Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Sam Flynn]

Yes let’s list all the Differences between Tabram and others:

Fatal Knife wounds are stabs, not slices.

Not if the slices concerned swiftly sever all the blood vessels in the neck. And, in the canonicals and non-canonicals alike, we see none of the kinds of stab wounds inflicted on Tabram, if we see any stab wounds at all. To me, the nature of Tabram's wounds is utterly unique in the series of Whitechapel Murders, suggesting that her killer was unique to her. It might also indicate that he was an outsider and a one-off killer, because nowhere in Whitechapel do we see anything like Tabram's wounds again.

[Abby Normal]

Indeed we do. But it doesn't all happen in one go. As we progress through the victims (Stride caveats), we can see a progression. Does Tabram's murder fit that progression - let's try it and see.

Tabram - murder, piercing flesh, stabs at neck, one abdomen cut - penknife and one sharp narrow blade used.
Nichols - throat cut (two attempts needed), murder, abdomen opened and slashes across abdomen (shows a couple of attempts?)
Chapman - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, gential cuts, organs removed, sharp narrow blade used.
Eddowes - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, genital cuts, organs removed, face mutilated, sharp pointed blade used.
Kelly - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, genital cuts, organs removed, face mutilated, whole body cut to pieces.

Does that suggest one person getting more confident and practiced and then going one step further each time? If so, could Tabram be the start of that learning? I'd say it is possible and perhaps even likely.

Hi eten
I too see a progression. And we might want to start with millwood attacked by a man with a pen knife like blade but survived.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

I think we can all come up with a list of what we 'think' should rule her 'out', or include her 'in', the later Ripper murders.
While I do agree with Gareth, I also concede with some of the points made by you & Etenguy.

I find the 'time of attack' & 'location of attack' more due to the 'type of victim', than an indication of the same killer.
Prostitutes were victimized by a range of 'bad-uns', from gangs, and pimps to opportunists, and drunks.

What I find more controversial is this use of two weapons.
Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper), also changed weapons, but that was not due to the first being weapon being impractical.

To hypothesize that this killer had a dagger on him, yet repeatedly used a penknife, not just two or three times, but 38 times!, beggars belief.
There's no logical way to justify a killer using such a useless weapon as a murder weapon when he carried the more practical weapon, so to my mind that suggests another solution.

Equally, there is no way to rationalize him using the dagger first, then resorting to a penknife for the rest of the stabbings.

Some have suggested the dagger may have been Tabram's, and that it fell out of her pocket/clothing in the attack, and he picked it up and used that.
While that is possible, it is unlikely that her close associates wouldn't also be carrying weapons, and they (like "Poll"), wouldn't know about Tabram carrying something like that.

Further considerations must be made about the fact Tabram had a bruise to the back of her head, which suggests an assault from behind (not observed in later murders), but she could have received it if she was pushed back violently to the ground. Yet, wouldn't we expect her to be screaming or shouting if that was the case?

Then there is the fact that both Reeves & PC Barrett said her hands were 'clenched', as if to suggest she was strangled first.
Dr Killeene made no mention of that in his quoted testimony (as brief as it was), nor anything in his view to suggest strangulation. Killeene announced that death was due to blood loss, and that all the wounds were committed during life.
It seems to be the press reporter who suggested her face looked swollen as if she had been strangled.

So we seem to have a confused picture of violence against Tabram, we can't be sure if she was indeed strangled, and the possibility that the penknife was used first, if he had such a stout murder weapon in his possession is hard to comprehend.

We do know Barrett saw a lone soldier who said he was waiting for a friend who had gone off with a woman, so the pieces of the puzzle seem to be present if we arrange them in the correct order.
Soldiers were issued with penknives, but only Sergeants, Corporals, and higher ranks were permitted to carry side-arms (bayonet/daggers).
There was also reported that soldiers out on the town would often change jackets so as to confuse witnesses if any trouble broke out.
The rank indicated by the stripes on the jacket would not match the features of the one being identified in any line-up.

I think the solution to this murder is quite simple, one possibly inexperienced private?, got himself into a fracas with Tabram, and stabbed her in a frenzy, his partner (being of higher rank?), came to his rescue and with his dagger brought the altercation to a swift end, so they could get out of there before anyone got wind of what happened.

