the least, a macabre coincidence.

There are hardly any similarities, other than this was another violent murder of a prostitute in a district well known for its violence and vice. In that regard, I'd argue that Tabram's murder had more in common with Emma Smith's than it had to those of Polly Nichols et al.

These types of differences I do not consider defining.

What about dozens of frenzied, vertical stabs versus a small, but effective, number of long horizontal incisions?

[etenguy]

One of the Boston Strangler's victims was stabbed to death, multiple times.
The reason he gave in an interview was, he went into a frenzy, "she just wouldn't shut up!"
He stabbed her about 22 times.

Tabram's 39 wounds speak to the same reason to me, her killer was frustrated and repeatedly stabbed her in a frenzy.
If he had a better weapon, he'd have used that, but I don't think he did.

The stab to the heart, through the breastbone, was done with a more stout weapon. I think it's likely what the killer's companion did that to end the debacle, so they can get out of there.

My bet is two soldiers.

Perfectly possible and plausible, though Pearly Poll stated that Tabram left with only one soldier - unless perhaps it was a different two soldiers or some other pair of murderers. However, the similarities with the other Ripper murders are, at the least, a macabre coincidence.

Tabram also had a bruise to the back of her head, something the other vicitms didn't have.

Indeed, but Nichols had no organs removed, Eddowes had her nose sliced off. These types of differences I do not consider defining.

[Wickerman]

One of the Boston Strangler's victims was stabbed to death, multiple times.
The reason he gave in an interview was, he went into a frenzy, "she just wouldn't shut up!"
He stabbed her about 22 times.

Tabram's 39 wounds speak to the same reason to me, her killer was frustrated and repeatedly stabbed her in a frenzy.
If he had a better weapon, he'd have used that, but I don't think he did.

The stab to the heart, through the breastbone, was done with a more stout weapon. I think it's likely what the killer's companion did that to end the debacle, so they can get out of there.

My bet is two soldiers.

Tabram also had a bruise to the back of her head, something the other vicitms didn't have.

[Abby Normal]

The trouble is several of the stabs went through her lungs. If she was still alive at that time you'd expect her last breaths to have sprayed blood everywhere, and I don't think there's any mention of that in the records. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course.

in my way of thinking she was alive but unconscious while being stabbed and could have died in the process of being stabbed. so some of the stabs could have been post mortem.

[Joshua Rogan]

once she was unconscious he started stabbing her.

The trouble is several of the stabs went through her lungs. If she was still alive at that time you'd expect her last breaths to have sprayed blood everywhere, and I don't think there's any mention of that in the records. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course.

[Abby Normal]

I apologise if the word posed is inaccurate, perhaps it is more accurate to say the bodies were left in similar positions. Compare the descriptions of Martha Tabram with next (or first) ripper victim, Mary Nichols, below:
Martha Tabram
Barrett did not move the body before the doctor arrived, but let it remain in situ, with her hands lying by her side, clenched up and empty. The victim's clothes were thrown upwards, completely disarranged, and the bosom of the dress was torn away. Barrett further testified at inquest that the woman's clothes were thrown up so as to expose the lower part of the body, and the limbs were open, which suggested recent intimacy (East London Observer, Saturday, 11 August, 1888).

Mary Nichols
(East London Observer, Saturday, 8 September, 1888)
Directly he turned his lantern on the body he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside her body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm. Her bonnet was beside her on the ground.





As you say, Martha Tabram was alive while being stabbed. I submit if she was not subdued she would be screaming and someone would have heard her. There would certainly have been defence wounds if she was struggling -
none are mentioned. There was a trauma to the back of the head which may have been caused by a whack, or she may have been subdued a different way.

Her injuries were reported as focussing on breast, belly and groin. I was wrong to suggest it was the neck - but the groin is merely a more polite way of saying genital area.



I answered this in an earlier post (number 420 page 42) - you may not find my thoughts compelling, or may even find them fanciful, but whilst speculation, not implausible, in my view.

Hi Eten and sox/sam
plus there WERE signs of strangulation-one doctor pointed out the tongue being protruding with lacerations. a common sign of strangulation.

re being alive while stabbed. yup but as you mention-if she was conscious while being stabbed like that she would be screaming and fighting-no evidence of either.

