Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[etenguy]

HI Etenguy
I agree re the knives (if he did indeed use two different ones on her).and I also think she was a ripper victim(raised skirt is the clincher for me).

Yes, the similarities are striking, though of course the lack of having her throat cut and extensive mutilations talks against it - but could be explained as an early killing while his method was being refined.

I think the ripper was probably accustomed to carrying around a pen knife-at least in the beginning.

I think Annie Millwood was probably the first, or early victim, and he attacked her with the pen knife he was used to carrying around.

figured out it wasn't big enough to do the trick and then got a second larger knife that would. and had both these on him when he attacked Tabram.

just my speculation of course.

That makes sense. I do not know a lot about the Annie Millwood attack, but the little I know supports your theory, but is far from conclusive.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, the similarities are striking, though of course the lack of having her throat cut and extensive mutilations talks against it - but could be explained as an early killing while his method was being refined.

He refined his technique pretty quickly, if that was the case, shifting his focus from the upper abdomen and chest to the lower abdomen, and from multiple frenzied stabs to long, deep incisions, with savage cuts to the throat.

[Jon Guy]

He refined his technique pretty quickly, if that was the case, shifting his focus from the upper abdomen and chest to the lower abdomen, and from multiple frenzied stabs to long, deep incisions, with savage cuts to the throat.

Multiple stabs to the throat is not that far removed from sawing his way around the neck.

[Sam Flynn]

Multiple stabs to the throat is not that far removed from sawing his way around the neck.

I see it as very far removed. It's certainly less efficient than a swift, deep cut. Besides, the cutting of the throat was the cause of death in the Ripper murders, but in Tabram's case the throat wounds were secondary and entirely superfluous.

[Jon Guy]

I see it as very far removed. It's certainly less efficient than a swift, deep cut. Besides, the cutting of the throat was the cause of death in the Ripper murders, but in Tabram's case the throat wounds were secondary and entirely superfluous.

Taking on your points, the killer has therefore learnt that 39 stabs takes a lot of energy, and cutting the throat is a quick and silent method of despatch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some suggest that the murder of MJK seemed 'personal.'

Martha Tabram - 39 years of age/ 39 stabs

[Sam Flynn]

Taking on your points, the killer has therefore learnt that 39 stabs takes a lot of energy, and cutting the throat is a quick and silent method of despatch.

The method of dispatch in Tabram's case seems to have been the two stabs to the heart, and I don't think it's likely that the killer waited until the 37th stab before deciding that a more direct method might serve his purpose better.

I don't think that anyone would have needed to learn that a cut throat would be an effective method of killing; indeed, it would have been common knowledge. So, why didn't it occur to Tabram's killer to cut her throat and have done with it? It looks to me like her killer just "lost it" and went berserk with the knife, without really knowing what he was doing until it was over.

In contrast, what happened to Polly Nichols was pretty decisive from the outset. I think her assailant knew exactly what to do when it comes to cutting throats, and already seems to have possessed a devastatingly effective technique for doing so. He may well have cut throats before.

[Abby Normal]

I see it as very far removed. It's certainly less efficient than a swift, deep cut. Besides, the cutting of the throat was the cause of death in the Ripper murders, but in Tabram's case the throat wounds were secondary and entirely superfluous.

serial killers have been known to learn quickly

[Jon Guy]

It looks to me like her killer just "lost it" and went berserk with the knife, without really knowing what he was doing until it was over.

I agree with this. Although, the killer clearly had issues to begin with, and after getting away with it, and having 3 weeks to contemplate, I can see how the murderer of Polly Nichols was formed.

Sutcliffe started off with a brick in a sock.

[Sam Flynn]

serial killers have been known to learn quickly

Anyone would have known that puncturing the neck seven times (or was it nine?) wasn't going to be as efficient as slicing through the throat. Knowing how to effectively slice through the throat is another matter, which is why I suggest that Nichols' killer knew exactly what he was doing. Compare and contrast with some of the non-Canonicals, or even Stride, whose throat wounds were much less severe in comparison. If Stride had been the first in the series, the argument that the killer was learning might be more sustainable. As it is, the very first undisputed Ripper murder starts off with the method of deep throat-cutting fully-formed from the start, and the same technique is seen in the subsequent evisceration murders.

[Sam Flynn]

Sutcliffe started off with a brick in a sock.

And graduated to a ball-pein hammer, with both weapons being used to bash in the skulls of the victims, so it's not much of a leap. Had Sutcliffe moved on to deep throat-cuts, however, it would be a rather different matter.

[Jon Guy]

And graduated to a ball-pein hammer, with both weapons being used to bash in the skulls of the victims, so it's not much of a leap. Had Sutcliffe moved on to deep throat-cuts, however, it would be a rather different matter.

But he did move onto mutilating the bodies with a knife and screwdriver.

[Sam Flynn]

But he did move onto mutilating the bodies with a knife and screwdriver.

But his tried and trusted method of dispatch, namely whacking the skull will a blunt instrument, remained constant throughout.

[Abby Normal]

And graduated to a ball-pein hammer, with both weapons being used to bash in the skulls of the victims, so it's not much of a leap. Had Sutcliffe moved on to deep throat-cuts, however, it would be a rather different matter.

moving from stabbing to slicing the throat isn't much of a leap either Sam

[etenguy]

But his tried and trusted method of dispatch, namely whacking the skull will a blunt instrument, remained constant throughout.

Allow me to hypothesise that Martha Tabram was his first victim.

I might suggest that the mode of killing/subduing his victim was secondary to the posing/stabbing/cutting/mutilation of his victim. If that is correct, changing mode of killing is not necessarily problematic in the identification of a ripper victim. Once he decided on an efficient means he stuck with it. He may have originally thought that his first method of subduing (which is not entirely clear but may have been a whack to the head or - as suggested by Tom Westcott - garrotting with his arm) would be sufficient and avoid the possibility of becoming blood soaked. He learnt from his first attack and changed to a more guaranteed approach. Pure speculation, but I would argue plausible.

The next major difference between Martha and the C5 is the nature and extent of mutilation. As the murders progress, the intensity increases and the focus changes (usual Stride caveats). Extrapolating backwards, it could be argued Martha Tabram's injuries were the precursor.

I don't argue that Martha Tabram was definitely a Ripper victim, but I think there is a strong correlation - strong enough for me to suggest it is more likely than not that she was a Ripper victim.