Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

But surely the problem with your conclusions is that it requires the killer to be a fully-formed, confident and experienced killer and eviscerated, i.e at the time of the Nichols murder, without any prior experience.

I see no reason to assume that Tabram was killed by a soldier as she may have been murdered several hours after she was last seen going off with a soldier by Connolly. Moreover, Connolly was not attacked or threatened by the soldier she went with- the friend of the soldier that went with Tabram- nor, despite extensive efforts by the police was she ever able to identify him, although she did identify an innocent man. All of this brings her evidence into question.

There is also no conclusive evidence that Tabram was killed by a bayonet and even if she was this does not necessarily implicate a soldier.

Cheers,

John

That's why Butchers and Hunters and medical students were investigated throughout September... as a result of the first 2 Canonicals. They ALL would have experience cutting flesh and excising organs.

The bayonet choice of weapon wasn't mine, although I don't see any reason it couldn't have been...I have a fairly extensive collection of 19th and 20th century bayonets and many resemble daggers as well...another idea that I didn't insert.

So..we have a learning Ripper stabbing frantically with a pen knife, then switching to a larger weapon to deliver a single stab? he then migrates within 3 weeks to someone who carries 1 weapon, who with cool demeanor, poses as a client...cuts her throat not once but twice...and proceeds to mutilate her abdomen? He has almost stopped stabbing completely now?

Or isn't it a bit more realistic if we have a soldier or some man who was intoxicated getting out of control angry at a prostitute he has "hired", who pulls out whatever weapon he has on him...a pen knife...and stabs her repeatedly?

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Tabram wasn't killed by a soldier. And it's Dr. Killeen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I realize that your carving out a niche with the Bank Holiday murders, but my recollection is that this murder is still unsolved, therefore, any discounting of any person from any walk of life would be speculative, not definitive, as your comments above suggest.

Cheers

[John G]

Hi John
Good couple of posts. I would just add that I see a lot of people using as a reason to dismiss Tabram as a ripper victim, because she was "probably killed by a soldier."

This makes no sense. The ripper could have been a soldier, ex soldier, etc.
It could even have been the man that was together with Pearly Poll, her man, and was the man that went off with Tabram. Pearly Poll never successfully IDed a credible suspect-so maybe she got the profession right, but the men wrong-she was drunk after all.

Hi Abbey,

Thanks, Abbey. I really can't understand those who argue that Tabram was killed by a soldier or that she was killed in a random, haphazard fashion.The only evidence for a soldiers involvement is the evidence of Connolly, who is slightly less reliable as a witness than Matthew Packer! Not only did she identify the wrong soldier she seemed to treat the whole process of identification as a complete joke. As for the bayonet, out of 39 wounds Dr Killeen concluded that all but one could have been inflicted with a penknife, with the other wound possibly being inflicted by a dagger or bayonet. However, as you say not just serving soldiers would have access to bayonets and it could be that the larger wound may have been caused by the knife striking the same place more than once.

Of the 39 stab wounds the majority were focused on the breast and groin area- 17 on the breasts area alone. This is highly consistent with a killer displaying the very rare signature of picquerism, which is obviously blatantly evident in the C5 murders, with the exception of Stride.

Emma Smith had an object inserted into her, which also clearly indicates picquerism. Although she stated that she was attacked by a gang, she seemed reluctant to give too many details and, based on her evidence, it took her more than 2 hours to walk 300 yards after the assault. I believe that it has been speculated that she could have been soliciting but was reluctant to admit to it.

Cheers,

John

[John G]

Tabram wasn't killed by a soldier. And it's Dr. Killeen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Paul Begg gives the name as "Keleene": see Begg (2004), although I agree the consensus seems to be that the name is spelled "Killeen", so "keleene" is probably a misspelling. I agree that Tabram was probably not killed by a soldier!

Cheers,
John

[Tom_Wescott]

Tabram wasn't killed by a soldier. And it's Dr. Killeen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Different state of mind during each of the killings.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Michael,

But surely the problem with your conclusions is that it requires the killer to be a fully-formed, confident and experienced killer and eviscerated, i.e at the time of the Nichols murder, without any prior experience.

