|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 213
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |       |
Robert,
I'm sorry you didn't grasp my point, but judging from the medical reports, the throat cutting was relatively clean, purposeful and done in a manner to minimize exposure to blood. Cutting a throat to "bleed" an animal can be learned by hunters, farm folk and slaughterers, among others. Whoever slit the throat of Polly Nicholls knew what he was doing and most likely had done it before.
I have little interest in most serial killers so I can't pretend to write with any authority, but I do seem to recall that an earlier torture and killing of small animals was an element in the history of some of that breed.
Tabram? Probably not, but I remain open to the possibility as well as to the theories of others on the subject.
Don. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 1:56 pm: | |
G-
"To claim that killers follow a general rule of behaviour is to construct rules for and assume things about killers we don't know anything about" --- isn't this exactly what you are doing? How is saying "I personally found the time span between Tabram's and Nichol's murder too short for such a change in the important parts of the MO" not an example of basing your ideas on a general rule about the behavior of serial killers?
And finally, if DeSalvo is found not to be the Boston Strangler, I will eat my hat.
Gee Glenn, I am sorry I got you so riled up that you want to come over here to "smack me in the head"? That's real nice. In many many posts you have stated things in a matter of fact way, that are only your opinion, so maybe that is why people are constantly pointing this out to you. You want me to copy and paste examples? You say things like such-and-such is "definitely true". This has been a major objection I have had to your posts in the past, and yes we have been over this many times before. Most notably on the Stride boards where you said numerous times that there is absolutely no way that Schwartz's assaulting man is Jack the Ripper. So once you stop making statements like this I will stop criticizing you for doing it. It sometimes comes off like you don't respect other people's opinions. I respect your opinions, I just disagree with your way of expressing them as if your opinions are facts.
RH
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Rob,
quote:isn't this exactly what you are doing? How is saying "I personally found the time span between Tabram's and Nichol's murder too short for such a change in the important parts of the MO" not an example of basing your ideas on a general rule about the behavior of serial killers?
It's not! Note the word "personally", which means it's all based on a personal opinions and interpretations, and what I relate to as common sense in this case for me. It is not based on theoretical ground rules or ready-made conceptions. Furthermore, my opinion could be completely wrong, but it is what feels true to me at the moment.
I have never said that things are "definitely true" this past month, since I returned from London. I have learnt my lesson; unfortunately others haven't, but are still stuck in their thinking. It is my belief, that if we look at the case from other angles than those we are uncritically taking for granted and picks up from the general Jack the Ripper myth, we can see the facts in a different light. That doesen't say it may lead us in the right direction, but keeping an open mind about alternative solutions can never be bad.
I can write things like "probably", "perhaps", "in my view", "in my personal opinion" etc. until my fingers drop dead on the keyboard. It doesen't help - people continue to disregard it. It is bloody frustrating. And the funny part of it all, is that those who complains about it usually themselves are those who are most sure of themselves and the correctness of their "facts" (do I need to mention any names?). That's just so dishonest that I don't know if I shall laugh or cry. When will we see those individuals even attempt to challenge and doubt their own opinions?
To make such irrelevant comments (irrelevant because it is obvious anyway that no one can be sure of anything in the Ripper case - everything here is personal interpretations even though it isn't stated) instead of looking at the arguments is disappointing, and sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Look at my previous posts above, for example. Nowhere in those does it indicate - unless somewhere in your head - that I am regarding my views as general facts; you based that on my old posts, instead of even bother about the content of the ones above. That is not just sad - it is criminal. So you can stop critizising me for doing it, and start reading my posts instead.
What is also irritating about it, is that it drives away the focus from the real issues, which is a shame. I could be rude, and imply that such a childish approach could originate from a lack of substantial arguments, but I think that's unnecessary ...
The ideas proposed here, concerning the controversial and challenging notion that the Ripper murders and the Whitechapel murders isn't the same thing, and that Jack only may have disposed of three women instead of five, six or seven, has been put forward by far greater analysts than me (suggesting the possible exclusion of Tabram, Stride and Kelly). I also urge you to read Alex Chisholm's interesting essay on the subject.
quote:And finally, if DeSalvo is found not to be the Boston Strangler, I will eat my hat.
