|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 7:56 am: | 
|
Hi Glenn,I understand your points above but have myself interpreted several of Randy"s posts differently from you which is understandable I guess since I dont have any background in Crime history,as you have and therefore view the case from different and varied angles.
In my view there isnt really a "blue-print" for such murders in the sense that Randy is saying.From previous discussions you have had I accept completely that there are certain well established patterns of behaviour regarding sexual perversions involving murder,with murders committed by somebody in the middle of a psychosis for example betraying different patterns
[say regarding a murderer who suffers from command hallucinations as sometimes found in a
paranoid schizophrenic].
So in the case of Martha Tabram if she was killed by a person who was deluded in the above way-stabbed in a frenzy and left to die,then myself I cant include her so easily because surely to stab a person 39 times an extraordinary number after all -I mean he must have been pretty crazed in my view to go on and on like this-surely such a murder would be most likely to have been commited by someone who had "intended" to kill,ie gone out intending to kill and more than likely suffering a psychosis.
So if this person was indeed the ripper then I agree with you that he would be most unlikely to go back home have another "command" and race out and kill someone else in a totally different way.I would think he would repeat the frenzied stabbings in such a case----and the ripper did not do this although the murder of Mary Kelly does bear some resemblance.
On the other hand,if what we are dealing with is someone with a sexual perversion that included a type of necrophilia[in the rippers case removing and stealing sexual and other organs from a dead person]then what might have motivated him to attack Martha Tabram might well have been to have the courage to actually "kill".This in the first instance might have been sufficient to give him the internal go ahead to do what he really wanted to do which was to acquire afemale "dead body" to "work on" and rob of organs[to take back and pore over or eat or whatever other horror he could contemplate].So really,Martha Tabram could have been his first victim,someone he got to be in a quiet place with and he was able to kill
because she was too old and weak from drink[a decided "pattern" with the ripper after all[middle aged inebriated and availabe at 2 in the morning on the streets of Whitechapel.Once he pulled off the killing he may have felt he could let rip.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 8:46 pm: |
|
First of all, thank you Natalie for the support. I think you have a general idea of what I'm getting at, so I don't have much to comment on at the moment.
Now, responding to Glenn...
Glenn writes:
>>Randy,
"I think the problem with this statement is that the assumption that he was limited to a mere three weeks to come up with a complete method and signature is unnecessary to begin with."
No, it's not. It is the absolutely crucial point. <<
While the assumption may be reasonable enough within a given context, it's anything but "absolutely crucial" -- Rather, your "absolutely crucial point" is entirely dependent upon other assumptions, which themselves are not absolute.
>> "He could very well have been working on his M.O. from far earlier than the Tabram murder (which obviously is an assumption you're making in any case, regardless of whether he killed Tabram or not) and did not feel comfortable enough with it to actually employ the intended M.O. Indeed, it's quite within the realm of possibility that Tabram's murder was a test case."
Probably not, I would say. You are totally missing the point. <<
No, I'm not even slightly missing your point. What I'm saying is that there are weaknesses in your point which need to be recognized and addressed.
>>If he had been working on his MO and signature way before the Tabram murder, we would see greater similarities in method in the case of Tabram. <<
We "would" or we "probably would"? I've offered here a context wherein which this wouldn't necessarily be the case. If it's a test murder, committed purely for the sake of seeing if he could succeed at the primary act of murder, then it does not necessarily follow that every aspect should be identical to his ultimate plan of attack. Indeed, from this standpoint, the M.O. in Tabram's case might have been perceived by the murderer as the least complicated way to go about it, and his basic plan was to make this first murder as uncomplicated as possible so that he could focus on the primary aspect of killing, in and of itself.
And keep in mind that you're only going on the part of the M.O. which is detectable -- namely the physical method of killing the victim. But in a "test murder" scenario, the physical method may not even be a major concern to the killer: He may have already felt perfectly confident in his ability to perform that part of the deed, or alternately, he may have lacked confidence in some of the specifics of that M.O. and decided to put off testing them for a later date. Rather, his main area of concern -- i.e., the specific part of the crime that he felt NEEDED to be tested -- was the preliminary aspects of approaching the victim and getting her into a vulnerable situation where she would be easy to kill. That, and he could simply be testing himself to see if he has the courage to actually go through with the crime.
