Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Wickerman]

As Tom's book details, there is a psychopath operating in a tiny area killing women by raping them with a sharp object. And then the canonical 5 occur in the exact same tiny area to the exact same type of women. To me, it is incredulous to believe there is no connection.

Its a slippery slope though, when you choose to ignore differences between the range of murders, which must begin with Smith and include the Torso group, then end with Coles, you are really promoting the idea of one lone killer responsible for them all.
We can, if we try, create rational arguments to explain every difference.

Is that what you think?

There is nothing about the Tabram murder that speaks of 'Jack' beyond the use of a knife, or knives. And seeing as (so we are told) most men in the East End carried some sort of knife, then even the same weapon is of little to no significance.

All the circumstantial evidence points to soldiers being responsible, the fact they appear to have banded together to cover for each other is only to be expected.

We really wouldn't expect the culprit to own up would we?

[Tom_Wescott]

Caz and others, such as Rob House and Wolf Vanderlinden, have not had much trouble seeing a natural evolution from Tabram to Nichols. I, on the other hand, always have. Looking strictly at the medical evidence I just could not convince myself that they were killed by the same man or men. However, all the discoveries I made OUTSIDE the medical evidence have led me to conclude that there's three possibilities:

1) The same man/men killed Tabram and Nichols.

2) One of the men who killed Tabram (assuming there was two) killed Nichols. This would be he man who had the dagger-like blade.

3) The person who killed Nichols was completely separate from the person who killed Tabram but operating under the same agency. So, the murders were connected but not by the same person.

In short, I do believe there's a connection. And I do believe that Horsnell, Smith, and Tabram were a series committed by the same man/men.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

I havent yet acquired your book Tom, so Im going by the descriptions of the contents that have been made here, but If I understand it correctly you suggest that there were at least 2 serial killers working in Whitechapel at the same time?

If so,...thats a huge start towards getting some real understanding about these crimes. If we can find evidence of multiple killers....which I personally believe is there within the Canonical Group itself, let alone in the cumulative unsolved file,.....then we come closer to seeing the true landscape of that environment. There were many men capable of very nasty deeds around at that time.....if we can accept that scenario....maybe we can look at the Canonicals afresh.

I know we disagree on many points here and there, but I am impressed by the fact that you didnt write a "heres my Jack story and my reasoning" book.

Cheers

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I don't think the evolution of the mo could be quite so extreme in the very next murder, if we are to accept that Nichols was his next victim. You may expect some evolution but to that extreme so soon? I don't know.

All of the other "evidence" you bring up suggesting that JtR could be responsible for Tabram could also suggest JtR was responsible for quite a lot of murders before and after the C5 dating back year and years after, I really don't think JtR was guilty of every murder of a prostitute that happened at night in silence with a knife in the east end of London in and around that time, the evidence for mine is just too broad.

Could it be possible that JtR learned something from Tabram's murder?
There was strangulation, and the back of her head was bruised. (tried to knock her out, silence her?)

and also, from the inquest:
Dr. T. R. Killeen: "His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life."

So, you have a man who maybe decided that next time it would be a better idea to kill them first before mutilating them.

Would that be something possible?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree wholeheartedly with elleryqueen74. Very well put!
I couldn't have penned it down better myself. I have always found it troubelsome to accept such an extreme and rather different evolution in MO during only three weeks, from Tabram to Nichols. To me, it is quite suggestive, that two different killers were involved - the psychology of the killers are different, and so was the handywork. In my view - and I'll always stick to it - Tabram's murder was a frenzied attack out of control. The Nichols murder was controlled and the body parts that were attacked was targeted much more selective.
To me this didnt indicate the same killer at all.

And as elleryqueen points out, there is a general tendency to accuse Jack the Ripper of every possible prostitute killing made in the area during the same time period. Considering the social status of the area, and the large number of prostitutes, it is actually more surprising that MORE gruesome killings DIDN'T happen than they actually did.

But I am sure of, if he'd had the chance he had probably killed Diddles as well.

All the best

[dahler101]

Could it be possible that JtR learned something from Tabram's murder?