Two soldiers were involved, in my view.
I'm not saying it's the only possibly solution, I just think it is the best solution given what we know.

Well thought out post and interesting theory wick. Let me digest it a bit more.

[Abby Normal]

The point is that, even at this level of granularity, there are fundamental differences between what happened to Tabram and what happened to ALL the others, whether canonical or not.

Yes let’s list all the Differences between Tabram and others:

Fatal Knife wounds are stabs, not slices.

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed we do. But it doesn't all happen in one go. As we progress through the victims (Stride caveats), we can see a progression. Does Tabram's murder fit that progression - let's try it and see.

Tabram - murder, piercing flesh, stabs at neck, one abdomen cut - penknife and one sharp narrow blade used.
Nichols - throat cut (two attempts needed), murder, abdomen opened and slashes across abdomen (shows a couple of attempts?)

I'd stop there, personally. There were two deep throat cuts, and they were pretty decisive, and the abdominal cuts were long and severe. In neither case was there any hint that yer man was trying things out for the first time.

Re Tabram, I see no abdominal cut of any significance in terms of length or depth. The one that did exist might even have been accidental, e.g. a stab that slipped. Whether accidental or not, it was outnumbered almost 40:1 by decisive stab-wounds.

[etenguy]

Then we hit the same problem - and to my mind, the big problem - of the dramatic change from multiple stabs to throat-cutting, the cutting open of the abdomen and the removal of organs.

Indeed we do. But it doesn't all happen in one go. As we progress through the victims (Stride caveats), we can see a progression. Does Tabram's murder fit that progression - let's try it and see.

Tabram - murder, piercing flesh, stabs at neck, one abdomen cut - penknife and one sharp narrow blade used.
Nichols - throat cut (two attempts needed), murder, abdomen opened and slashes across abdomen (shows a couple of attempts?)
Chapman - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, gential cuts, organs removed, sharp narrow blade used.
Eddowes - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, genital cuts, organs removed, face mutilated, sharp pointed blade used.
Kelly - throat cut, murder, abdomen opened, genital cuts, organs removed, face mutilated, whole body cut to pieces.

Does that suggest one person getting more confident and practiced and then going one step further each time? If so, could Tabram be the start of that learning? I'd say it is possible and perhaps even likely.

[Sam Flynn]

If it was only one, then whether that one soldier/murderer was the ripper is still a question.

Then we hit the same problem - and to my mind, the big problem - of the dramatic change from multiple stabs to throat-cutting, the cutting open of the abdomen and the removal of organs.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby.

I think we can all come up with a list of what we 'think' should rule her 'out', or include her 'in', the later Ripper murders.
While I do agree with Gareth, I also concede with some of the points made by you & Etenguy.

I find the 'time of attack' & 'location of attack' more due to the 'type of victim', than an indication of the same killer.
Prostitutes were victimized by a range of 'bad-uns', from gangs, and pimps to opportunists, and drunks.

What I find more controversial is this use of two weapons.
Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper), also changed weapons, but that was not due to the first being weapon being impractical.

To hypothesize that this killer had a dagger on him, yet repeatedly used a penknife, not just two or three times, but 38 times!, beggars belief.
There's no logical way to justify a killer using such a useless weapon as a murder weapon when he carried the more practical weapon, so to my mind that suggests another solution.

Equally, there is no way to rationalize him using the dagger first, then resorting to a penknife for the rest of the stabbings.

Some have suggested the dagger may have been Tabram's, and that it fell out of her pocket/clothing in the attack, and he picked it up and used that.
While that is possible, it is unlikely that her close associates wouldn't also be carrying weapons, and they (like "Poll"), wouldn't know about Tabram carrying something like that.

Further considerations must be made about the fact Tabram had a bruise to the back of her head, which suggests an assault from behind (not observed in later murders), but she could have received it if she was pushed back violently to the ground. Yet, wouldn't we expect her to be screaming or shouting if that was the case?

Then there is the fact that both Reeves & PC Barrett said her hands were 'clenched', as if to suggest she was strangled first.
Dr Killeene made no mention of that in his quoted testimony (as brief as it was), nor anything in his view to suggest strangulation. Killeene announced that death was due to blood loss, and that all the wounds were committed during life.
It seems to be the press reporter who suggested her face looked swollen as if she had been strangled.