Also keep in mind that the purpose of any test is ultimately to gather information. In such a case, for example, it might be reasonable to try NOT cutting the throat to see what happens, in order to determine whether cutting the throat is necessary to his overall plan of attack. And so on...
>>That is why I don't beileve it was a "test killing". The three week period is too short, <<
Which again is dependent upon the assumption that he's limited to those three weeks.
>>and we should find greater similarities between Tabram and Nichols if this was the case.That is why that theory sounds a bit far off for me. <<
And you're repeating yourself here.
Look, it's clear enough that you're expecting similarities between the way he did things in the one case and in the others. The question is, what precisely is leading you to this degree of certainty? Ultimately, the certainty derives from the assumption that his primary purpose for the one murder was the exact same as the primary purpose for the other murders. But MY scenario offers a plausible reason why this might not be the case. I.e., by simply declaring your certainty on the matter, in effect what you're really doing here is dismissing my statements out of hand without actually considering them.
>>"And perhaps the multiple stabbing indicates not so much "frenzy" as exhilaration at successfully performing the killing part."
Totally unfounded speculations. <<
Well of COURSE I'm speculating. I'm proposing possibilities which don't require your assumption that the killer didn't start planning his M.O. until after the Tabram murder. To propose possibilities is to speculate by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, unless one is misusing one's speculations in an invalid manner to support an invalid point.
Ultimately, the question is whether my speculation is plausible and fit with human nature. And I see nothing in my statements which suggest anything that goes against human nature, nor have you pointed anything out.
>>These types of multiple stab wounds usually derive from frenzied attacks or some sort of sexual mania. I think the desription of the body wounds supports interpretations in that direction. <<
And I can see no reason why you should automatically assume that it's an "either/or" in the first place. I'm certainly not suggesting it. (By "not so much" in the above, I literally mean not so much, and not "not at all") There's no reason why the killer can't be BOTH exhilarated by his success AND deriving sexual gratification from the act. These are not two mutually exclusive reactions.
Rather, my point is that the context of the situation in Tabram's case -- namely that it was his first murder, and that he may have approached it from a different set of secondary needs -- may well have garnered a different reaction than did later murders, because his needs of the moment were different, and because he purposely avoided going through with the ultimate goal of "mutilation" in order to keep the act as uncomplicated as possible. But such avoidance undoubtedly would still demand some sort of release, and thus was translated into a "frenzied attack" |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 8:49 pm: |
|
By the way...
I can certainly concede that it's well within the realm of possibility that Tabram was murdered by someone else entirely. But this leads us to yet another conundrum.
I think we can safely assume that the killer was motivated by some sort of sexual mania, or perhaps a deep-seated anger at women. Now, given this, we must wonder why there were no other Tabram-styled murders in the vicinity, immediately following this act. Did he simply vent his anger and/or lust at this one instance, and was instantly gratified forever and ever afterwards? Perhaps... |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
I read this thread with an endless schnausam.
It's been the same for so many long years.
People think now as they did before.
The same posters, the same sort of theorizing, nothing new.
In my former days, I viewed this with reasonable expectation.
I thought that people might be getting closer to an idea.
But for most the idea never comes, they wait like Godot.
And when you challenge this, they attack you.
David Gustaf Lauritz Radka
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:57 am: |
|
Tabram is, to my way of thinking, a pivotal case.
She could be an early (first?) JtR killing, but equally she could have been the victim of a frenzied attack by a client (whether a soldier or not). Are the wounds indicative of an immature MO, or an opportunistic "one-off" attack?
One can link Tabram's wounds with some of the earlier supposed victims; and experience suggests that one needs confidence before using a tool (or weapon) with assurance. Killing itself may have been step one, with the multiple wounds as an after-thought. Remember, if the earlier possible victims (not Smith) had been attacked by Jack, he had not yet killed. Now he has, but may not have fully thought through what he would/could, do to the body. With a death under his belt, he now ruminates on what he could have done, and, with an unconcious body (Nichols) he could try using the knife on the neck more confidently (even then were there not TWO cuts?) and also some abdominal mutilations. But here, he finds he has not practiced and can do little. Only when it comes to Chapman can he try again - perhaps why he struck so quickly? On balance, I am inclined to list Tabram as a victim of JtR, but I am open to the possibility that A N Other (maybe a soldier - bayonet? - maybe two soldiers - two weapons?) may have been the culprit.