I think we got a ripper who hadn't quite figured things out yet re MO and whatever the interaction between I think he probably grabbed her around the throat and or bashed her head against the ground, while strangling her in the process to knock her out. once she was unconscious he started stabbing her.

[etenguy]

I'm sorry but insubstantial is exactly what it is, that and pure conjecture which is contrary to the facts. Over the years the water has been muddied enough, facts are few and far between in relation to these crimes so debating factual evidence is counter productive.

We have no evidence that Martha's corpse was posed,

I apologise if the word posed is inaccurate, perhaps it is more accurate to say the bodies were left in similar positions. Compare the descriptions of Martha Tabram with next (or first) ripper victim, Mary Nichols, below:
Martha Tabram
Barrett did not move the body before the doctor arrived, but let it remain in situ, with her hands lying by her side, clenched up and empty. The victim's clothes were thrown upwards, completely disarranged, and the bosom of the dress was torn away. Barrett further testified at inquest that the woman's clothes were thrown up so as to expose the lower part of the body, and the limbs were open, which suggested recent intimacy (East London Observer, Saturday, 11 August, 1888).

Mary Nichols
(East London Observer, Saturday, 8 September, 1888)
Directly he turned his lantern on the body he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside her body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open. Feeling her right arm he found it quite warm. Her bonnet was beside her on the ground.

or that she was subdued. In fact all of her injuries were inflicted before she died, which brings me to the most important point. Jack the Ripper killed so that he could mutilate, Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty nine times before she died. According to the reports, the focus was on the breast and groin region, not the neck and genitals.

As you say, Martha Tabram was alive while being stabbed. I submit if she was not subdued she would be screaming and someone would have heard her. There would certainly have been defence wounds if she was struggling -
none are mentioned. There was a trauma to the back of the head which may have been caused by a whack, or she may have been subdued a different way.

Her injuries were reported as focussing on breast, belly and groin. I was wrong to suggest it was the neck - but the groin is merely a more polite way of saying genital area.

The two methods are, in fact, nothing alike at all. We see no progression between the method of killing Tabram & the method of killing Nichols. What we DO see is a totally different method. Tabram was stabbed to death, in all probability Nichols was strangled/suffocated. Tabram was not mutilated post mortem yet Nichols post mortem injuries were extensive.

I am more open than most on these forums to new ideas and exploring other avenues, but even I turn around when I see a blind alley.

I answered this in an earlier post (number 420 page 42) - you may not find my thoughts compelling, or may even find them fanciful, but whilst speculation, not implausible, in my view.

[Sam Flynn]

because he hadn't reached his mature sig yet

If this were the case, not only would he have to have reached maturity in a mere three weeks, but what he did would look nothing like what he did to Martha Tabram.

[Sox]

I take your point, but to suggest there is not some similarity between the murders is debateable. There is the way she is posed, the way she is subdued before stabbing, the concentration on damaging the body rather than the focus on killing, the use of a knife, the neck and genital area focus (the one cut (as opposed to stabbing) of Martha Tabram was from her vagina), the same victim type (age and profession), the same locale, the same timing (both August 1888 and early hours of the morning). Of course this is not conclusive, but neither is it insubstantial.

I'm sorry but insubstantial is exactly what it is, that and pure conjecture which is contrary to the facts. Over the years the water has been muddied enough, facts are few and far between in relation to these crimes so debating factual evidence is counter productive.

We have no evidence that Martha's corpse was posed, or that she was subdued. In fact all of her injuries were inflicted before she died, which brings me to the most important point. Jack the Ripper killed so that he could mutilate, Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty nine times before she died. According to the reports, the focus was on the breast and groin region, not the neck and genitals.

The two methods are, in fact, nothing alike at all. We see no progression between the method of killing Tabram & the method of killing Nichols. What we DO see is a totally different method. Tabram was stabbed to death, in all probability Nichols was strangled/suffocated. Tabram was not mutilated post mortem yet Nichols post mortem injuries were extensive.

I am more open than most on these forums to new ideas and exploring other avenues, but even I turn around when I see a blind alley.