I see no reason to assume that Tabram was killed by a soldier as she may have been murdered several hours after she was last seen going off with a soldier by Connolly. Moreover, Connolly was not attacked or threatened by the soldier she went with- the friend of the soldier that went with Tabram- nor, despite extensive efforts by the police was she ever able to identify him, although she did identify an innocent man. All of this brings her evidence into question.

There is also no conclusive evidence that Tabram was killed by a bayonet and even if she was this does not necessarily implicate a soldier.

Cheers,

John

Hi John
Good couple of posts. I would just add that I see a lot of people using as a reason to dismiss Tabram as a ripper victim, because she was "probably killed by a soldier."

This makes no sense. The ripper could have been a soldier, ex soldier, etc.
It could even have been the man that was together with Pearly Poll, her man, and was the man that went off with Tabram. Pearly Poll never successfully IDed a credible suspect-so maybe she got the profession right, but the men wrong-she was drunk after all.

[John G]

Add intoxication, and anger, and a bayonet, and you have your answer. It wasn't required, therefore the killer wildly stabbed without limiting himself to stabs that would kill quicker.

Bank Holiday. 1 large wound, 38 with a pen knife. Victim seen with soldiers early in the evening, PC sees solider near the murder scene waiting for his mate...so, some travelled in pairs that night. 2 distinctly different kinds of wounds.

This doesn't have to be so hard. The obstacle is that people want to attach this as a learning murder to a cutter/mutilator who it appears is fully formed by the end of the month.

Cheers

Hi Michael,

But surely the problem with your conclusions is that it requires the killer to be a fully-formed, confident and experienced killer and eviscerated, i.e at the time of the Nichols murder, without any prior experience.

I see no reason to assume that Tabram was killed by a soldier as she may have been murdered several hours after she was last seen going off with a soldier by Connolly. Moreover, Connolly was not attacked or threatened by the soldier she went with- the friend of the soldier that went with Tabram- nor, despite extensive efforts by the police was she ever able to identify him, although she did identify an innocent man. All of this brings her evidence into question.

There is also no conclusive evidence that Tabram was killed by a bayonet and even if she was this does not necessarily implicate a soldier.

Cheers,

John

[John G]

Hello Michael,

You have posed some interesting questions about the medical evidence- and the extent to which this may allow us to link the various murders- which i will now attempt to address.

Firstly, in relation to Tabram, Dr Keleene observed that the vagina and breasts had been a particular target for wounding. This is consistent with piquerism, a highly unusual signature, which is also evident, albeit to a greater extent with the C5 victims, excepting Stride: this suggests a progression across a "continuum of escalating violence.": see Keppel et al (2005). I would further note that piquerism was also evident in the assault on Emma Smith; i,e the insertion of an object. suggesting that she cannot be ruled out as a possible JtR victim.

In respect, of Nicholls, Dr Llewlllyn was of the opinion that the killer demonstrated only rough anatomical knowledge. Moreover, there seemed to have been a deliberate attempt to cover up the abdominal injuries: this demonstrates a significant deviation from an aspect of the Killer's signature evident in the other C5 murders, plus Tabram, i.e the posing of the victim's body.

Regarding Chapman, Dr Philips was of the opinion that the murderer displayed some anatomical knowledge and even surgical skill; The Lancet went further suggesting that "it was obviously the work of an expert." If correct, this suggests a remarkable upgrading of surgical skill in just ten days.

The next victim, Liz Stride, had her throat severely cut, but there were no abdominal injuries. However, the opinion of Drs Philips and Blackwell was that her throat had been cut whilst close from the ground and there was evidence of strangulation. This is highly consistent with the strategy employed by the killer in respect of the other C5 victims, with the possible exception of MJK. However, only a small bladed knife- similar to a shoe makers knife, seems to have been used, which may have been inadequate to commit extensive mutilations.

There is also strong evidence that the killer was disturbed- the body was still warm, with blood gushing from the neck when first examined- which could further explain the lack of abdominal mutilations. It is further submitted that the yard in which Stride was killed may have been too dark for the killer to have effectively eviscerated Stride, which was clearly not the case with the next murder location, Mitre Square: see the testimony of Dr Brown.

It is therefore further submitted that Stride may have been an ill-thought out, unplanned, impulse killing, forcing the killer to improvise. This is reminiscent of some of the later attacks of Sutcliffe, i.e the assault on Dr Bandara, who was passing the pub Sutcliffe was drinking in when he was driven to strike.