One reason for a marked change in the modus operandum could have been that JtR changed from using his pen-knife and maybe a (cobler's?) tool, because at some point in that period he acquired a longer, sharper blade. One that would cut and rip much more effectively.
Just speculation, of course,
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2730
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Radka,
"I thought that people might be getting closer to an idea."
And I assume this refers to "your" ideas? Do I maybe detect a little bitterness here?
But you are right, I agree, it is indeed the same arguments all over again, but that has mostly been a result of that new posters addresses the old issues. None of the ideas -- regarding Tabram in particular -- can be considered especially "new", regardless if they speak for or against her candidacy.
Nice name you've changed to.
Phil,
As I can't totally dismiss Tabram as a Ripper victim, I have several doubts.
If tabram was a practice run, I would think that it would be fair to assume that he should have done the troat cut anyway, since this was a very common way of murder. So the lack of a throat cut is one of my main objections against Tabram's canonisation.
The mutilations seen in the Ripper murders display a quite deal of methodology, quite far away from the rage and frenzy seen in the Tabram attack. I somehow feel that Tabram was killed because that was the goal of her perpetrator. The Ripper killings were clearly not done in sudden rage or frenzy and the killing in itself seems not to have been of special importance. The Ripper's goal was to enjoy personal gratification from the post mortem mutilation, which we can't find any on Tabram. So it's two different goals on the killer's part.
I find it very hard to believe that the methodology seen in the Ripper killings - not to mention the sudden urge to get satisfaction from mutilations -- should have suddenly appeared and evolved during the three week period from when Tabram was killed. It makes no sense to me.
Furthermore, the choice of weapons used on Tabram could indicate two persons, and quite possible the methods of killing used by a military man. The murder could naturally be sexually orientated, but it was still done in a frenzy without any methodology and no post mortem signature -- and no throat cut, which I believe would be the important element for the Ripper to use in order to kill someone even at an early stage.
Too much just doesen't add up.
Well, I could be wrong, but that is my two cents and what my intuition and reading of the crime scene tells me.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 431
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
“I somehow feel that Tabram was killed because that was the goal of her perpetrator. The Ripper killings were clearly not done in sudden rage or frenzy and the killing in itself seems not to have been of special importance. The Ripper's goal was to enjoy personal gratification from the post mortem mutilation, which we can't find any on Tabram. So it's two different goals on the killer's part.”
First off, I’m not arguing against your general view that Tabram most probably wasn’t a Ripper victim and I (even) completely agree with the second sentence you wrote here.
However, the silence surrounding Tabram’s murder make it quite feasible that she was either throttled or stabbed with the murderer’s hand over her mouth. In any case, there can be but very little doubt that by far the bigger part of the stab wounds was inflicted when Tabram was already down and out (either dying or dead already – probably the first). In other words, perhaps at least 25 stab wounds were inflicted to a seemingly lifeless body.
The obvious overkill in both Tabram and the mutilated victims IMHO would rather seem a similarity than a distinction between the two. However, that doesn’t mean that it had to have been the work of one and the same man.
Besides the above, I think you’ve written a clear and good post!
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2739
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
True, if Tabram was strangled first, the stabbing could indeed be seen as a post-mortem signature of some sort.
Then again, one usually doesen't get any sexual gratification form stabbing -- stabbing is mostly suggesting rage on the killer's part -- which means that she might have stabbed Tabram in rage after she was dead, which is quite possible and not uncommon. So it's still points to a murder done in frenzied rage rather than weird sexual or delusional fantasies (as I believe we see in the Ripper).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 432
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi again Glenn,
"one usually doesen't get any sexual gratification form stabbing"
Although there was of course one cut to the abdomen, a number of stab wounds to the lower torso and Tabram's skirts were pushed up, leaving the lower part of the body exposed, what you wrote here is a clearer distinction between Tabram and the others.
