|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3666
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 2:43 pm: | 
|
Inaki,
"We also know that in Chapman's case the killer probably tried to remove her head, although he didn't succeed.
My idea is, could it have been that in Martha's case her killer tried to do the same, only to discover that he didn't have a good weapon for that task?"
No. If you as fast and easy as possible want to decapitate someone, you cut -- you don't stab! regardless of which kind of knife you use. If you're untrained, you try to make things as easy as possible, and stabbing in such a situation is not making it easy for yourself.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2134
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
AP,It would be interesting to find out more about Tom"s lunacy and I am also intrigued about his education.He was ofcourse a child before the Education Act of 1870 so it wasnt compulsory and I think these two furies would have been fixing their beam on his every movement too much to let him out of their sight to attend school.....
do you think he may have been educated by a private governess perhaps? -it was still quite common for the monied classes to educate their offspring in such a way.
It was stated [by the police on his case I believe?]that his mother and his aunt "smothered" him with "over- protectiveness".
Wish we knew a little more about this.
They sound such a controlling pair of women this mother and aunt---no wonder Thomas stayed out all night----he was probably fantasising about these two whenever he was out being Jack![If he was that goes without saying].
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Glenn, Inaki, all
I'm not gone yet 
And I lied (although not on purpose) THIS is my last post in a while. The guy with the car broke down (the car, that is, not the guy), and we're off first thing tomorrow morning. Change of plans, in other words.
Maybe for the better, I got the chance to enjoy one more of these extraordinary beautiful norwegian summer evenings. Soon enough to the caves! (partly submerged, if anyone wondered where the diving part entered the picture)
Anyway. You do have a nasty habit of putting words in my mouth Glenn. But I see why. It's an honest cop. (remember that Monty Python sketch?)
Just to set things straight. I never actually trained to strangle people in the army, but for some reason it was mentioned in the manuals. Just so no one gets the wrong idea here. I'm not exactly SAS or something like that..hahah (well, if I was I could not tell you, LOL)
Your own arguments actually contradicts that this should favour the soldier theory. Most men are capable of strangling most women. The difference is that most men would never do that! And once again we are discussing something else altogether. Not stealth, but effectiveness.
Don't get me wrong, I know that remark about the soldier was probably said half in jest
However, I have never said that the strangling bit is a strong indication that Jack killed Tabram. I just felt that you initially had a tad bit too strong a feeling that strangulation is that stealthy. I guess we cannot agree on that, but that was my intention, to point that out that in my experience (or rather what I have learned), it is not so clear cut.
I agree, I started mentioning Comfort Zones, etc. Maybe I should not have. Clearly I have somewhat more confidence in them than you, but only if used VERY cautiously! I see how you would interpret that, anyway, and as I say, it's an honest cop.
However, I do not quite understand the sentence: "So now you mean that just because a prostitute -- working with one of the most dangerous occupations in the world in an poor dangerous area (apparently the police constables were in grave danger in certain streets) was found strangled and stabbed in the same district as a serial killer, is indication enough as far as the location is concerned?"
Well, obviously it is an indication of location..we know where she was killed, don't we? I think you meant that the location is not a strong indication that Jack did it. That just because she was killed within the area where Jack operated, this in itself is not a strong indication?
Well, it may come as a surprise, but I agree on that. It is certainly not evidence that Jack did it. And, I agree, it would not be too much of a coincidence that another prostitute happened to be murdered by another hand.
But..and this seems to be the case so often here on Casebook, just because I mention these things, does not mean I regard them as absolute proof of anything, and there is no need to fight over this. I did mention that these small contributions I made (well, I only mentioned what was allready known, but yet had not been talked about on this thread) had to be considered TOGETHER with the other indications Mr Iñaki have talked about here.
I hope you did not seriously believe that these weak indications was all I believed was needed to frame Jack?
I mean that these are simply more indications that opens up that possibility. They would, in other words, fit as parts in a jigsaw puzzle where Jack was the killer.
And you did say about the timing, Glenn:
"If that is one of the most important parts of the circumstancial evidence, then I am really worried for you. Because it is not even good circumstancial evidence.
As David says, it only shows that the killer had a regular job.
And so -- Duh! That really narrows it down and implies it has to be the Ripper..."
And I never said that this fact alone narrowed it down and implied it HAD to be the Ripper. Those words you put in my mouth.