As I said, right or wrong, it is still under serious debate. I am no expert on The Boston Strangler, and I have no opinion on the matter, but I'll have the salt ready for you, just in case ...
Now, can we get back to Tabram (although I really don''t have much more to add...)?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 21, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 703
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
I think Robert was making some excellent points actually.By researching previous court cases in Whitechapel we may indeed come across
information about someone building a reputation for themselves in arson attacks,indecent assault,
violent behaviour,knife attacks or cruelty to small animals.
This was the main gist of the post and to digress from it is a pity in my view.
This is not meant to diminish the outstanding contributions that Glenn and Donald make.
But Robert makes some very valid points.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
Natalie,
There is nothing wrong in that suggestion, and it is also an old thought. If that would be possible, I think as well that such an effort could prove interesting. I am not sure if such police documents exists today, though, or if they survived the blitz, for example.
I fail to see its immediate relevance to Martha Tabram, though.
We were discussing her inclusion or exclusion in connection with the Ripper line-up, and differences in MO:s of a serial killer. That was the initial reason for the controversy.
But I have nothing against it; I belong to those who have proposed it as well.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 21, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Damn, the things I miss when I stay away for a few days! Sounds like we've been having quite the shivaree.
Personally, I think Martha Tabram was Jack's first victim. However I have little to go on other than some coincidences and a gut feeling. I must admit Glenn that your views are compelling.
As to Albert DeSlavo being the Boston Strangler, please bear in mind that He was not convicted of the stranglings he was convicted other sexual offences. I don't have the information handy right now. Also another inmate of the same prison Desalvo was sent to later confessed to being the strangler. The authorities didn't believe the other inmate but there is enough reasonable doubt that i believe DeSalvo would never have been convicted of the stranglings in a totally fair trial. If I were a gambling man, I would bet that he wasn't the strangler. Bet he didn't do Martha though! Kindest regards, Neil |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Glenn,
"I could be rude"
What, and calling people who dare to disagree with you "dishonest," "criminal," "stupid," "unintelligent," "childish," and so forth all just within the last 24 hours isn't rude?
I mean, come on, be honest with yourself here, you certainly are not the model of polite discussion.
"Nowhere in those does it indicate - unless somewhere in your head - that I am regarding my views as general facts;"
Maybe it's your English as a second language skills, but your writing constantly claims straight out that your view is the only correct one, and you frequently state that anyone disagreeing with you is just too stubborn or intellectually challenged to believe it. Now, seriously, if you weren't so dead set that you and only you were right, you would have no basis to claim that people who disagree with you are beneath your supposed intellectual skills.
In fact, this whole rant about how people should have an open mind is very strange coming from someone lashing out at people daring to think that maybe Jack killed more than the canonical list. It would appear that your definition of open minded would be anyone who agrees with you.
I don't know, Glenn, I don't like arguing with you, but it seems like there's no way around it if we want to have a discussion about new possibilities in the case. People will continue to disagree with you and you'll just have to accept it. If you want to continue to call us names, that's your issue, but at least give up the pretense that you are a polite and open minded.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
I just don't get it, Dan, and I just don't care.
"... dishonest," "criminal," "stupid," "unintelligent," "childish and so forth ...": I wasn't using those words because people disagreed with me; once again you are twisting everything I say. People are disagreeing with me everyday and I think that's great fun. But I get ticked off when I am being attacked for having a certain opinion, and then having it thrown in my face, that I think I am the only one being right, when I am constantly trying to challenge my own views. I am not the one having problems here; on the contrary, it seems like others here finds it problematic with opinions that go against the general Jack the Ripper myths. Disagreements regarding the facts is something else - that I can handle. Besides, you shouldn't talk ...
You are completely hallucinating. If you read my posts correctly, you would notice that I usually put up several alternatives, also some that don't corroborate my own views. When did you last do that? Like... never?
It just implies that you just don't read my posts, except for the passages that suits you. It's not only wrong -- it is deliberate lies.
Yes, I am open-minded about most of the aspects of the case (except some suspect theories), but I have never said that I am polite, (where did you get that idea?) because I don't think I am, unfortunately -- but at least I'm in good company.
No, finally to the subject of this thread:
I have really said all that I've got to say, but I'll take it once more, so that even a demented parrot can understand it:
I can't exclude that Martha Tabram or Annie Millwood were Ripper victims, although I personally think there are relevant reasons to question this idea.