Agreed this is very possible. When looking at the evolution of Serial Murder not everything makes sense and in some cases there have been dramatic shifts in M.O. sometimes it's not even murder, for example Albert DeSalvo (The Boston strangler) one of the stranglers victims was surprised by DeSalvo and had a heart attack, for some unexplained reason DeSalvo felt bad and just left the apartment, rather then commit his usual murder/rape. The police didn't even know the woman was a victim until DeSalvo confessed.

One theory is that Tabram's murder happened by accident and in a fit of anger and rage. It is likely that the homicidal rage had been building with Jack for sometime, and he might have frequented the east end fantasizing about what he would do if he were alone with a prostitute.

IF this was a Ripper victim I agree that I would have been in total impulse, and after it was committed he found that he had a thirst for it, and perfected his "fantasy" (in other words what he really wanted to do) the other murders were planned and thought out, he took his time, and was careful not be caught by police, and left no evidence behind that wasn't intended. Of course this all culminates with the killing of Mary Kelly. All the murders seem to "advance" becoming more and more brutal (as if Tabram's murder was not brutal enough).

[Cogidubnus]

So come along folks, we have "evidence" that knife murders are relatively rare in London at this time...this being based on officially-derived statistics... which are often quoted as proving that knife murderers were a rare breed in 19th century London.

But we also now have a separate knife killer for Tabram, a separate one for however many of the canonical five, a separate one for McKenzie, a separate one for Coles, and now a separate one for Wolf Vanderlinden's discovery (Wolf or Wohlen)...not to mention all the torso killings ...and this doesn't include that inconvenient third killing the night of the double event...and...how many more are going to come to light?

I have to ask...just how many rare types of killer were there floating around in a small area of London between 1888 and say 1892...something, somewhere, stinks, and I suspect it may be the official statistics...

Cheers

Dave

[GUT]

So come along folks, we have "evidence" that knife murders are relatively rare in London at this time...this being based on officially-derived statistics... which are often quoted as proving that knife murderers were a rare breed in 19th century London.

But we also now have a separate knife killer for Tabram, a separate one for however many of the canonical five, a separate one for McKenzie, a separate one for Coles, and now a separate one for Wolf Vanderlinden's discovery (Wolf or Wohlen)...not to mention all the torso killings ...and this doesn't include that inconvenient third killing the night of the double event...and...how many more are going to come to light?

I have to ask...just how many rare types of killer were there floating around in a small area of London between 1888 and say 1892...something, somewhere, stinks, and I suspect it may be the official statistics...

Cheers

Dave

G'day Dave

But even if we accept that there were only 11 knife killings in '88, that doesn't exclude 11 killers. The same stats show, from memory, 6 in '87 and '89 [for the same area] and each of those were committed be individual killers

[Cogidubnus]

You may be right GUT, but every time I hear how rare this sort of crime was, something inside of me sort of twitches...but, thereagain, perhaps I'm simply over-suspicious...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day again Dave

Also I'm not sure that 11 in the year, in a fairly small area, really rates as rare.

[GUT]

Just as a BTW in 2012 in all England and Wales there were 193 killings by sharp instrument, unfortunately I cant at the moment break it down further, but will keep looking.

[GUT]

That same year, 2012, city of London had 14 sharp instrument related offences [not murders, just crimes].

Sharp instrument offences include broken bottle and "glassing" offences, it makes 11 in 1888 seem less rare.

[Rosella]

I don't think you can extrapolate too much from Victorian crime statistics, really.
Many weren't collected in any sort of comprehensive way at all, they were often lodged and collated in a way that would be unacceptable today.

[GUT]

I don't think you can extrapolate too much from Victorian crime statistics, really.
Many weren't collected in any sort of comprehensive way at all, they were often lodged and collated in a way that would be unacceptable today.

I won't argue with that, all that I will say is that if 11 is close it isn't that rare compared to today's numbers.

[John G]

An Inconvenient Truth: The Shirley Harrison Approach

Hello,

You Know it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some people will go to to support a pet theory, however undermined it has become.