By the way, to be completely frank, which I obviously have been from birth, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually turned out that Tabram wasn't a Ripper victim after all.
She was either a Ripper victim like I've described elsewhere, or she wasn't for the very reasons you have put forward.
Hälsningar,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2742
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Hi again, Frank.
Nice to hear from you as always.
"Although there was of course one cut to the abdomen, a number of stab wounds to the lower torso and Tabram's skirts were pushed up, leaving the lower part of the body exposed, what you wrote here is a clearer distinction between Tabram and the others."
Well, actually no. I have always felt the similarities in the "wounds to the lower torso" to be an enormous exaggeration. Yes, I can se the point about the cut in the abdomen (and here I can understand why people see a link to Nichols), but in fact the other stabs were actually focused to the upper part of the torso and the breast and neck area (look at the sketch on the Casebook's "A CLoser Look at the Victims' Wounds" page). So besides the "bayonette" wound in the abdomen, there are no additional stabs to the lower torso or abdominal area.
It might not be important, but I personally believe it is, like I also believe that there is a distinct difference between mutilating and stabbing, as far as motive and driving forces are concerned. But that is of course just my personal interpretations, nothing else.
As you say, we don't know for sure, and the points delivered by your and others could indeed turn out to be the correct ones in the end as well. But to me Tabram's murder doesen't add up in the Ripper context, apart from the geographical area it happened in.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 434
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I know the sketch you refer to. Instead of 'lower torso' perhaps I should have said 'the upper part of the lower torso, just below the chest area'. You're right in suggesting that these wounds don't particularly point at any sexual interest, certainly not by themselves.
The relatively large amount of stabs (almost 25%) to the throat, which is a relatively small part of the total area that was attacked, seems to indicate that it was purposely attacked. It may well have been to silence her, in case he didn't throttle her first.
The stabs to especially the left side of the chest suggests that they may have been inflicted to kill her, trying to find the heart.
Although this is pure speculation (as is the above, by the way), it's feasible that the throat and chest were attacked first.
If so, then he must have consciously shifted his attention lower down her body for whatever reason, stabbing her stomach,etc., after which he may have wanted to focus his attention even lower down her body and decided to lift her skirts, spread her legs and inflict the cut to her abdomen.
Like I said, this is all pure speculation, as, unfortunately, first of all we miss the locations of 7 stabs in the documentation (only 32 are accounted for), secondly we don't know the exact locations of the wounds, thirdly we don't know if the the wounds to the stomach, spleen & liver were done through her clothes or not and last, we don't know if the wound to the heart killed her and if so, if it killed her quickly.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2753
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
Hallå Frank,
"Like I said, this is all pure speculation, as, unfortunately, first of all we miss the locations of 7 stabs in the documentation (only 32 are accounted for), secondly we don't know the exact locations of the wounds, thirdly we don't know if the the wounds to the stomach, spleen & liver were done through her clothes or not and last, we don't know if the wound to the heart killed her and if so, if it killed her quickly."
That is true. We do lack some information here.
Let me also just add, that I personally think the thread's title is wrong in a way; what we are dealing with here in connection with these types of killers, is motivation rather than "motive".
Hälsningar
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn, et al.
Just a thought.
Maybe the frenzied stabbing in the Tabram killing was because he got the wrong girl.
Maybe Mary Ann Connnelly was his intended victim.
Just speculation, but there is a slight connection between Connelly and future victims of Jack, via Dorset Street and No. 35 in particular. There is also the issue of Connelly's reluctance to aid the police. Was she scared of someone? Did she have a clue as to the identity of Martha's killer?
It is these nuances that pursuade me that Martha was a victim of JTR, though maybe for the wrong reasons.
Cheers,
Michael |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2762
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
I must admit I fail to see why the fact that he may got the wrong girl should point at the Ripper, but that is just my view.
Regarding Connelly's reluctancy, it could just as well derive from a natural reluctancy to get involved -- which was and is rather common. It doesne't in itself has to mean that she was afraid of a certain individual or that she knew who he was. But even if she did, she would have been afraid for her safety anyway, regardless if the killer was the Ripper or not.