This is what I feel is speaking against Tabram's inclusion:
- Her throat not being throat
- No mutilation, but instead several numbers of random stab marks, nothing similar to the approach of the Ripper
- A different kind of knife, probably a pen knife and possibly a second sharp weapon (although that is not confirmed); not the long pointed knife we see being used on the generally accepted canonical Ripper victims
- last seen with soldiers (may not be a significant clue, though, since the time lapse between this sighting and the murder is quite long)
This what I think is speaking in favour of her inclusion:
- Strangulation. Fits parts of the Ripper's method
- Found murdered in the vicinity of some of the other murders
- Similar wounds like those on Annie Millwood, which could indicate a repeat killer "taking care of" both of them, which could also strengthen the case for those who believes the Ripper did it, unless it was pure coincidence.
Now, that is two sides of the same coin, as I see it - others may see different elements than those I described above and I may have forgotten some. Which points of the above one feel is more or less important in order to come to a conclusion, is up to the individual. I feel the "against" is more compelling, since I regard the MO of greater importance, since the forensics is among the only real - and very few - facts we have. But that is just me.
Not that I think the above in any way satisfies my critics as far as my alleged non-objectivity and dishonesty is concerned, but that is the best I can do. I am more than willing to discuss the points above - otherwise I have done my bit.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 541
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:01 pm: | |
You know, I bet if y'all were girls, there would be posts going "meow" and several references to cat fights.
I bet if you were girls, you'd have a vicarious fan club choosing up sides and posting snide comments in support or against.
But you're not girls, therefore, it's just debate, isn't it?
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
Hi Neil,
Well, ya know, that's how it is - the action usually happen when you're away. It's so typical.  Welcome back, though.
Thanks for at least finding my points a bit compelling (that is always something), and thanks for your views upon the De Salvo case.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Ally,
From your description, I must say I find the girl's "cat fights" more compelling, fan clubs and everything ...
Still, no one has yet pulled my hair, though.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 820
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:25 am: | |
Hi,
One of the main reasons, I consider Tabram to have been a victim of 'Jack', is the fact that he killed her inside a building, in very cramped conditions, rather than down some alleyway, or backyard.
Why Tabram led her killer into that place is bewildering, she did not live there, and to have nookie on a small landing is not the most convienient place.
Mayby her killer led her there, if so he would have been familiar with the inside of the place,
I put it down to being Tabram was the first , and her killer, wss reluctant to take a chance on murder outside in the streets,
I believe that the reason she did not suffer the injurys of the others, was the lack of space, in which he was able to work in.
Look at the picture of the first floor landing of george yard, to throttle her, lay her down, and to stab her multiple times, is no mean feat.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:26 am: | |
Hi Richard,
Well, the fact that it was in a building could really mean nothing. I guess the prostitutes used whatever place they could get, and I fail to see why exactly that point should point at the Ripper. A "nookie" on a small landing doesen't seem that odd to me; it must have been more comfortable than doing it in an alley.
However, if Tabram was his first, your point about him starting his spree inside instead of taking his chances on the streets, is a valid and good point. That argument i can buy.
Still, I think places like George Yard buildings would be a rather common kind of location to use for these services for any prostitute. And I don't think the lack of space is a reasonable enough explanation for the absence of mutilation. I fail to see why so a lot of space would be needed for that.
Of course, we'll never know for sure. Maybe it happened just as you say anyway. Everything's possible.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:38 am: | |
"it seems like others here finds it problematic with opinions that go against the general Jack the Ripper MYTHS."
"I have learnt my lesson"
Apparently not. Need I say more?
RH |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:43 am: | |
In case anyone misses the obvious point here, Glenn is now referring to my notion (that Tabram was quite possibly a JTR victim, and also there there were quite possibly other earlier attacks) as a "myth". Thanks Glenn. How is this not a perfect example of what I was talking about before?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
No, Rob
You are wrong as usual regarding my intentions.
When I referred to Ripper mythology, I meant that it is provocative in itself to suggest alternatives that breaks the boundaries of accepted Ripper notions. That doesen't mean those notions have to be incorrect, neither yours. I guess "myths" was a bad choice of words, although I am not the first to use it in this exact context.