Thus, crime statistic reveal that murder was very uncommon in Whitechapel. Well, it is argued, the data must be flawed, mustn't it? Never mind the inconvenient fact that no hard evidence is provided to support this contention.

By the way, do you know what Shirley Harrison's response was to clear scientific conclusions that the handwriting in the Maybrick diary didn't remotely match his known handwriting? She argued that his handwriting style must have changed or that he was trying to disguise his own handwriting! Never mind that there's is no evidence to support this hypothesis; but then why let an inconvenient truth get in the way of a pet theory?

Of course, I'm not saying that violent crime wasn't common in Whitechapel. Emma Smith, for instance, was violently assaulted in 1888. However, despite the ferocity of the attack she survived, and was conscious for several days afterwards. JtR afforded his unfortunate victims no such courtesy: like Stride, they were dispatched with ruthless efficiency.

Let's face it, the simple fact is that the murders of the C5 and Tabram were virtually unprecedented. I mean, should you wish to challenge that assertion then try and cite any murders in Whitechapel, either prior to 1888, or post 1888, that bear the simple characteristics of a women being found dead in the street with either her throat severely cut or evidence of abdominal mutilations. Personally I can think of just two: Alice Mckenzie and Frances Coles.

Mind you, what's the betting that some poster will argue that there were probably scores of MJK- style murders since 1888, but they were obviously covered-up by the police, perhaps listed as "accidents" or "self-inflicted" wounds, either to avoid another Ripper scare or to cover up police incompetence.

Or maybe these unrecorded victims were killed by aliens and then transported away to the planet Zog! I mean, what is the evidence that didn't happen?

And what about the multitude of other evidence linking the C5 and Tabram? For instance, Keppel et al, (2005) list 12 separate characteristics, present in these murders, which underpin the Ripper's unique signature, i.e posing, picquerism, overkill, victims immediately incapacitated. Another inconvenient truth, which some seek to ignore?

Or the fact that the murders are linked by the strategy the killer adopted to avoid getting covered in blood, i.e cutting the victims throat when they were close to the ground, coupled with strangulation or suffocation to further restrict the blood flow: in the case of Liz Stride this tactic worked so well that, despite her throat being severely cut, hardly any blood was found on Stride, her clothing, or the surrounding area. Another inconvenient truth to be quietly ignored?

Or the fact that all of these rare/unprecedented crimes occurred in just one year and within one square mile: yet another inconvenient truth?

Or what about selection of murder scene? In Stride's case, for instance, the site of the attack was cloaked in near pitch black darkness, allowing the killer to operate undisturbed. Moreover, as she was killed at the front of the yard the killer had a clear escape route into Berner Street. It is submitted that the other murder sites were also well chosen.

I Haven't even mentioned the fact that, according to modern evidence, a combination of characteristics, involving mutilation and posing, is so rare that it appears in just 1 in 2000 murder case. Or that trauma to the genital area, evident in all of the C5 plus Tabram, except Stride where the killer was almost certainly interrupted,, occurs in less than one in a thousand cases. This is despite the fact that stabbing and cutting wound are relatively common in murders: Keppel et al. (2005)

No doubt some poster will argue that such crimes must have been extremely common in 1888: what's the betting, though, that they fail to offer a shred of supporting evidence?

In fact, some people have gone to such lengths to protect their own theory that it is has even resulted in internal contradictions. Trevor Marriott, for example, argues that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim because of differences in MO. However, he subsequently argues that Lottie Morgan probably was a victim of JtR, or Carl Feigenbaum, which for him means the same thing, even though she was killed in America and by an assailant wielding an axe! I mean at least Liz Stride was killed in Whitechapel by a killer using a knife.

Mind you to be fair to Trevor, in his first book on the subject he does argue that Kelly, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and possibly Tabram were murdered by the same killer. (Marriott, 2005)

I, for one, am willing to embrace inconvenient facts/truths, especially when they accord with the clear empirical evidence. Anyone favour taking the same approach? Or maybe you're more attracted to the Shirley Harrison/Russell Edwards approach to Ripperology!

Cheers,

John