Did JtR change his MO after murdering Martha Tabram

[erobitha]

is called escalation. and pretty much most serial killers exhibit it. millwood and tabram are almost a textbook example in the ripper series of this.

Escalation would be strangulation with post-Morten mutilation. Or even just strangulation. Frenzied stabbing shows anger. There was no post-Morten mutilation which is what he lived for.

The murder of Tabram was pure rage. The murders of the others were not pure rage. It was about power. Completely different psychological mindset.

[Darryl Kenyon]

You rarely do, RJ.

Perhaps you can explain how you think it worked. Killeen was of the opinion that 38 of the wounds were inflicted by an ordinary (I think that’s how he described it) knife while Martha was still alive and it was the wound to the heart caused by something more substantial like a dagger that was fatal.

How do you know it wasn’t a domestic murder and that there weren’t ‘objects’ available?

Well, most domestic murders are at the victims/killers abode or somewhere were one or both the people are familiar with. With possibly an escalation of an argument were say, you are right Gary the killer grabs something at hand - blunt instrument, knife etc. Unless it is pre planned then she would possibly be poisoned etc [ Chapman ] .
Following on from that, Martha didn't live or have any connection to George yard buildings as far as I am aware . But, if some of what Pearly Poll says is believed [ and , yes it is an if ], then we do know she took a punter there.
I don't know if there is concrete evidence off the top of my head that Martha did sell herself to make ends meet, but I will go with Martha being killed by a stranger/punter.
Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby,

I’m sure that’s true, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility - the likelihood in my view - that Tabram was killed by someone else.

Gary

Or the first murder of JTR

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

is called escalation. and pretty much most serial killers exhibit it. millwood and tabram are almost a textbook example in the ripper series of this.

Hi Abby,

I’m sure that’s true, but it doesn’t eliminate the possibility - the likelihood in my view - that Tabram was killed by someone else.

Gary

[Abby Normal]

In my view Tabram was not a JtR victim. It's very easy to say she was murdered in a frenzied knife attack and therefore its good enough. It isn't. And former murder squad detectives should know better, but then what do I know?

Stabbing is not cutting. These are two very distinct and different modes of murder. The C5 were not stabbed, they were cut. Their necks were cut to kill them and then cut open for mutilation (with exception of Stride who we know). To kill with frenzied stabbing to suddenly becoming adept in strangulation and slicing open the carotid artery is too great a shift in MO for my liking.

The second mode is so organised in thinking and execution it is not frenzied at all. What was left behind of the mutilated victims could look like it was frenzied, but he was opening up the genial and abdominal areas because that's where he was most fascinated. He did not cut them open and remove organs in a frenzy.

The psychological mindset from frenzied to more goal-orientated is far too big a shift for me. I think the police and papers were right on Tabram. She was most likely a have been a victim of a disgruntled soldier. The evidence of the bayonet style wounds, the sighting of soldiers with them and nearby. Pearly Poll was not a reliable witness but welcome to 1888, they were hardly bursting at the seams with them.

Jack's goal was always the mutilation and post-mortem activity. Which is why Tabram just does not stack up for me. Serial killers methods can change, but their goals rarely do not.

is called escalation. and pretty much most serial killers exhibit it. millwood and tabram are almost a textbook example in the ripper series of this.

[MrBarnett]

I don't follow you, Gary. It took the murderer 38 stabs with the small knife before he realised it wasn't "up to the job?" There is nothing 'initially' about it, and it is not a domestic murder where objects were lying around.

You rarely do, RJ.

Perhaps you can explain how you think it worked. Killeen was of the opinion that 38 of the wounds were inflicted by an ordinary (I think that’s how he described it) knife while Martha was still alive and it was the wound to the heart caused by something more substantial like a dagger that was fatal.

How do you know it wasn’t a domestic murder and that there weren’t ‘objects’ available?

[rjpalmer]

I did find a domestic example where the killer had used a small knife initially and then when he’d realised it wasn’t up to the job reached for a larger one. That seems the most likely scenario, if two weapons were in fact used on Martha.

I don't follow you, Gary. It took the murderer 38 stabs with the small knife before he realised it wasn't "up to the job?" There is nothing 'initially' about it, and it is not a domestic murder where objects were lying around.

[MrBarnett]

What's the scenario for the use of two knives? One in each hand, and used ambidextrously? One in each hand, and swapped over? One taken out and used first, then put away and the other taken out? I find it very hard to make this play...

M.

Yes, it’s odd. I did find a domestic example where the killer had used a small knife initially and then when he’d realised it wasn’t up to the job reached for a larger one. That seems the most likely scenario, if two weapons were in fact used on Martha.