The real reasoning here is the overall picture. No single detail convinces me. But all in all, I think it is more likely that Tabram was a Ripper victim than not. And by far, Iñaki's presentation here contributes most of what convinces me. I just don't reiterate all of Iñaki's arguments, preferring to stick to the challenging task (it turned out to be) of communicating properly what I actually meant by bringing in my additional details.
It is so easy to seemingly disagree more than we actually do here, is it not?
But as I said, it's an honest cop.
Iñaki,
I think you have done a great job here, arguing for Tabram being a Ripper victim.
I don't agree that stabbing to the throat area would be likely to be an attempt at decapitation, though. I agree with Glenn on this one. However, it is a fresh idea.
And it does show some "fascination" with the throat area, though.
That does not necessarily mean anything, but at least it does not stand out IMO as something that "early" Jack would NOT do. But I would not go further than that.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Lots of blood,sweat and tears brewing again here chaps!
Think I"m best moving away from ding dong number two!......
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3667
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Helge!
My Norwegian neighbour (so far -- I am soon moving to England). So, still no diving?
We've had nice summer evenings here recently as well, I must say. But I can imagine them being really extraordinary in Norway -- I do remember them, and they are something out of the ordinary.
"Don't get me wrong, I know that remark about the soldier was probably said half in jest "
It was. I just couldn't resist.
"Just so no one gets the wrong idea here. I'm not exactly SAS or something like that..hahah "
LOL. Oh good, that was a comfort.
"I think you meant that the location is not a strong indication that Jack did it. That just because she was killed within the area where Jack operated, this in itself is not a strong indication? "
Exactly.
"Well, it may come as a surprise, but I agree on that. It is certainly not evidence that Jack did it. And, I agree, it would not be too much of a coincidence that another prostitute happened to be murdered by another hand. "
It DID come as a surprise. You nearly gave me a heart attack, because you've been arguing rather hard previously. Don't do these things to me; I am old -- and Swedish.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 119
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Helge,
"The real reasoning here is the overall picture"
That's been my point from the beginning. I think Martha's case meets enough reasonable points of coincidence as to consider her the first (known) murder committed by the Ripper.
As far as strangulation is concerned it only serves to link her with the others. I don't mind whether strangulation is common or not, easy or not (actually, like you I don't believe it's that easy, noiseless, etc. If it's a common way to kill someone is because everybody keeps a couple of hands handy --awful joke--).
In my view the main thing to take into account is that Martha's killer probably acted like the Ripper, i.e. strangling her before a ferocious knife attack. That's only one of the facts among many others which help form the whole picture.
When we try to put a jigsaw puzzle together a common mistake is to pick a single piece of it and put it in the wrong place. But if one piece is missed, forgotten or placed in the wrong place then there will be a hole in the final picture and we'll fail to see the whole picture. Sometimes, tiny pieces may have a number of images on it that help to complete the larger image that goes in the entire puzzle that if we wedge it in the wrong place we'll miss the whole solution. And if we don't keep the whole cover picture in our minds is quite easy to place those single pieces in the wrong place. After all, they look so similar to other parts of the image that we can be easily misled by that.
IMHO, Martha's case is one of those pieces (often overlooked) that are needed to complete the whole picture of the Ripper jigsaw puzzle.
As for her killer trying to remove her head, well, as I said I didn't advance it as something that had to be so. Anyway, from time to time I like to aply some 'lateral thinking' to solve problems and come up with new ways of looking at them. It's a habit I've picked up in my job.
Anyway, as you say, we can find a fixation on the victim's throat as in the other cases.
Well, enjoy your vacation. I hope you come back with your batteries totally recharged.
(Message edited by inaki on July 01, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 113
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
When thinking of the area within which the victims were killed,perhaps the important thing from the killer's point of view,is how long,in time,it would take from each murder scene to the killer's residence.
It is quite common to think in both terms,time and distance.The longest distance between two crimes,the one in Bucks Row,and the one in Berner ST might be a mile at most,and in time 15 minutes brisk walk,so while a mile might appear a fair distance for a man on foot,thinking of it as 15 minutes away might make it seem an easy distance.Even allowing for a 5 minute extension outside the two locations mentioned,it would be an easy task for a person used to walking.
So I would be thinking that the killer resided at a location from each killing, certainly within a time frame of 30 minutes at the most.
That being so,George yard,would possibly be no more than 15 minutes from the killer's abode.