So we seem to have a confused picture of violence against Tabram, we can't be sure if she was indeed strangled, and the possibility that the penknife was used first, if he had such a stout murder weapon in his possession is hard to comprehend.

We do know Barrett saw a lone soldier who said he was waiting for a friend who had gone off with a woman, so the pieces of the puzzle seem to be present if we arrange them in the correct order.
Soldiers were issued with penknives, but only Sergeants, Corporals, and higher ranks were permitted to carry side-arms (bayonet/daggers).
There was also reported that soldiers out on the town would often change jackets so as to confuse witnesses if any trouble broke out.
The rank indicated by the stripes on the jacket would not match the features of the one being identified in any line-up.

I think the solution to this murder is quite simple, one possibly inexperienced private?, got himself into a fracas with Tabram, and stabbed her in a frenzy, his partner (being of higher rank?), came to his rescue and with his dagger brought the altercation to a swift end, so they could get out of there before anyone got wind of what happened.

Two soldiers were involved, in my view.
I'm not saying it's the only possibly solution, I just think it is the best solution given what we know.

You outline an entirely plausible scenario which fits all the information we have. It is compelling. And you don't necessarily need two soldiers, which is where I start to wonder about the scenario - you'd need quite a friendship and life long silence. It is possible one soldier vented using his pen-knife and then decided he had to kill her and used a second he was carrying. I prefer one soldier to two, but either is plausible.

If it was only one, then whether that one soldier/murderer was the ripper is still a question.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Abby.

I think we can all come up with a list of what we 'think' should rule her 'out', or include her 'in', the later Ripper murders.
While I do agree with Gareth, I also concede with some of the points made by you & Etenguy.

I find the 'time of attack' & 'location of attack' more due to the 'type of victim', than an indication of the same killer.
Prostitutes were victimized by a range of 'bad-uns', from gangs, and pimps to opportunists, and drunks.

What I find more controversial is this use of two weapons.
Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper), also changed weapons, but that was not due to the first being weapon being impractical.

To hypothesize that this killer had a dagger on him, yet repeatedly used a penknife, not just two or three times, but 38 times!, beggars belief.
There's no logical way to justify a killer using such a useless weapon as a murder weapon when he carried the more practical weapon, so to my mind that suggests another solution.

Equally, there is no way to rationalize him using the dagger first, then resorting to a penknife for the rest of the stabbings.

Some have suggested the dagger may have been Tabram's, and that it fell out of her pocket/clothing in the attack, and he picked it up and used that.
While that is possible, it is unlikely that her close associates wouldn't also be carrying weapons, and they (like "Poll"), wouldn't know about Tabram carrying something like that.

Further considerations must be made about the fact Tabram had a bruise to the back of her head, which suggests an assault from behind (not observed in later murders), but she could have received it if she was pushed back violently to the ground. Yet, wouldn't we expect her to be screaming or shouting if that was the case?

Then there is the fact that both Reeves & PC Barrett said her hands were 'clenched', as if to suggest she was strangled first.
Dr Killeene made no mention of that in his quoted testimony (as brief as it was), nor anything in his view to suggest strangulation. Killeene announced that death was due to blood loss, and that all the wounds were committed during life.
It seems to be the press reporter who suggested her face looked swollen as if she had been strangled.

So we seem to have a confused picture of violence against Tabram, we can't be sure if she was indeed strangled, and the possibility that the penknife was used first, if he had such a stout murder weapon in his possession is hard to comprehend.

We do know Barrett saw a lone soldier who said he was waiting for a friend who had gone off with a woman, so the pieces of the puzzle seem to be present if we arrange them in the correct order.
Soldiers were issued with penknives, but only Sergeants, Corporals, and higher ranks were permitted to carry side-arms (bayonet/daggers).
There was also reported that soldiers out on the town would often change jackets so as to confuse witnesses if any trouble broke out.
The rank indicated by the stripes on the jacket would not match the features of the one being identified in any line-up.

