Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[Losmandris]

Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram?

Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) strangled to death some of his victims and stabbed to death others. His first attack involved a sock filled with rocks as opposed to a hammer which became more common. In the event Sutcliffe hadn't been apprehended, those arguing the MO doesn't change would not have placed all of his victims at his door.

Those types of murders are highly unusual, and it would have been extremely unusual for two men or more to be at liberty in West Yorkshire murdering women unknown to them.

Here we have an empirical study of the behaviour of serial killers. The conclusion states the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied.

Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (jaapl.org)

Notwithstanding numerous anecdotal case reports, ritual and signature have rarely been studied empirically. In a national sample of 38 offenders and their 162 victims, we examined behavioral and thematic consistency, as well as the evolution and uniqueness of these crime scene actions. The notion that serial sexual murderers engage in the same rituals and leave unique signatures at every scene was not supported by our data. In fact, the results suggest that the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied.

It's worth mentioning that the murder of women in the circumstances of those attributed to the WM, was extremely rare in Victorian London. They occurred in a narrow geographic area. The prospect of two or more men running around murdering women in similar circumstances in this narrow geographic area and at broadly the same time, is a slim one.

On balance, I would say the WM murdered more than five women and I'd include Martha as one of them.

An excellent conclusion. One I am inclined to agree with.

[Fleetwood Mac]

An excellent conclusion. One I am inclined to agree with.

I reckon the idea that the MO and signature must be the same at every crime scene is an error of judgement.

Similarly, it's generally believed that 'the awful glut at Mary's murder' would have been too much for him. When does this happen with serial killers? When do their minds unravel to the point that they need committing to an asylum? I think it's much more likely that the WM moved out of the area or was apprehended for another crime, and as least as likely that he simply stopped committing murder.

And, it is widely believed that after the murder of Mary the WM could not have gone back to murdering women without similar levels of mutilation. I don't go along with that. As the United States study of empirical data concludes: the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied.

[Ms Diddles]

I reckon the idea that the MO and signature must be the same at every crime scene is an error of judgement.

Similarly, it's generally believed that 'the awful glut at Mary's murder' would have been too much for him. When does this happen with serial killers? When do their minds unravel to the point that they need committing to an asylum? I think it's much more likely that the WM moved out of the area or was apprehended for another crime, and as least as likely that he simply stopped committing murder.

And, it is widely believed that after the murder of Mary the WM could not have gone back to murdering women without similar levels of mutilation. I don't go along with that. As the United States study of empirical data concludes: the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied.

Yeah, I'd go with that too.

I've always thought the "awful glut" idea was a bit of a quaint Victorian notion and highly unlikely.

Edit: Interesting link. Thanks for posting!

[Losmandris]

Yeah, I'd go with that too.

I've always thought the "awful glut" idea was a bit of a quaint Victorian notion and highly unlikely.

Edit: Interesting link. Thanks for posting!

I also agree. It was just their way of explaining things away. He was probably locked up for something far more petty and just died I think.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, I'd go with that too.

I've always thought the "awful glut" idea was a bit of a quaint Victorian notion and highly unlikely.

Edit: Interesting link. Thanks for posting!

hi Diddles
yes it is a myth that serial killers never stop of their own accord or that their MO never changes. Kemper, the GSK and BTK not only all stopped of their own accord, but also changed their MO.

[Ms Diddles]

hi Diddles
yes it is a myth that serial killers never stop of their own accord or that their MO never changes. Kemper, the GSK and BTK not only all stopped of their own accord, but also changed their MO.

Yeah, Abby!

I would say that F.M's "complex and varied" quote above sums it up pretty nicely.

[Ms Diddles]

I also agree. It was just their way of explaining things away. He was probably locked up for something far more petty and just died I think.

....or moved away, or got back on his ship or simply stopped for reasons of his own.

Alas, I guess we'll never know for sure!

[Losmandris]

I think this is the issue with the Tabram case. We fall into the of thinking as the Victorians did i.e. not considering her a victim, the soldier story plays into this for sure. I think if it happened in recent/more recent times Martha would certainly be considered a victim of the same killer. Getting caught up in one MO is a bit shortsighted considering all the modern evidence to the contrary.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Getting caught up in one MO is a bit shortsighted considering all the modern evidence to the contrary.

The other error of judgement is in that we assume the East End was more murderous than it actually was.

Aye, there was more petty crime: pick pocketing and theft driven largely by poverty and casual violence driven by booze and the pubs being open most of the day, but murder was rare. One man murdering women on the streets was rare enough, and two in the same location at broadly the same time was extremely rare.

[MrBarnett]

The other error of judgement is in that we assume the East End was more murderous than it actually was.

Aye, there was more petty crime: pick pocketing and theft driven largely by poverty and casual violence driven by booze and the pubs being open most of the day, but murder was rare. One man murdering women on the streets was rare enough, and two in the same location at broadly the same time was extremely rare.

So, presumably Emma Smith was also a victim of JTR?

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, presumably Emma Smith was also a victim of JTR?

Why do you ask this?

[Wickerman]

I think this is the issue with the Tabram case. We fall into the of thinking as the Victorians did i.e. not considering her a victim, the soldier story plays into this for sure. I think if it happened in recent/more recent times Martha would certainly be considered a victim of the same killer. Getting caught up in one MO is a bit shortsighted considering all the modern evidence to the contrary.

I would think today 'they' would see the multiple stab wounds as indicative of rage.
As if Tabram had been ridiculing a client, and it reached an uncontrollable pitch that he did the only thing he could to shut her up.
We don't see this level of frienzy in any of the later murders, it could indicate immaturity, his pride had been hurt.

A penknife was standard issue in the military, but only higher ranks - Sergeants?, and above were permitted to carry arms - a dagger.
It reads to me like a young private got his pride hurt and did something stupid, overreacting, and his sergeant heard the commotion and had to come to the rescue. There was nothing he could do to save the woman, with so many stab wounds. He chose to finish the job with his dagger, and likely kicked the private's arse all the way back to Barracks.
...or something along those lines.

[MrBarnett]

Why do you ask this?

It's worth mentioning that the murder of women in the circumstances of those attributed to the WM, was extremely rare in Victorian London. They occurred in a narrow geographic area. The prospect of two or more men running around murdering women in similar circumstances in this narrow geographic area and at broadly the same time, is a slim one.

[MrBarnett]

Unless the blind man who attacked his guide in Spitalfields market, knocking her to the ground and repeatedly stabbing her, was also Tabram’s killer, there were at least two men capable of that kind of violence in that area in the autumn of 1888. And if he hadn’t been stopped by the crowd, his victim may well have died.

A young Hungarian woman had been been violated in an almost identical manner to Emma Smith, in 1885 (I think). That was in Backchurch Lane. And in 1901, Anne Austin suffered a similar fate, although her killer employed a knife rather than a stick. That took place in Dorset Street, as did the 1897 attack on Margaret Sullivan, William Crossingham’s wife-to-be, who was stabbed in the head and the side by, an employee of Crossingham’s daughter. Three men were involved in that attack and one of them tried to take the knife from the man who had it so that he could ‘finish her off’. And of course, there are other examples : Roman, Robert’s etc.

So while such violence was rare, I think it’s unwise to assume that all such attacks were likely to have been carried out by the same man.

[Wickerman]

One of the Boston Strangler's victims was stabbed to death in a similar frienzy, the only one not strangled.
The reason he gave was the same - she was taunting him, and she wouldn't shut up. He lost his temper with her.