In the Military,you are taught there is more than one method whereby you strangle a victim. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 681
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Stabbing obviously is not the same as cutting, and after Tabram the chest area wasn’t attacked until Mary Jane Kelly – if MJK was actually a Ripper victim, that is. Stabbing in general as well as stabbing the chest area in particular do seem to indicate uncontrolled rage.
On the other hand, the fact that nearly 25% of the stabs were directed at the relatively small area of the throat does seem to indicate some fascination with it.
Furthermore, Nichols’ higher abdomen, like Tabram’s, was attacked. According to Inspector Spratling “the abdomen had been cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jagged; the omentum, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, …”. Which means that Nichols' murderer didn't just focus on the lower abdomen.
And there’s of course the 3-inch incision to Tabram’s lower abdomen. Although I would agree this wound shouldn’t be over-emphasized all by itself, especially in combination with the skirts turned up as far as the centre of the body and the general position of Tabram’s body, it forms an important similarity with what was to follow, because they seem to point to an interest in the lower abdominal area.
As to the discussion about strangulation, if Tabram was strangled first, it must have been done quite silently and without leaving any signs of a struggle, like in especially Nichols’ and Chapman’s case.
The following is an idea I’ve put forward about a year ago. Since it hasn’t been brought up until now and since I still think it’s a feasible idea, I thought I’d bring it up again. Seemed like a good time.
Just prior to bringing it up last year I saw a TV programme about Ted Bundy. A police officer who had been involved in the case and who had interviewed Bundy (I don’t remember his name) said that he had worked on several serial killer cases and had found that it’s not uncommon for serial killers to sort of start off ‘by accident’.
They get into a situation where they are suddenly and unexpectedly triggered to (re)act and end up killing on impulse. Such attacks and murders don’t necessarily have to be very much like the ones that follow. Although I’m unsure of it, Tabram’s case may have been an example of such an ‘accidental’ start.
If so, the Ripper would have already been fantasising about killing women in a way close to how he ended up doing it, but he just wouldn't have thought about actually acting out those fantasies - yet. The Ripper probably was like a time bomb by that time and probably would have started sooner or later anyway.
So, in Tabram’s case he may not have gone out with murder on his mind. He may just have wanted to go out, like lots of nights before and have a couple of pints, maybe to end up in an alley roughing up a prostitute a little. But then, he may have found himself unexpectedly triggered by Tabram, who may have said or done something specific, which made him kill her on impulse. Maybe Tabram said the wrong thing, which caused him to attack the throat first.
And because he was mad as hell, (mentally) ill prepared and inexperienced, he was perhaps able to act out only parts of his fantasies and split in a panic before he got caught. Like I wrote earlier, such ‘accidental’ starts of a series don’t seem to be uncommon for serial killers. If I remember well, Ed Kemper started off rather clumsily, too.
With Tabram the Ripper may have passed a thresh-hold and decided to try if he could act out more of his fantasies. In that case, 3 weeks don’t seem particularly short to me and fit rather well with the periods in which the Ripper didn’t go out and murder.
Still, I’m unconvinced Tabram was a Ripper victim, but if she was, it might have happened something like I suggest rather than that it was just the first murder and part of the escalation theory. There seems to have been some ‘growth’ in his murders, but the growth from Tabram to Nichols seems a little too disproportionate.
Like always, these are just some of my views.
Enjoy live 8!
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 120
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Frank,
Thanks for your comments.
"Furthermore, Nichols’ higher abdomen, like Tabram’s, was attacked. According to Inspector Spratling “the abdomen had been cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jagged; the omentum, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, …”. Which means that Nichols' murderer didn't just focus on the lower abdomen."
This is a point I also tried to drive home a few posts ago (although maybe I didn't explain myself clearly). In both cases we find that the murderer also targeted or concentrated his atention on the upper abdomen.
Your proposed scenario is quite feasible, IMHO.
Anyway, I don't see that the growth from Tabram to Nichols seems a little too disproportionate.
In both cases their murderer targeted and stabbed their private parts. And Martha murder was considered to be one of worse murders ever seen by the locals: “It was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine”… “This was one of the most horrible crimes that had been committed for certainly some time past”. (Sugden, 1998, p.20,28).