To consider that it was a mix-up of victims is to go take speculation too far for me, I am afraid.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 10:50 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
To consider that it was a mix-up of victims is to go take speculation too far for me, I am afraid.
It was just a thought. Mainly because of the similarity of the names MARY and ANN, which seem to very common amongst the supposed victims of JTR. Don't know the odds to this.
But as to the connection of Dorset Street and No. 35 in particular, this does, IMO, lend a little weight to the idea that Martha Tabram could have been a victim of JTR.
Cheers,
Michael. |
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Hi Again,
Just another thought.
I cannot see the problem about accepting Tabram as a victim of Jack.
From what seems to be the major descensions, the only one to hold some sense of bouyancy is the issue of MO, evidently different on Martha to the supposed other victims of Jack.
I think too much personal opinion is being forced upon this issue.
The way I read it, is this:
Jack murders Tabram by stabbing her 39 times.
A bit over the top for a common murderer at that time. (Stranger murder implied here)
Regardless of this, very little press coverage is reported. Surely a bit of a let down for the killer. Therefore, he changes his style of MO for the next one.
Murder 2 - Nichols. Throat Cut & Body Mutilation. This murder sure as hell grabs the media's attention.
Murder 3 - Chapman. (Within Ten days). Again Throat Cut & Body Mutilations; a bit more grevious this time and body parts also removed.
The Press are definitely taking notice now.
Also with this murder the body is more exposed than in the previous murder, so that, no matter who discovers her, there can be no mistaking or doubt whatsoever, that she has been murdered in a most horrendous fashion.
Murder 4 - Eddowes (Not Stride - My views about Stride have been expressed previously. IMO not a JTR victim). Again an escalation to wounds and mutilations inflicted. Facial mutilations are added to this murder.
Also murdered and left in a more open position. (Murder Scene harder to seal off as compared to a backyard.)
Murder 5 - Kelly (Arguments for and against candidacy abound.) Again a murder far surpassing all that have gone before. Only problem, killer has switched to 'Indoors'. A complete contrast to his previous murders. Also, for the first time, an axe is used in this murder.
So to return to the original argument, there really does not seem to be that much in the way of dissimilarity between Martha and future victims of JTR when the murders are viewed 'in the Progression Collective' and not individually. And it is as a 'collective' that Martha's murder should be viewed when dealing with her candidacy of being a JTR victim.
Basically, all the murders, when looked at individually, throw up a number of inconsistencies that any number of points can be made to show that each one of the victims typically associated to JTR may have been murdered by a totally different killer.
Also, M.O. is only one small investigative strand on the fabric that surrounds a murder. There are a lot more strands used to complete the fabric.
Cheers,
Michael |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2775
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
Michael,
I can't say your wrong. These arguments regarding "progressions" on the killer's part (and I would assume that were some kind of progression anyway based on increasing self-confidence etc.) have been put forward quit often and for along time, but sometimes I feel people are relying too much on this by saying... OK, he is progressing, all the problems are solved and we can accept practically any murder victim killed by a sharp object (Emma Smith is probably, in my view, the most horrendous example of this reasoning).
As I said, I can't prove this is wrong because it could very well be what happened.
As for myself, I am doubtful in Tabram's and Millwood's case.
We are not really just talking MO here, but motivation! Because as you say, MO is just one of several aspects to consider.
The Ripper crimes (if we just for a moment focus on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes in order to simplify things) seems, despite their internal differences and signs of progressions, based on the same motivation, namely sexual or/and delusional fantasies and performed with a certain amount of methodology (where the Tabram murder seems to be performed without any kind of methodology and is merely a result of pure impulse and rage rather than basic needs.
I feel the motivation in the Tabram murder -- which seems to point at pure rage and frenzy -- is entirely different, and the wounds are not that much concentrated to the sexual parts of the body either. This implies a different motivation as I see it.
For me it's seems unlikely for a serial killer to perform a murder in uncontrolled rage and then suddenly three weeks later kick off with an entirely new approach where he all of a sudden has found an urge of sexual distorted character, performing his deeds in a methodological manner, with a method that out of the blue seems more worked out and carefully explored.
If we are talking MO, the lack of the throat cut disturbs me the most; this was a rather common way of killing people and I would assume that even in his trial-and-error period we should see this also in the work of an early and less confident Ripper.