The medical testimony in relation to Eddowes is somewhat confusing. Drs Brown and Phillips seemed to agree that the killer had knowledge of the position of the bodily organs, although Dr Brown believed a butcher would possessed this knowledge (I'm personally not sure how, as a doctor, he's qualified to make such a judgement) Dr Sequeira felt no special knowledge was required.

However, Swanson stated that Brown and Phillips were of the opinion that Eddowes could have been killed by a "student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon", as well as a butcher.

Dr Bond was the medical expert who examined MJK and his opinion was that her killer demonstrated no anatomical knowledge. However, this opinion needs to be placed in context: Dr Bond was convinced that all of the C5 murders and Mackenzie were the work of the same killer, and that in each case the murderer showed no special anatomical knowledge.

I would therefore conclude that, taking into account the inconsistencies of the medical evidence, it is probable that a single killer was responsible for the C5 and Tabram. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that all of the murders took place within a very small geographical area, over a relatively short time frame, and demonstrating rare characteristics, i.e picquerism, in a district were even more common murders were a rare event.

Best wishes,

John

[Tom_Wescott]

Michael,

Your interpretation of the Tabram murder is not at all consistent with the evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Why 'hence'? Surely, if murder was the goal, wild overkill would be wholly unnecessary?

Add intoxication, and anger, and a bayonet, and you have your answer. It wasn't required, therefore the killer wildly stabbed without limiting himself to stabs that would kill quicker.

Bank Holiday. 1 large wound, 38 with a pen knife. Victim seen with soldiers early in the evening, PC sees solider near the murder scene waiting for his mate...so, some travelled in pairs that night. 2 distinctly different kinds of wounds.

This doesn't have to be so hard. The obstacle is that people want to attach this as a learning murder to a cutter/mutilator who it appears is fully formed by the end of the month.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Of course, it wouldn't be 50-50 because a clear pattern of behavoir has been established on the 99 previous occasions. Just as we can see a clear pattern develop in the Whitechapel murders- street prostitutes killed in the street, in isolated locations, with their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated.

Best wishes,

John

Hi John,

I think you've made my point with the above, 2 of the Canonical victims do not fit that profile you've provided.

I think the precedent murder, that being the murder of Polly that introduces us to murder and abdominal mutilation in the street, is instructive for us..if we allow it to be. Clearly this was a watermark. It was unusual and had specific features which are not seen in more pedestrian murders. I look for those features going forward from that point...and voila, 10 days later the same qualities appear in Annies murder, the escalation is the actual extraction of abdominal organs this time. Likely the same guy.

More than 3 weeks go by. Then a woman has a single cut across her throat. Related in any way to those previous 2? By rough historical timing and rough geographical matching perhaps, but in no way does Liz Strides murder warrant serious consideration as a Ripper victim at the time of her murder. Then less than an hour later and a 10 minute walk away, a woman IS murdered in a fashion that is quite similar to those first 2 women...problem is this murderer did not have either the knife skills or the anatomical knowledge that was seen in those first 2 murders. It was either because he was rushed, or because someone else did the cutting. Only 2 reasonable explanations for a degraded skill set. Now everyone looks back at Liz Stride and says to themselves, "well, she was killed when we have evidence this mutilator was out and about, so it must be that he didn't have time to do what he wanted in Berner Street". Does that explain why Liz Stride is one of 2 women that night that gets only a single cut across the throat?

Based on what physical evidence is Liz Strides murder matched with either Polly or Annies murder? None.

What evidence of any kind is there that the killer may have been interrupted in Berner Street? None.

5 weeks go by and a woman is found taken apart in her underwear in her room. Similar to the first 2 women? Not circumstantially for one. We also have evidence that Marys killer didn't know diddly about anatomy or skill, based on the examination and comments made by Bond. That's an issue, with again, 1 of 2 answers. Either he lost his mind and skill set, or someone else did the cutting.

Hopefully that addresses why I lobby for a reduced ASSUMED Canonical kill count,.... 2 clearly don't fit with earlier kills, and 1 is suspect due to the skill exhibited.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Why 'hence'? Surely, if murder was the goal, wild overkill would be wholly unnecessary?