Besides, we can also see an escalation from Nichols to Chapman. In Champman's case the murderer's attack grew in intensity and ferocity. For the first time, the murderer removed some organs and tried to decapitate the victim, too! So, I wouldn't say that the step from Martha to Nichols was so huge.
IMHO, what we see in Nichols case is an improvement in technique and some applied pre-knowledge. I mean, if Martha was his first attack he probably learned that the knives employed were clumsy and cumbersome to use (he probably had to change blades in Martha's case). And, if the Ripper was able to learn from previous mistakes, he could have also realized that stabbing someone 39 times required a lot of time and energy and that improvement in technique was demanded.
But he kept most of his blueprint. He still strangled the victims quite silently and without leaving any signs of a struggle (as it was in Martha's case), he kept his fascination with the throat, the sexual organs, positioning of body, whole destruction of woman's body, etc. All those 'signs' can also be observed in Martha's case.
And we should also bear in mind that in Nichols's case: "Dr Llewellyn, who carried out the post-mortem examination of Polly Nichols, thought that her injuries had been inflicted, not with an exceptionally long-bladed knife, but with a pointed one that had a stout back, perhaps a cork-cutter's or shomaker's knife." --Sugden, 1998, p.211.
This is interesting because it might lend some weight to the argument that, some of the differences found in Martha's wounds from the others, were because the killer didn't carry the "correct" type of weapon. He used a different type of knife in Nichols's case and another type of knife in Chapman's case, etc.
"With Tabram the Ripper may have passed a thresh-hold and decided to try if he could act out more of his fantasies. In that case, 3 weeks don’t seem particularly short to me and fit rather well with the periods in which the Ripper didn’t go out and murder."
This is another point I've been trying to drive home. However short the 3 weeks period may seem, it's much more than nothing at all! 3 weeks thinking how to solve a problem along with a 'live' experience, i.e. a real murder, is much more than a killer who starts from scratch and has no idea about what difficulties he is going to face. So, if you know which problems poses the stabbing technique, or the type of weapons used, etc., then what's the difficulty in introducing some changes the next time you strike?
This is why it's so important to see all the aspects of the case and not concentrate ourselves too much on the 'technical' details. After all, human beings are not so predictable and none of them work like a computer-programmed machine.
As I said in my original post: "Does that mean that Martha Tabram was definitively a Ripper’s victim or that we should attach every crime in the Whitechapel area to JTR? Well, until someone invents the Time-Machine we’ll never know it for sure, but as I mentioned, the same could be said of some of the canonicals. As I stated at the beginning, our goal shouldn’t be trying to find the definitive proof that ascertained once and for all whether such-and-such prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim. That’d be a wild-goose chase. We should try to see if the whole picture has enough reasonable elements as to take it as a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. From that point on, we can debate it or dispute it as much as we wish… (actually, as many people do with some of the other victims)."
Anyway, I agree with most of your points and thanks for your contribution.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Frank,
I generally like this interpretation of yours also. In a serial killer's first murder, the killer often will go out with only a vague idea that he might acually commit a murder. This is referred to as the killer taking his fantasy "out for a walk" or a "test drive". Bundy spoke of this. Also, Peter Vronsky speaks about this in his book on serial killers. The first murder is always the most difficult for serial killers... probably emotionally, psychologically and also logistically, in terms of technique. For example, as the killer is taking his fantasy for a test drive, he might not even have brought a weapon with him, or if he did, it might be an inappropriate or clumsy weapon. Bundy also speaks of this... that you just grab whatever is at hand, a piece of wood, whatever. Then later, you improve your technique.
Ted Bundy (referring to himself in the third person): "On one particular evening, when he had been drinking a great deal ... and he was passing a bar, he saw a woman leaving the bar and walk up a fairly dark side street. And we'd say that for no ... the urge to do something to that person seized him -- in a way he'd never been affected before ... And it seized him strongly. And to the point where, uh, without giving a great deal of thought, he searched around for some instrumentality to uh, uh, attack this woman with. He found a piece of a two-by-four in a lot somewhere and proceeded to follow and track this girl ... and he reached the point where he was, uh, almost driven to do something -- there was really no control at this point "
I tried to find the quotes from Vronsky's book where he discusses the SK's FIRST murder. The first murder committed by a serial killer is always important to look at because it is a special case. Anyways, I couldn't find the quote... I posted it on here somewhere but I cant remember where. But I have the Bundy interview here:
http://roberthouse.com/bundy.html
RH |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 682
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
First off, I think you’re not completely right about some things.
