Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, I did say "comparatively" shallow, Tom. Compared, that is, to the near-decapitation of Nichols and Chapman, his immediately preceding victims.

Yes, but then Eddowes' would also be shallow compared to those and she was killed within an hour of Stride. If the killer's confidence had increased following the Chapman murder, or if frustrated in his attempts to decapitate the victims, he dropped this from his M.O., then I'd see your point. But there was no attempt to decapitate either Eddowes or Kelly, so why should we expect to see that with Stride?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but then Eddowes' would also be shallow compared to those

True, Tom, but still pretty severe, by most standards.

Anyway, back on-thread, Tabram's throat was not cut, so how are we to assess her on this particular scale?

[Tom_Wescott]

True, Tom, but still pretty severe, by most standards.

Anyway, back on-thread, Tabram's throat was not cut, so how are we to assess her on this particular scale?

Hi Sam. I'm not really trying to draw a scale since each murder, whether committed by the same individual(s) or not, was an independent event. With Tabram, we can choose to only go by the medical evidence or to take all evidence together in deciding whether or not she was a Ripper victim. Same with Smith. When I look at JUST the medical evidence I'm at about a 30% in favor of her being a Ripper victim. When I take all the evidence together I'm at about a 90% in favor of her murder having been related to that of Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Very well-explained, Tom. Thank you.

[caz]

True, Tom, but still pretty severe, by most standards.

So the fatal wound to Eddowes was 'pretty severe', while the fatal wound to Stride, around an hour earlier, was - what? Less 'severe'?

Stride died - but it was nothing serious.

Like Tom, I see plenty of similarities between the Smith and Tabram murders. For starters they were both attacked on Bank Holidays, and almost within spitting distance of one another assuming Smith told the truth about the location. If Tom is right about an internal knife wound in Tabram's case, I would find that extremely significant.

I don't know how delicately the papers described the internal injury inflicted on Emma Smith four months previously - assuming they described it at all. But considering the euphemistic way they mentioned the wound(s) to Tabram's 'private part', I think it has to mean something that the killer's knife in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was similarly fixated on their nether regions. Either the ripper was provided with just enough fodder in the wake of Smith and Tabram to nourish his own violent desires in that direction, or he knew intimately what had been done to them because he had been there and done it himself.

Love,

Caz
x

[robhouse]

About the wound count given by Killeen...

In my opinion, the exact nature of the wounds is a bit unclear. The newspaper reports of the inquest are inconsistent, but by reading all of them, along with Swanson's report, we can get a pretty clear idea of what is going on.

First of all, Killeen stated that there were 39 "punctured wounds"... this clearly means "external wounds", but it is important to note that at least one newspaper account states that Killeen found "found 39 punctured wounds on the body and legs". As I have stated before, this reference to "legs" may be a euphemism for genitalia, and is consistent with Swanson's report that stated there were "39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part."

Killeen further stated that there were 17 puncture wounds in the breast and 9 in the neck. Obviously this leaves 13 wounds unaccounted for. Perhaps some of these were in the legs. One at least we know, was in the "lower portion of the body", and again, in my opinion, this was the newspaper's euphemism for genitalia. One report stated that Killen "described where the wounds had been made", but it does not elaborate. So in my opinion, Killeen stated that there was at least the one wound in the genitalia, but the newspapers did not print this, apart from the Observer, which noted one 3-inch cut “in the lower portion of the body”, and the Evening News that described wounds in "the legs".

It is still unclear whether there were actually any additional stabs in the legs.

As to his enumeration of the puncture wounds to the specific organs:

This had confused many people. Specifically Killen noted the following puntures to internal organs:

left lung - 5
right lung - 2
heart - 1
liver - 5
spleen - 2
stomach - 6

Obviously, this does not add up to 39. It adds up to 21.

Presumably, when Killeen said there were 17 wounds in "the breast", he meant 17 external puncture wounds in the upper torso. In other words, in the chest, meaning "the region of the body between the neck and the abdomen." It is very important to note that a single external puncture wound in the chest could in fact, pierce more than one internal organ. A wound to the heart could also puncture the lung. A wound to the stomach or spleen could also puncture the liver, etc. So it is not necessary that the 17 wounds to the "breast" (upper torso) equal the number of punctures to the organs.

That said, it is possible that wounds to the throat (or throat area) could possibly pierce the lungs.

It is also important to note that the organs noted are higher in the torso than some people imagine, and the punctures could, for the most part, have resulted from external stabs in the upper torso. Killeen did state that the intestines were healthy, so we assume there were no stabs in the abdomen, probably.

In summary, given the information we have, which is limited, it is not possible (in my opinion) to determine exactly where all those 39 external wounds were. The majority (26) were in "the breast" (upper torso?) and throat. There was one other wound in the "lower body" ( a cut 3 inches long)—this was presumably the same wound Swanson mentioned, in "the private part."

As to the other 12 external wounds, they might have been:

a. in the middle torso, low enough to penetrate the stomach, but not the intestines.
b. in the legs. (?)
c. elsewhere on the body (arms, shoulders, etc).
d. Elsewhere in the upper torso, if we assume when Killeen said 17 wounds in "the breast" he DID NOT MEAN the upper torso, but instead meant only "the breasts" specifically.

In short, it is very confusing... to me anyway.