So to add it up, to me the Tabram murder seems to point at someone with another personality and another way of killing, like for example a soldier. And in my view it is quite possible that there were actually two people involved in her death.
I could be wrong, but this is my opinion on the matter. And that is all it is: opinions. But for me it just doesen't add up and for the moment I am inclined to exclude her.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Glenn, I think you are one of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters on this board...yet I often disagree with you especially when it comes to who was a victim of JTR. After reading AP's very excellent essay "Jack The Myth" in which he documents the diversity of methods used by killers such as the Dusseldorf and Yorkshire Rippers, I really feel you are placing too much emphasis on the "textbook" Ripper killings (throat cut body opened) and not enough emphasis on factors such as the time, location and choice of victim. Big picture is there are many more similarities between the Tabram murder and the overall series of murders definitively attributed to JTR then there are differences. I just can't seem to get a grip on why so many who study the case feel the differences outweigh the similarities. You believe the Tabram murder points to "someone with another personality"...I tell ya one thing for certain, even if you are correct I would not like to meet either of these different personalities on a foggy London evening.
BTW AP, I really think your work is superbly written and I am now totally convinced 35 Dorset Street in some way leads back to our killer. The only part of your essay I disagree with is your assumption that A) Stride was not a Ripper victim and B) Pipeman was her lover. But overall "Jack The Myth" is indeed a very good work.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi Michael,
Actually you may have raised a valid point in suggesting that Connnelly was the intended victim and the killer got her mixed up with her friend Tabram.
Connnerly did reside at 35 Dorset street, and because Mary kellys hangings around the place, could give the impression that she knew the woman, therefore without mentioning names...Did a certain gentleman knowing that she kelly was familiar with Pearly poll intend that to be the target for murder, and since that event did not create such a impact, his next victim was going to be killed more revoltingly, we must not forget it was rumoured that the 3rd victim Chapman was a friend of Mary Kellys who also resided at 35 Dorset street.
It does look more than likely that Mjk was familar with every victim of Jack, and that was the killers intention.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2784
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
extendedping,
"I just can't seem to get a grip on why so many who study the case feel the differences outweigh the similarities."
I am sorry, but I can't see that many similarities.
I hear what you say, but there are actally quite a number of objections to the Tabram inclusions to consider, not to mention that two weapons seems to have been used.
It may be true that I am empathising the method and personality thing too much, but then again, others seem in some strange way more or less convinced of that the Ripper would be the only killer at large in the area. This must ALSO been taken in consideration.
As you're referring to time and location, we know that other mean killers lurked the streets of East End at the time of the Ripper (probably responsible for the Emma Smith murder); we have the torso murders, we have the gangs that operated in the area (which in some way must have contributed to the violence in East End as well) and we have the possibility of copy-cats or Ripper-unerelated murders in the Coles and McKenzie cases (not to mention the domestic throat-cut in Westminster the same night as the "double event" -- which is course is not East End, but still) etc etc.
These were areas of poverty, prostitution and unemployment. It would be unnatural and illogical to assume that the Ripper would be responsible for all the major crimes in the area at this time. The rest I believe are circumstances.
"You believe the Tabram murder points to "someone with another personality"...I tell ya one thing for certain, even if you are correct I would not like to meet either of these different personalities on a foggy London evening."
You're right, you wouldn't. And nor would I.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 8
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the comments.
I believe there is also mention of the 'shed' at No.26 Dorset being used by Eddowes.
There is some dispute about this. A few people use the fact that two women who stated Eddowes used this shed did not know anything about Eddowes to prove that this story is false. The fact that they identified her in the mortuary, and by her clothes does, to me, add some credibility to their assertion that Eddowes DID use this shed at some point. (See DT 3/Oct/88 and DT 10/Nov/88). Just because they did not know anything about her does not ultimately mean we should entirely disregard their statement.
I think certain newspapers were also trying at the time to find any connection between all the victims.
Why would they do this? What information could they have that would even suggest this possibility? It does seem strange though, that even during the murders there was an attempt to prove that all the victims knew each other, or, at the least, were connected somehow.
cheers,
Michael |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page