“In both cases their murderer targeted and stabbed their private parts.”
Only Nichols’ private parts were stabbed.
“For the first time, the murderer removed some organs and tried to decapitate the victim, too!”
Although it wasn’t mentioned as an attempt to decapitate her, Nichol’s head was also almost severed from her body. The longer and deeper cut had cut all the tissues down to the vertebrae, just like in Chapman’s case. So, there wasn’t much difference there.
"He used a different type of knife in Nichols's case and another type of knife in Chapman's case, etc."
It’s obvious that in Nichols’ case a different knife was used than in Tabram’s, but I’m not so sure that the Ripper changed knives between Nichols and Chapman, too. According to Coroner Baxter the weapons suggested by Drs Llewellyn and Philips ‘were not so different’.
As to the disproportionateness, it lies in the way the knife was used and the focus of the attack. In the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes the perpetrator seems to have been able to relatively control or channel his anger, enabling him to focus. He probably strangled them first, then lowered them to the ground, then cut their throats and probably in such a way that the flow of blood was directed away from him and then he started focusing on the lower part of the body. That seems like a rather methodical way to go about things. In that light the differences between these three don’t seem like huge steps.
However, there are no indications of this in Tabram’s case. The fact that her killer stabbed her so many times seems to indicate that he was driven by an uncontrolled rather than controlled rage. The whole picture gives me the impression that the killer suddenly exploded into a rage, impulsively acted on it and only started focusing on the lower abdomen when he'd regained some of his senses.
If Tabram were just the first murder and part of the escalation theory, I would have expected to see more of the blueprint: less frenzied stabbing, a clearer focus on the abdominal area and perhaps even something of an MO.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2143
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Robert,Frank,
I too am of the view that Martha Tabram may have been the first[or nearly so].
The location at the heart of the murder sites
is to my mind far too much of a coicidence.
Another pointer connects this crime at George Yard with that of 29 Hanbury Street.It seems that the landing MT was found on served both a semi-vagrant and "business" purpose[just as in 29 Hanbury Street and its possibe the murderer had done some "reconnaissance" of these sites.So if in both the case of the house and the flats they were sometimes used for "busines" and sometimes for the homeless to sleep, this taken together with the "weekendness" timing and the composing,ripper style, of the legs, head and clothing suggests a "beginner" trial run.
Its even possible in the case of George Yard ,that he knew beforehand that Martha was in the habit of dossing there so he knew he would have been likely to catch her there , most probably inebriated and half asleep
and would know he was likely to be able to kill her without too much resistance
Here there is even yet another link for me - that is with MJK -
in that I believe the ripper had been to Millers Ct before,knew its window/door feature and simply let himself in while she slept
-hence Elizabeth Pratter hearing nothing but being awakened by the sharper hearing of her cat Diddles!
Returning to Martha Tabram,she might not have been quite so far into sleep as he had hoped when he crept up on her[he could even have been hidden and lying in wait for her and thought she had dozed off-only to be taken by surprise when she "started up"].....then the stabbing scenario
makes more sense.
But then this is partly how I envisage the murders happening----some prior casing out of location ,escape routes-alleys,passages etc and then I believe some knowledge of a semi-vagrant prostitute"s likely movements.Some lying in wait in lonely,secluded places ,possibly some following, but very few unprepared for attacks
Natalie
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hi all!
Frank,
"Only Nichols’ private parts were stabbed."
Tabram's private parts were also targeted. According to Dr Killeen, “he found 39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part…” The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, p.16.
That's one of the reason for which Paul Beggs states: “Her murder was frenzied and horrendous, her sexual organs a particular focus…”. --JTR- The Facts, p. 38
It could also explain why: "there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated." -- Sugden, 1998, p.17.
Or why in the dissertation about Martha's wounds we see: "breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas".
As for Nichols's attack, as you well say, "it wasn’t mentioned as an attempt to decapitate her"...
...while in Chapman's case it was especifically mentioned! The evidence shows that the doctor who examined her didn’t appreciate such an attempt, however gruesome her wounds were. And let’s bear in mind that in both case it was the same doctor who carried out the post-mortem examinations.