Rob H

[GUT]

G'Day Rob

Presumably, when Killeen said there were 17 wounds in "the breast", he meant 17 external puncture wounds in the upper torso. In other words, in the chest, meaning "the region of the body between the neck and the abdomen." It is very important to note that a single external puncture wound in the chest could in fact, pierce more than one internal organ. A wound to the heart could also puncture the lung. A wound to the stomach or spleen could also puncture the liver, etc. So it is not necessary that the 17 wounds to the "breast" (upper torso) equal the number of punctures to the organs.

Could also be that of the 17 to the breast only

left lung - 5
right lung - 2
heart - 1

hit organs accounting for 9 of the missing 18.

[Tom_Wescott]

So the fatal wound to Eddowes was 'pretty severe', while the fatal wound to Stride, around an hour earlier, was - what? Less 'severe'?

Stride died - but it was nothing serious.

Like Tom, I see plenty of similarities between the Smith and Tabram murders. For starters they were both attacked on Bank Holidays, and almost within spitting distance of one another assuming Smith told the truth about the location. If Tom is right about an internal knife wound in Tabram's case, I would find that extremely significant.

I don't know how delicately the papers described the internal injury inflicted on Emma Smith four months previously - assuming they described it at all. But considering the euphemistic way they mentioned the wound(s) to Tabram's 'private part', I think it has to mean something that the killer's knife in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was similarly fixated on their nether regions. Either the ripper was provided with just enough fodder in the wake of Smith and Tabram to nourish his own violent desires in that direction, or he knew intimately what had been done to them because he had been there and done it himself.

Love,

Caz
x

Hi Caz. It's pointless. Sam, like many others, reached their conclusions about Liz years ago when they thought it still made sense Kidney killed her. Even though that no longer makes sense they're a bit stuck in their thinking so the arguments become more and more far reaching. Her cut was more shallow. So what? The scarf and rocks obviously got in the way. But they don't want to hear that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz. It's pointless. Sam, like many others, reached their conclusions about Liz years ago when they thought it still made sense Kidney killed her.

Not at all, Tom. It's just that I'm not fazed by the "beyond-coincidence" notion of two street murders happening on the same night in a crime-filled neighbourhood. I'm also cognisant of the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, impulsive murders/manslaughters brought about by throat-slashing aren't that uncommon. On those premises alone, I'm more inclined to accept that Stride could have been killed by AN Other - possibly Michael Kidney, but it doesn't have to be him. Might even have been Thomas Sadler Whoever it was, there's not much going for Stride as a definite Ripper victim in my view, which could of course be wrong. I wouldn't personally include Tabram in my "canon", either, but at least the excess exhibited by her killer suggests that he was rather more disturbed than whoever-it-was-dunnit in Berner Street.

Her cut was more shallow. So what? The scarf and rocks obviously got in the way.

I don't think that the guy who unzipped Catherine Eddowes later that night was going to be put off by a scarf, somehow.

[GUT]

G'Day Sam

in the grand scheme of things, impulsive murders/manslaughters brought about by throat-slashing aren't that uncommon.

But the stats show less thab 20 in 1888, so in fact they were uncommon, and so far I can not find another night in 1888 in Whitechapel with two or more murders. I'd love to be shown wrong on this, but so far that's what the figurse are saying to me.

[GUT]

Also murders by strangers appear to be a bit like hens teeth [again around the time in question].

[Sam Flynn]

But the stats show less thab 20 in 1888, so in fact they were uncommon

Hello, GUT. Statistical analysis is a bit of a dark art... I suffered three years of it at university, so I know! For example, it's not simply a matter of picking a year and saying "murders of type X were pretty rare in 1888" - we should consider a bigger sample over a longer period of time. Multiple other factors may need to be considered, e.g. the general availability of knives, population density, socio-economics, etc. Then there's the possibility that potential murders/manslaughters went unreported, or that what might otherwise have been "successful" murders/manslaughters failed, thereby being written off as "accidents". It's all a bit of a minefield.

[Sam Flynn]

Also murders by strangers appear to be a bit like hens teeth [again around the time in question].

...where we know who the culprit was. For obvious reasons, we can't tell whether the perpetrators of unsolved murders were known to their victims or not. And, as we know, there were many unsolved "Whitechapel Murders", to say nothing of the rest.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't think that the guy who unzipped Catherine Eddowes later that night was going to be put off by a scarf, somehow.

Hi Sam. But I don't see that he was put off by the scarf. Stride died. You just feel that he should have had the foresight to make his wound deeper in spite of his obstacles so that we'd have one less point to debate 125 years into the future.

While it's of course possible for two stranger killers to attack at the same time in the same area, it virtually never happens. And then for the two killers to kill in the same way compounds those odds even more. And then for them both to be so efficient...at some point coincidence just stops being a viable alternative.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sunbury]

G'Day Sam



But the stats show less thab 20 in 1888, so in fact they were uncommon, and so far I can not find another night in 1888 in Whitechapel with two or more murders. I'd love to be shown wrong on this, but so far that's what the figurse are saying to me.

This is my first post to the Forum, so hello to Everyone! Though every question I have seems to have been debated in great detail already. Oh well I will still plunge in. Firstly I will state upfront I have absolutely no idea who JtR was.

Stats can be misleading. The chances of two killers is improbable not impossible. After all there was another psychotic serial killer of women in London over the same period of the JtR. What are the statistical odds of that happening?

I refer to the Thames Torso Killer, butchering 4 women from 1887-1889 close to the same area as JtR. Because the bodies were never identified (their heads never found) they never got their 15 minutes of fame in the papers.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...o-murders.html is a good read