On the Radio

[Tom_Wescott]

Emily Horsnell, Emma Smith, and Martha Tabram, were all killed by the same man/men. Either this man/men disappeared right as the Ripper entered the scene, or these murders are indeed connected.

If you go just by the medical evidence, than Tabram was not a Ripper victim. I get that. But everything other than the medical evidence argues a connection.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

You will notice from the outset that I said Tabram was "probably not" a Ripper victim but there was an "outside chance" of her being included. It's certainly not something that I've taken fully for granted. However, based on everything we know, I'm only drawn to one conclusion. That the majority of voters believe her to be (which accidentally includes myself ), doesn't have any bearing on the truth. 59 Casebook members can't be wrong, eh?

Oh yes, they certainly can!

What I was after here was to some extent your certainty that the Ripper was an organized kiler - which I think we can not prove. As I said, I am myself of the opinion that he WAS probably an organized killer, but I am wary of being too certain about matters.

The Tabram case has had a differing impact on Casebookers over time. She has gone very much from not having been a credible victim of the Ripper to almost being included in a "canonical six" version. That in itself is something I find interesting.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Some will agree. Some will disagree - like me. That should be enough to tell you that it is and remains an unresolved issue. In the thread about whether she was a Ripper victim or not, seven out of ten have actually voted yes. So more than two thirds of this community disagree with you.

You will notice from the outset that I said Tabram was "probably not" a Ripper victim but there was an "outside chance" of her being included. It's certainly not something that I've taken fully for granted. However, based on everything we know, I'm only drawn to one conclusion. That the majority of voters believe her to be (which accidentally includes myself ), doesn't have any bearing on the truth. 59 Casebook members can't be wrong, eh?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Is that not what I said?

If we take the amateurish stabbing of Tabram with the careful evisceration of Chapman, we should see something in the middle with Nichols if we're following this train of thought. We do not. Whoever murdered Nichols was an organised killer with a certain level of skill and experience. Did the killer pick this up in a few weeks?

Actually, many would say that killing out in the open streets is more disorganized than organized. I only just saw Bill Beadle on Youtube saying that the deeds clearly pointed to a psychotic killer.
The fact is, we cannot lay down whether the killer was organized or disorganized, since there are traits from both sides.

If it´s any comfort to you, I also think we are dealing with an organized killer. Couldn´t prove it, though!

What I was after in my last post is that it would be hard to find a mid-level killing between Tabram and Nichols/Chapman. Once you open a woman up, you open her up. Once you reach in and take innards you reach in and take innards. It´s either or. And there are many things connecting the murders that are not all physically defined - the utter silence, the overkill, the thrown-up clothing, the signs of strangulation, the targetting of middle-aged prostitutes...

I would expect to see the same basic signatures of the canonicals: an attack on the throat and a focus on mutilation. The Ripper was a butcher, he had the know-how required for committing these murders, and yet we're supposed to believe that Tabram was an epiphany, whereby slicing the victim's throat instead of stabbing them a few dozen times would be a wiser course of action? I think he would be aware of this from the start.

We may need to be careful to ask any killer to copy his own deeds time and again. In the twenties, in Düsseldorf, the police hunted for one knife stabber, one strangler, one killer who used a pair of scissors and one who bashed in his victims skulls with a hammer.
It was the same man - Peter Kürten.
When they found him, they realized that they had also caught the person who had been setting fire to houses all over town. And killed animals, to drink their blood.
Himself, Kürten fantasized about poisoning the whole town.

What should we postulate his next deed would have been like, if he had not been caught?

With Tabram we see more signs of uncontrollable rage, a distinctly different MO, and two possible murder weapons (implying that this was a gang hit or she was killed by the two soldiers). That's enough for me.

Some will agree. Some will disagree - like me. That should be enough to tell you that it is and remains an unresolved issue. In the thread about whether she was a Ripper victim or not, seven out of ten have actually voted yes. So more than two thirds of this community disagree with you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Harry D]

Why Tabram and Chapman, specifically? Should we not squeeze Nichols in between them?

Is that not what I said?