“In the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes the perpetrator seems to have been able to relatively control or channel his anger, enabling him to focus. He probably strangled them first, then lowered them to the ground…”
Well, if you reread the long debates of this thread you’ll find that in Martha’s case we see the same control and methods, i.e probably her killer first strangled her (at least partially –see my Facts #1), before positioning her on the floor and start a ferocious knife attack. So, from his viewpoint she would be dead or in a dead-like state. Thus, most of the stab wounds were caused when Tabram was already down and unconsciouss. That means that, at least 25 stab wounds were inflicted to what it looked like a lifeless body. Is that so different to what the Ripper did? I don’t think it is.
The differences don't lie so much in the previous steps that led to her murder but in the fact that this time her killer used the stabbing technique (and even this is not totally true, either. In the "lower portion of Martha's body" there was a wound about three inches in length and one in depth, as if the killer had tried to rip it open).
But as it has already debated that difference in technique maybe explained because Martha was his first attack and/or because he didn’t carry the ‘correct’ weapon/s (as his probable change of blades may suggest) for the slashing tecnique.
“The fact that her killer stabbed her so many times seems to indicate that he was driven by an uncontrolled rather than controlled rage.”
I you reread the rest of the posts you will also see that there is another alternate explanation for that suppossed uncontrolled rage and multiple stabbing”. See my Facts-Substitutes #3 and other posts that deal with that objection.
But before assuming the suppossed ‘uncontrolled attack’ as a fact we’d better have this in mind: Despite the all supposed frenziness there were no signs of a struggle at the crime scene (leading some officials to believe Tabram had been murdered elsewhere and dumped at the George Yard Buildings!). No one heard a single noise or scream, despite they lived a few feet away. No insulting, no beating, etc. First, her killer strangled her, at least to unconciousness (although, most probably from the viewpoint of the killer, to death). After she had collapsed on the floor he didn’t think that it was enough. Not content with that, he took out his knife and began to stab at her, and possibly he even switched weapons or opened another blade. Once he was over, his reaction wasn’t to rush out but he still was cold enough as to position her body in a similar way as the rest of the canonicals (bear in mind that most of the times, after a frenzied attack, you wouldn’t see a suggestive or offensive positioning of the victim’s body unless the murderer left it so deliberately). Besides, most probably he searched through her pockets and took the money (as we'll see in some of the other cases, too). Does this sound as client who just blew a fuse and killed her in a drunken rage or just as a sex-deal that went wrong?
MO is a more ample term than just the knife technique (and bear in mind that other victims like Nichols, Eddowes and probably Kelly were also stabbed). MO also implies the previous steps to the murder itself. And when we take all the details into account the supposed differences between Marta’s case and the other are not that big and it’s possible to see the same hand behind those murders.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hi again Glenn.
This is just to amend a statement in my previous post, before you pull me up about it.
I was being too presumptive in saying that Tabram was "almost certainly drunk". Instead, I say that it was more likely than not.
The statements of Henry Tabram & her other partner Henry Turner, say that she was an exceptionally heavy drinker. Henry Tabram left her due to this, and Turner states that she spent ALL her money on drink, & got drunk to the point of suffering hysterical fits. He also says that she frequently stayed out all night in this condition.
On this evidence, it seems highly unlikely that she was sober when attacked. I doubt that she was in good enough shape to fight off a frenzied attack from a man. I still say that marks or bruising on the neck are not necessarily proof of attempted strangling. Being grabbed forcefully by the neck and pulled to the ground would leave such marks.
I think that this is too tenuous a clue to consider Ripper signature. The random, frenzied stabbing that followed was certainly not his stamp, and this is a much stronger indication that Tabram was NOT a Ripper victim.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I didn't say that there were NOT some points of possible connection between the killings of Tabram & Nichols. There ARE. What I said was, that the murders occurring at weekends or Bank holidays, was NOT a significant connection.
Whether it was the same man, or two separate killers, if they were in regular work, then the obvious time to committ a murder would be at weekends, when there was plenty of time to clean up afterwards, and no necessity to have to face work colleagues only a couple of hours after the killing.
If, as some think, Stride & Kelly were killed by different hands than the Ripper's, then THEIR killers also chose the same times for their attacks. So the choice of day does not necessarily connect Tabram & Nichols to the same man.
I hope that I've explained myself more clearly this time.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
I have answered both yourself and A.P., on the Cutbush thread. So I'll just reiterate here, that I did not suggest that Cutbush was from the squalid East End, only that Sgt.White's overall description was a portrait of Druitt, something that Rumbelow also strongly expressed.