And I wasn't referring to your beliefs in particular; not everything I write has to do with you, although you obviously wants to interpret it that way. I was speaking in general terms, though, but if you feel hit, well ...
Once again you continue to rave on about choice of words and personal agendas, instead of discussing the case and once again you totally ignore the for-and-against Tabram passage I put up for the sake of the discussion. But you have obviously already made up your mind?
Have you really nothing more to say about Tabram?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
No, I have nothing more to say about Tabram. My opinion on Tabram is as I stated before... that it is a good possibility (say 40-60& chance) that she was a JTR victim. And also that is is a good possibility that JTR committed previous attacks that were not consistent with his generally accepted MO.
"There is nothing wrong in that suggestion, and it is also an old thought. If that would be possible, I think as well that such an effort could prove interesting. I am not sure if such police documents exists today, though, or if they survived the blitz, for example. I fail to see its immediate relevance to Martha Tabram, though. "
These documentation of the crimes (Millwood etc) are themselves, quite possibly the "police documents" you are referring to here. That was my point. And that is also why they are being discussed in this Tabram thread in the first place. Because if you accept my notion of an early evolution in technique, then you can see how Tabram's murder fits in this evolution. Milwood was attacked with a clasp knife, similar perhaps to the type of knife used against Tabram. But then she was also strangled and attacked by a frenzied series of attacks on the abdomen. This to me could be a pretty clearly delineated evolution in technique.
Regarding your initial response to my claim that you are in fact basing your opinion on a "general rule about the behavior of serial killers". You responded:
"It's not! Note the word "personally", which means it's all based on a personal opinions and interpretations, and what I relate to as common sense in this case for me. It is not based on theoretical ground rules or ready-made conceptions. Furthermore, my opinion could be completely wrong, but it is what feels true to me at the moment.
This response is a clear indication that you misinterpreted my argument in the first place. In this context it does not matter that you interjected the word "personally"... it does not have anything to do with whether this is just your personal opinion or not. The relevant fact is that you are basing your opinion on your own "general rule about the behavior of serial killers" that their MO does not change. So I had posted an excerpt with from an interview with Ted Bundy in which he specifically discusses the evolution of his technique, and you dismissed this saying that we cannot use this to form a general rule for serial killers. I agree we cannot. But it seems to disprove YOUR "general rule" does it not?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1611
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Rob,
OK, at least we are getting back to the core of the subject at last.
I can agree with that Tabram and Millwood show significant similarities and I have also several times stated, that this particular point very well could speak for the possibility of a repeat killer murdering them both, making it easier to accept the "early Ripper attempt" notion and therefore also the evolution theory (see my larger post above). That is both logical and plausible.
I still see the lack of a slit throat and the random stabbing as a great problem for Tabram's Ripper candidacy, though, but that doesen't mean I disregard completely the point you refer to. As I said, I can't rule out that the Ripper was an evolutionary killer - it is a generally accepted notion and it could very well be right - but we can't know it for sure. This doesen't apply on all killers, so when I see details in the forensics that may point otherwise I naturally find it worth examining. But I hear what you say, and you are not necessarily wrong.
quote:The relevant fact is that you are basing your opinion on your own "general rule about the behavior of serial killers" that their MO does not change. So I had posted an excerpt with from an interview with Ted Bundy in which he specifically discusses the evolution of his technique, and you dismissed this saying that we cannot use this to form a general rule for serial killers.
No, no, no, Rob. I have said many times that serial killers can change their MO - we have several examples of that - what concerns me is the level of change within a certain limit of time, and also what these changes look like.
My views of the dissimilarities in MO, that I see as a problem in the Ripper context, is NOT based on general rules. They are not quoted from profiling books or originating from based theories, but merely my own common sense. These notions can very well change again in the next couple of months if new facts would make it valid, they are not static in any way. I don't think there are any general rules of how a serial killer behaves - that concept I leave to the profilers - but I try to look at what my interpretations of the facts tell me in each individual case. So, no Rob, I do not follow any general rules.