If we take the amateurish stabbing of Tabram with the careful evisceration of Chapman, we should see something in the middle with Nichols if we're following this train of thought. We do not. Whoever murdered Nichols was an organised killer with a certain level of skill and experience. Did the killer pick this up in a few weeks?

If there was a victim BEFORE Nichols and if it was not Tabram - what would you expect to see? A ten inch cut to the abdomen and a stab to the throat?

I would expect to see the same basic signatures of the canonicals: an attack on the throat and a focus on mutilation. The Ripper was a butcher, he had the know-how required for committing these murders, and yet we're supposed to believe that Tabram was an epiphany, whereby slicing the victim's throat instead of stabbing them a few dozen times would be a wiser course of action? I think he would be aware of this from the start.

Both crimes have a lot in common, actually. Not that it must mean that they were perpetrated by the same man, but nothing much tells us that they weren´t either.

With Tabram we see more signs of uncontrollable rage, a distinctly different MO, and two possible murder weapons (implying that this was a gang hit or she was killed by the two soldiers). That's enough for me.

[Fisherman]

Would you honestly say that the killing of Nichols betrays a transition between Tabram & Chapman?

Why Tabram and Chapman, specifically? Should we not squeeze Nichols in between them?

Nichols had stabs to her genitalia and some seven smallish cuts to the lower abdomen, apart from the cut that opened her up. She had signs of throttling about her.
Tabram had thirtynine stabs, and one of them was a shallow cut to the lower abdomen. She had signs of throttling about her.

If there was a victim BEFORE Nichols and if it was not Tabram - what would you expect to see? A ten inch cut to the abdomen and a stab to the throat?

Both crimes have a lot in common, actually. Not that it must mean that they were perpetrated by the same man, but nothing much tells us that they weren´t either.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natasha]

Hey Abby,

There's three points from your post that I'd be willing to concede:





I find those to be the only similarities worthy of note, yet not damning enough to connect her to the others. With respect, the rest are somewhat misleading. That Tabram was a whore is not in and of itself a connection, since prostitution is generally a dirty game that attracts violence, especially in a dump like Whitechapel. As for the matter of it being unsolved, on that basis we could rule in Smith, Mackenzie, Coles, Thames Torsos et al. Also, while a knife was used in Tabram's murder, it was not the same kind used by the Ripper. No focus on the throat or the genitalia area, either. And as for overkill, what overkill? Jack was an efficient murderer, only taking one or two slashes to the throat to put his victim down.

There's an outside chance that Tabram was a Ripper victim, but, for me, there are too many variables and leaps of faith that have to be allowed for. Though I keep hearing this talk of Jack refining his technique, this wasn't an evolution of technique, it was a revolution. Would you honestly say that the killing of Nichols betrays a transition between Tabram & Chapman? I sure don't. That kind of dramatic change in MO doesn't ring true to me and that's why I remain sceptical.

Hi Harry

I agree with you that Tabram was not a ripper victim. I suspect the culprit who killed Tabram had refused to pay for having intercourse with her. Prostitution is indeed a job that attracts violence, rape etc. So I have counted her out as being a JTR victim

[Harry D]

Hey Abby,

There's three points from your post that I'd be willing to concede:

Signs of strangulation

Skirt hiked up (this is the clincher)

Also fits the pattern sequence-victim killed beginning of month, then the next at end of month, then the next at beginning of month etc.

I find those to be the only similarities worthy of note, yet not damning enough to connect her to the others. With respect, the rest are somewhat misleading. That Tabram was a whore is not in and of itself a connection, since prostitution is generally a dirty game that attracts violence, especially in a dump like Whitechapel. As for the matter of it being unsolved, on that basis we could rule in Smith, Mackenzie, Coles, Thames Torsos et al. Also, while a knife was used in Tabram's murder, it was not the same kind used by the Ripper. No focus on the throat or the genitalia area, either. And as for overkill, what overkill? Jack was an efficient murderer, only taking one or two slashes to the throat to put his victim down.