[Mark J D]

There was just one wound that Killeen thought might have been caused by a dagger. All the others were caused by a knife. The suggestion of a bayonet developed after soldiers were put in the frame. [...]

What's the scenario for the use of two knives? One in each hand, and used ambidextrously? One in each hand, and swapped over? One taken out and used first, then put away and the other taken out? I find it very hard to make this play...

M.

[MrBarnett]

Apart from the soldier aspect, I go along with what Ero says.

[MrBarnett]

One intriguing little nugget is the fact that Barrett described the soldier he saw as having good conduct stripes oh his sleeve and the soldier Poll identified as her ‘corporal’ turned out to be a private with good conduct stripes.

[MrBarnett]

In my view Tabram was not a JtR victim. It's very easy to say she was murdered in a frenzied knife attack and therefore its good enough. It isn't. And former murder squad detectives should know better, but then what do I know?

Stabbing is not cutting. These are two very distinct and different modes of murder. The C5 were not stabbed, they were cut. Their necks were cut to kill them and then cut open for mutilation (with exception of Stride who we know). To kill with frenzied stabbing to suddenly becoming adept in strangulation and slicing open the carotid artery is too great a shift in MO for my liking.

The second mode is so organised in thinking and execution it is not frenzied at all. What was left behind of the mutilated victims could look like it was frenzied, but he was opening up the genial and abdominal areas because that's where he was most fascinated. He did not cut them open and remove organs in a frenzy.

The psychological mindset from frenzied to more goal-orientated is far too big a shift for me. I think the police and papers were right on Tabram. She was most likely a have been a victim of a disgruntled soldier. The evidence of the bayonet style wounds, the sighting of soldiers with them and nearby. Pearly Poll was not a reliable witness but welcome to 1888, they were hardly bursting at the seams with them.

Jack's goal was always the mutilation and post-mortem activity. Which is why Tabram just does not stack up for me. Serial killers methods can change, but their goals rarely do not.

There was just one wound that Killeen thought might have been caused by a dagger. All the others were caused by a knife. The suggestion of a bayonet developed after soldiers were put in the frame. Poll’s alleged soldiers were two hours earlier than Killeen’s estimated TOD. Hers was the only evidence of Martha having been with a soldier. I say Martha, but Poll thought her name was Emma, a woman she claimed to have known for 5 months. What we know about their movements makes that length of acquaintance unlikely. Poll picked out two soldiers who had alibis.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Eddows was the first to receive facial injuries, believed by psychologists to be an indication that the murderer and victim knew each other. Were the slits to the eyes and the V's pointing to the slits a message that she had seen too much?

Those V's were almost certainly cuts, as was the tip of the nose, but let's do a quick thought experiment. Imagine Kate's face had been pushed hard into the pavement, but not directly downward. A certain amount of horizontal force might cause the face to scrape along the ground. Could that conceivably have removed the tip of the nose, and torn skin from the face?

In the case of Stride, the Times said:

The hypothesis that the wound was inflicted after, and not before, the woman fell is supported by the fact that there are severe bruises on her left temple and left cheek, showing that force must have been used to prostrate her, which would not have been necessary had her throat been already cut.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In my opinon she could have been the first victim as she was stabbed 39 times in a frenzied attack, which is how some of the other victims were attacked also in what I would describe as frenzied attacks.

Does 39 stab wounds, necessarily suggest a frenzied attack? Perhaps he stabbed her once, found he enjoyed it, and just kept doing it.

[erobitha]

In my view Tabram was not a JtR victim. It's very easy to say she was murdered in a frenzied knife attack and therefore its good enough. It isn't. And former murder squad detectives should know better, but then what do I know?

Stabbing is not cutting. These are two very distinct and different modes of murder. The C5 were not stabbed, they were cut. Their necks were cut to kill them and then cut open for mutilation (with exception of Stride who we know). To kill with frenzied stabbing to suddenly becoming adept in strangulation and slicing open the carotid artery is too great a shift in MO for my liking.

The second mode is so organised in thinking and execution it is not frenzied at all. What was left behind of the mutilated victims could look like it was frenzied, but he was opening up the genial and abdominal areas because that's where he was most fascinated. He did not cut them open and remove organs in a frenzy.

The psychological mindset from frenzied to more goal-orientated is far too big a shift for me. I think the police and papers were right on Tabram. She was most likely a have been a victim of a disgruntled soldier. The evidence of the bayonet style wounds, the sighting of soldiers with them and nearby. Pearly Poll was not a reliable witness but welcome to 1888, they were hardly bursting at the seams with them.

Jack's goal was always the mutilation and post-mortem activity. Which is why Tabram just does not stack up for me. Serial killers methods can change, but their goals rarely do not.