Overkill? She probably wasn't even quite dead when he left her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John G]

What are the chances that a coin flipped 99 times and landing on heads will land on tails, or heads, on the 100th flip?

The same as the odds were on the very first flip.

Assuming that statistics resolves the issue of how many killers in 1888 were capable of committing crimes like the ones seen in the Canonical Group is about as valuable to solving the crimes as the above example would be to calculate a bet on flip # 100.

Colin has to be one of the most thorough users of statistics to illustrate why he believes many of the Unsolved Whitechapel murders were committed by one individual. His probability analysis is lacking in the area of how each murder might influence any of the men capable of killing during the period in question. I know that in modern times a despicable act of violence often spawns similar acts of violence by others, some by killers not at all pre-disposed or driven to that kind of violence before the act occurred. We had a girl murdered and dismembered in Toronto a few years back.. which was followed by a murder and dismemberment north of Toronto, and an act of murder and dismemberment in Buffalo, and then again in Montreal.

Since we know that all of these crimes were committed by 4 different people, I submit that this is proof that the imagination of killers are as pliable as that of regular folks. And that similar acts do not lead inevitably to the same source.

Cheers

Hello Michael,

I believe that the use of statistical analysis is a valuable tool in assessing crimes such as these although, as you suggest, it is clearly not an infallible approach.

Thus, I would start from the position that all of the C5 murders represent very rare crimes, even for the period in question. In fact, so rare that I'm not personally aware of a single example prior to 1888 of a women being found dead on the streets of Whitechapel with her throat cut; nor after the Coles murder, although I concede there may be the odd rare example.And murders involving abdominal mutilations were clearly rarer still.

And then there's the fact that Whitechapel was a tiny area with a population of just 75000-only 1.3% of London's 5.6million total population for 1888. Perhaps not surprising, for such a small area, there were no murders at all in 1886 or 1887. In fact, there were only 13 murders in total for London in 1887, and that was both men and women, most being of the domestic variety. compare that to the 6 murders in Whitechapel in 1888- all women, all attacked or killed on the street. Others will disagree, but to my mind, the possibility of this being the work of multiple killers is extremely remote.

And then there's the example of the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. I believe that of the many murders he was suspected of he eventulaly admitted all but one: Joan Harrison, who was indeed killed by another hand. And this a killer who frequently and radically changed his Mo, i.e. from targeting prostitutes in red light districts, to attacking non-prostitutes in residential areas.

And. of course, Sutcliffe operated over a wide area with a large population, not a tiny area with a relatively small population, surely making it much more likely that mistakes would be made when attributing victims to a single killer.

It seems to be that the only alternative is to concentrate on the miniature of the crimes, rejecting any victim where the Mo doesn't exactly correspond to other victims. And where does that get you? Well, as far as I can see it results in a conclusion that every victim was killed by a different killer.

I mean, consider this. The vast majority of people accept that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same person, but in looking at anomalies and direct comparisons how could they be? Thus, it is quite clear that Chapman's body, like Tabram and the other C5 was posed, with her injuries on display. However, Nichols wasn't- her killer covered up her injuries. So much so, in fact, that the extensive abdominal mutilations were not even noticed until she was taken to the mortuary, even by Dr Llewellyn, and he examined the body!

And if posing was part of the killers signature then surely Nichols must have had a different killer!

You're analogy of the coin flip is interesting, though. As far as I can see, applying your logic, if you lent someone £5 on 99 occasions and, on each occasion they failed to pay you back, what would be the chances that they would pay you back the next time? Well, 50-50 according to your logic- mind you, I wouldn't lend people money if I were you!

Of course, it wouldn't be 50-50 because a clear pattern of behavoir has been established on the 99 previous occasions. Just as we can see a clear pattern develop in the Whitechapel murders- street prostitutes killed in the street, in isolated locations, with their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated.

Best wishes,

John

[Harry D]

Harry D,
While every murder was carefully planned, when you look at all the Ripper victims its clear this man had a hatred of woman, all his victims were done as an outward expression of anger and rage.

Hello dahler,

The salient point being that this anger or hatred (if that's what it was) manifested itself in a markedly different style with Tabram than it did with the canonicals.