There's an outside chance that Tabram was a Ripper victim, but, for me, there are too many variables and leaps of faith that have to be allowed for. Though I keep hearing this talk of Jack refining his technique, this wasn't an evolution of technique, it was a revolution. Would you honestly say that the killing of Nichols betrays a transition between Tabram & Chapman? I sure don't. That kind of dramatic change in MO doesn't ring true to me and that's why I remain sceptical.

[Cogidubnus]

Every serial killer has to start somewhere...in reality, in many cases in adolescence with animals, and develop from there...but not necessarily...

But that first stab (sorry!) at killing a real human being...who knows...the technique may be lacking...the eventual desires may be undeveloped (repetition itself might stimulate for example)...or a serial killer, even one with great intelligence and advanced ideas might easily make a false start and be bright enough to start again with a fresh slate...

But even without a huge false start, and even with constant desires, he might hone his technique as he went along...we all do this with repetitive tasks so it's nothing more than human nature after all...

All the best

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby,



How many is too many?



Not sure you can call using a completely different MO as 'refining' one's technique. Tabram's killer was a wild stabber who went into overkill. No throat slashing, no slicing, no attempt to eviscerate the victim, nothing in his actions to link them with the other murders.



Needless to say, Ripperology is such a highly contentious field that even if we did have an 'Anderson Five' instead of a McNaughton, nothing would be set in stone.

Hi Harry
How many is too many? Let's see:

Prostitute targeted
Killed with knife
Signs of strangulation
Same immediate area
Same time of night
Same immediate timeframe
On holiday or weekend
Silent kill
Overkill
Unsolved
Private area targeted
Victim on back, legs slightly apart
Skirt hiked up (this is the clincher)

Also fits the pattern sequence-victim killed beginning of month, then the next at end of month, then the next at beginning of month etc.

Most if not all serial killers don't start with a fully formed MO. Nor do they necessarily stick with the same one. The ripper probably started off with a few tentative attacks on women with a knife -perhaps Ada Wilson and Annie Millwood, and achieved his first successful kill with Martha. He knew he wanted to stab and kill women and use his knife. He was just unsure about how to go about it or how far he wanted to go-but learned about both as he went along.

[Harry D]

Hey Abby,

Too many similarities with the other murders.

How many is too many?

Difference can be attributed to the fact that Serial killers are known to refine there technique which may appear as a different MO, but only really just a stage in their progression.

Not sure you can call using a completely different MO as 'refining' one's technique. Tabram's killer was a wild stabber who went into overkill. No throat slashing, no slicing, no attempt to eviscerate the victim, nothing in his actions to link them with the other murders.

And again if it weren't for mcnaughten it would be the c6 which I also think it should be.

Needless to say, Ripperology is such a highly contentious field that even if we did have an 'Anderson Five' instead of a McNaughton, nothing would be set in stone.

[Abby Normal]

Too many similarities with the other murders. Difference can be attributed to the fact that Serial killers are known to refine there technique, which may appear as a different MO, but only really just a stage in their progression.

And again if it weren't for mcnaughten it would be the c6 which I also think it should be.

[Prosector]

I agree. All of the others were by severance of the great vessels of the neck implying at least a reasonable knowledge of anatomy. There was no attempt at that in Tabram's case and the weapons used were different. Apart possibly from the last one, when I believe there was a personal motive, there was no uncontrolled frenzy displayed as there was in the Tabram case. I believe that JTR may have got the idea from the Tabram case but he was not the perpetrator.
Prosector

[Harry D]

Tabram's murder seems too frenzied and has none of Jack's usual signatures. Obviously the counter-argument is that Tabram was a 'trial run' of sorts before the killer could refine his technique. Would the murderer really make such a radical change in MO from one victim to the next? I prefer to place her in the Emma Smith category as a gang hit rather than a Ripper victim.

[Fisherman]

Possibly not. If it wasn't for MacNaghten's 'definite' claim of 5 victims and 5 victims only I suspect that much more credence would be given to the possibility that Tabram was killed by the same man as Nichols and Chapman.

Seventy per cent of the voters on the ajdacent thread about Martha Tabram, "Ripper victim or not?", have gone for a "Yes!" on that question, so we´re pretty much already there, I think, Colin!

All the best,
Fisherman