But to fully accept the Ripper's change in MO in this case, I would personally like to have seen signs of the more important traits in the MO. I can accept that the mutilation process may not yet have been developed, but the fact that her throat wasn't cut - which I see as his initial and primary mark in the MO - worries me, likewise the randomness in the stabbing in contrast to the more deliberate layout of the mutilations on the other victims. That being said, I can also acknowledge the fact she in spite of that was strangled - which also was a part of his MO. So there are no easy answers here; I am not the one who tries to see things from one side only - on the contrary. There are problems and advantages with both directions.
Remember that I've been of exactly the same opinions as you six months ago, and I was very sure of myself (I also used to be perfectly sure of - "beyond doubt" - that both Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims and that the Ripper was a paranoid schizofrenic, as I at the time was strongly influenced by criminal profiling - which I am not today to the same extent). But challenging your own views is a good thing and opens up new dimensions to the case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 22, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
I am going to try to do some research on this idea of evolution in early techniques to see if there is any other sustantial info, other than the Bundy example.
Whatever. Progress is more constructive than bickering over semantics.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Good idea, Rob. In deep, muddy waters such as this, the more information concerning different aspects we can get, the better.
Although I think it might be hard to find any info that gives us concrete enough information in any direction regarding this particular issue. But it's worth a try, of course.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
"From an investigative perspective, it is important to note that these individualistic behaviors are learned behaviors, which tend to remain consistent. An offender's M.O., or "method of doing things" is also a learned behavior. However, these type behaviors are developed over time and change as offenders gain experience, build confidence or become involved with the criminal justice system. The "signature" component may also change to some degree. However, the change usually involves a progression of violence and sexual mutilation, which is consistent with the paraphilia Sexual Sadism as seen in lust murders. The M.O. involves actions necessary to accomplish the activity while the "signature aspect" represents the underlying emotional "needs" of the offender. These "needs" usually present as behaviors and actions that go beyond those necessary to accomplish the crime. When dealing with an offender, who is a sexual sadist, one can expect to see a progression of violence as the series evolves. Understanding and recognizing both the modus operandi and the signature aspect of the event can enable the professional investigator to "link" events in a series."
1995 Vernon J. Geberth
http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/signature.htm |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Ah splendid!
Thank you, Rob.
I am glad to see that the source is Geberth's Practical Homicide Investigation. This link you present here is probably from the short manual, but I have actually been planning to get the large book consisting of over 900 pages, including over 800 illustrations. Unfortunately it is incredibly expensive, so I can't manage it at the moment.
Naturally this publication also contains general rules of some sort, but it's a book used for education of people of the law enforcement, so it has great factual value. Geberth's book - which has little to do with classical profiling, but is more of a manual for all aspects of police work - is considered to be the absolute best, according to many police officers.
So I'm very glad to see that link indeed.
From what I can see so far Geberth seem to acknowledge that a murderer's MO and signature is relatively consistent, although it may over some amount of time develop, especially in violence and level of mutilation, which suits rather fine with my own thoughts on the matter, from the killers we know about. He's probably correct in his opinion, that the MO and signature may be regarded as learnt behaviour, which I think it is.
The question is, how much the similarities in method, he means is enough to "link" different murders to one another, and which period of time he talks about as far as the progression is concerned.
I'll look it over more carefully tonight with great joy. I don't want to rush it through on the computer screen. I had no idea that this text was available on the net, so I am much grateful; this was a very positive surprise, regardless of his opinions will support my views or not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 27
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Most serial killers have evolving MOs. All anyone has to do is read up on a few cases about killers that were caught and in which they confessed their crimes. In many cases the killer had double or more killings than the police had originally tied together. Oftentimes the officials were expected neat little sets of evidence that never changed and had nice little pat assumptions about what killers do and do not do.
When trying to determine if a given victim is Jack's or not, it's important to look at the big picture and be open to different theories on what makes the guy tick. I see some people get really caught up in the throat cut aspect (the police who made the canonical list, a couple of people in this thread, people when trying to decide if Carrie Brown might be related). The question comes down to whether the throat cuts were a motive of the killer (the part he liked) or just a practical method used to advance the situation to the point where he could get what he wants. And, of course, serial killers who haven't gotten into the swing of things yet may not exactly know just it it is they really want anyway. In either case, it's likely that there's some experimentation before the killer finds what works for him best.