I think the solution to this murder is quite simple, one possibly inexperienced private?, got himself into a fracas with Tabram, and stabbed her in a frenzy, his partner (being of higher rank?), came to his rescue and with his dagger brought the altercation to a swift end, so they could get out of there before anyone got wind of what happened.

Two soldiers were involved, in my view.
I'm not saying it's the only possibly solution, I just think it is the best solution given what we know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hey Herlock

I am in the camp that says it is more likely than not that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim, but understand why it is difficult to decide.

I do not have the same issue with location risk as you, even ignoring Stride. Other than Kelly, I think all the locations present risk, a well used thoroughfare, a back yard, a regularly checked square. I wonder if risk was part of the thrill for the murderer.

Hi etenguy,

I'm sure that it's possible that an element of risk provided a level of thrill. Perhaps even more so the notion of his handiwork being discovered.
I cant see anything at the moment to knock me off the fence when it comes to Tabram.

[etenguy]

I'm permanently undecided on Tabram. Location could be an issue. For discussions sake, if we dismiss Stride as a victim (and I think that if there's a reason to do this then it's the fact that it's a risky location combined with the 'possible' chance that her killer might have been seen) then Tabram's location is also full of risks for the ripper. On a landing where anyone could have come out of their flat or passed the landing on the way home? This might just point to a spur of the moment killing, fuelled by rage (possibly exacerbated by drink?). I wouldn't put my house on it though.

Hey Herlock

I am in the camp that says it is more likely than not that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim, but understand why it is difficult to decide.

I do not have the same issue with location risk as you, even ignoring Stride. Other than Kelly, I think all the locations present risk, a well used thoroughfare, a back yard, a regularly checked square. I wonder if risk was part of the thrill for the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm permanently undecided on Tabram. Location could be an issue. For discussions sake, if we dismiss Stride as a victim (and I think that if there's a reason to do this then it's the fact that it's a risky location combined with the 'possible' chance that her killer might have been seen) then Tabram's location is also full of risks for the ripper. On a landing where anyone could have come out of their flat or passed the landing on the way home? This might just point to a spur of the moment killing, fuelled by rage (possibly exacerbated by drink?). I wouldn't put my house on it though.

[etenguy]

The point is that, even at this level of granularity, there are fundamental differences between what happened to Tabram and what happened to ALL the others, whether canonical or not.

Hi Sam

There are differences between all the victims, some might classify some of those as fundamental. For example, no organs removed from Mary Ann Nichols - that could be a fundamental difference.

Also, your granular list ignores some crucial factors. Lets take two as an example.
Victimology: A usual ripper victim (C5) is a prostitute, around 40, about 5' tall, been drinking. Martha Tabram ticks all those boxes - other non canonicals sometimes do and sometimes do not - eg Mylett was under 30. If you look at victimology alone, you would include Tabram but might have doubts about Kelly.

General timing: You suggest taking Aug to Nov as cheating, presumably because the first victim was the end of August. Look at it slightly differently and the timing is a perfect fit. The time between attacks for C5 was between 1 and 5 weeks (if the double event is counted as one event). Tabram was murdered about three weeks before Nichols. Fits the timing of Ripper murders perfectly.

I'm not saying the above proves anything - but in terms of similarities, it certainly puts Tabram in the frame as a ripper victim.

Of all the reasons you give to not include her, the only one I consider substantive is the change from stabbing to slicing - and this cannot be ignored and I would consider a fundamental difference. It can be explained if you believe the other similarities are overwhelming and it can be used to discount if you do not find the other evidence compelling. The truth is we do not know, but it is not as easy to dismiss as some reading your earlier post might have perceived.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah I see . To “granular”. You say let’s get down to specifics. Ok. I can also get so specific to rule out the c5 as to being the same man.I can also get so “granular” as to include every murder of woman in London that year.

The point is that, even at this level of granularity, there are fundamental differences between what happened to Tabram and what happened to ALL the others, whether canonical or not.

[Abby Normal]

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

Ah I see . To “granular”. You say let’s get down to specifics. Ok. I can also get so specific to rule out the c5 as to being the same man.I can also get so “granular” as to include every murder of woman in London that year.

But it takes a modicum of intelligence to differentiate.

Your a stubborn sob. I’ll give you that much Sam.