(For example, when the Green River Killer was caught, they asked about why he didn't change his MO, and he said point out that there was no need to since it worked so well for him.... i.e. it was functional. But even there his MO changed in some significant ways. His first attack was some random deep knife stabs on some boy in a park... and this from a killer famous for not using a knife. For a while he strangled people with his arms, but after getting scratched up too much he switched to using a clothing wrapped around their necks. You'll note that some people discount any Whitechapel killing involving a ligature...)
One theory might be that Jack knew he wanted to attack the parts of a woman that made her feminine. Another might be that he was fascinated with blood and wounds and just got more into it as time progressed. In either of these cases, the throat cut would be merely a functional aspect, a way of guaranteeing that the victim is down and out and won't be calling for help or running off (and he may have had that problem with earlier attacks).
It's entirely possible that Jack knew about how to make these cuts from some other way and started out with them with Nichols. But it also could be possible that he worked his way up to that. For all we know, Tabram may have been knocked unconscious (head wound, strangulation or both, that part seems messy) and then started to wake up while being stabbed. The strangulation could have come midway in the process after the head blow (assuming it was from an attack and not from a fall) didn't work.
Another possibility is Jack liked seeing blood spurt out. In that case he could have tried frenzied wounds but then later realized the most satisfying fountain is produced from the neck as the first major wound.
The idea that Jack just suddenly appeared out of nowhere with a highly developed efficient and largely silent way to dispatch his victims on his first kill would only be realistic if he had a background in efficient slaughtering, which he may have had but is only one of several possible theories on his background.
So once you are open to the possibilities (and, from other serial killer cases the high probability) that there were more Ripper victims, you have to look for ones that might fit. Tabram fits best out of all the noncanonicals, due to pose, time of death, date, occupation, location, pretty much everything except the wounds, which we know from studying other cases wouldn't necessarily be expected to be the same. The fact that they are still knife wounds and still overkill and still on the torso area with hints of being aimed at the feminine parts are all highly suggestive.
And, honestly, Tabram fits better than Stride does, because, while she doesn't have a throat wound, at least she doesn't have a throat wound that's all wrong compared to the two sets of victims on either side of her. If you are going to have a significant difference it should be at the end or the beginning of a grouping, not some strange thing in the middle. The presumed interruption might explain that away in Stride's case, but it wouldn't explain why it appears that the wrong type of weapon was used when that same night the correct type was used on someone else.
Reading the appropriate literature so you can make informed comments, coming up with more than one theory and checking them out as best you can, concentrating on all of the various possible comparison points and not just one or two -- that's what having an open mind about the case is all about.
It's absolutely amazing to me that the people presenting more than one possible theory and questioning the unsupported assumptions of the case are the ones being attacked for supposedly being closed minded (along with supposedly being liars, criminals, stupid, and other ridiculous personal slams). But then, after being on these boards for a few years, nothing should surprise me anymore.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 5:45 am: | |
Hi all (donning protective crash helmet, full body armour etc.)
Isn't this debate the main reason _why_ modern investigators exclude Tabram? Most contemporaries included her - it is one of the singular things about the memorandum that McNaughten specifically excludes her (and that in itself is interesting - was there something about the Tabram murder that lead in a direction he didn't want the newspapers to consider? He wasn't doing profiling, he was trying to steer a controversy away from something, whether from suspicious motives or from normal human outrage with people who refuse to see it one's own way).
Frankly, I find it hard to see that anyone can be definite one way or the other. JtR's behaviour is not as well developed as some SK's - even over strangulation / nature of throat wounds there is in fact room for debate, it is not clearcut.
There is a pause of over three weeks between Tabram and Nicholls - is that long enogh to develop the technique a bit if something went wrong (from JtR's viewpoint) with Tabram?
Regards
Pete |
brad kelley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Hi all was reading about the NYC Zodiac killer. Shot victims from behind, how cowardly a MO is that? However 1 victim (may she rest in peace)was accosted in a park and stabbed 100 times. According to Glenn this couldnt be from the same guy the MO would be too different and certainly wouldnt feel right. Please don't forget...these people are nuts...attributing sane reasons to insane actions and people is only true to a point. Also regarding Emma Smith, i need to read up on JTR as im new to it but was she a prostitute? If so is it possible that for whatever reason she attributed attack to a gang out of share for her line of work? Thanks. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