I hope that this clears up the confusion.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I think that Inaki is trying to grind you down by using a hundred different & intricate points, most of which do NOT convince me that the killer of Tabram was also the killer of Nichols.
This is becoming a war of attrition rather than a debate. I'm glad that you've stood your ground, because, for my money, YOURS is the more solid ground. Inaki quotes Sugden,that there were " no signs of a struggle". But how do we define signs of a struggle?? Tabram was almost certainly drunk, and having been drunk a few times in my younger days, I can say that resistance to a sudden attack would be slow, or even non-existant, regardless of who the attacker was.
From a position walking at the side of Tabram, the killer could suddenly grab her throat with one hand, the other hand round the back of the neck, and have her down on the ground before she knew what was happening. She may then have uttered a feeble cry, but there's no certainty that it would be heard. Then the first stab in the throat would finish her.
There would then be marks or bruising around the throat from being grabbed there and pulled down, but that wouldn't mean that the killer had attempted full, or even partial strangulation. Inaki is trying to be too scientific about it all, and paying no heed to plain human drunken behaviour & reactions.
What followed death was frenzied, random stabbing, which was totally different from the Ripper's post-mortem designs. To say that there were no mutilations because he went out with the wrong knife for the job, is just grasping at straws.
Glenn, I don't blame you if you exit this debate, because none of your common sense points seem to be getting through at all.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Have I missed something here?? I keep reading of people drinking to your health. I sincerely hope that this is just an example of Casebook camaraderie, and that your health is not a cause for concern. Could you please enlighten me??
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki.
The fact that Nichols received less severe mutilation than Chapman & Eddowes, doesn't indicate that the Ripper was still learning his art.
It's far more likely that the killer was disturbed by Cross & Paul, and had to leave without completing his work. So I don't think that your theory of gradual evolvement really stands up very well there.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 122
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Hi all!
David…
“Whether it was the same man, or two separate killers, if they were in regular work, then the obvious time to committ a murder would be at weekends, when there was plenty of time to clean up afterwards…”
First of all, no one has ever said that the dates are evidence for something. Secondly, what I said was that it wasn’t that it only showed that the killer had a regular job... It also was that the type of job was similar to the Ripper's. Martha’s killer didn’t choose any other weekend to strike (as it could have been expected if the coincidence was only that both murderers had a regular job) but chose the same pattern of dates observed in the Ripper murders. Does that proof anything? No, it doesn’t. But it fits the pattern of dates like a glove. Just that.
“…was NOT a significant connection”.
I’d like to take advantage of this post to address one of the techniques used by most of Tabram’s doubters. It’s so ingrained in people’s mind that it passes off as a real Fact when it’s just a Fact-Substitute. Most of the times I see how Martha’s doubters label the different facts as significant, insignificant, coincidence, etc. How do we know what is significant or not? I’d say that only the real murderer could tell us how significant those dates were for him. If the Ripper could only strike in specific dates because he worked according an agenda, i.e he had a specific type of job which only allowed him to attack on those dates, then the date pattern becomes more significant than it seems because we could narrow down the possibilities (and suspects) a bit more. It could also give us some glimpse about the killer’s personality. He would be someone who could controll himself until the possibility arised. In this context, the coincidence of dates would be a more significant clue than just putting down all the dates to ramdomly chosen days.
That’s why I’ve never used that tactic, i.e. to arbitrarily label what is significant or not, what I choose to label as signature or not, etc. My purpose has been to bring several facts to light and show that there are many coincidences and similarities between her murder and the others. Enough facts as to put her back on the list of canonicals. But I have refrained myself to judge those facts as significant or not because that’s something we can’t know. If you start labelling the facts you won’t get to where the facts lead you by themselves but to where your interpretation, preconceived ideas about those facts, etc., do.
The bare fact is that Martha’s killer chose the same pattern of dates than the Ripper.
“Inaki quotes Sugden,that there were " no signs of a struggle". But how do we define signs of a struggle?”
Well, I’m not going to go into detail about how to define what signs of a struggle are. If you check the other threads in which the wounds of the other victims are discussed, and you add the lack of any noise in Martha’s murder, you will see what signs of a struggle are.
“Tabram was almost certainly drunk, and having been drunk a few times in my younger days, I can say that resistance to a sudden attack would be slow, or even non-existant, regardless of who the attacker was.”
That’s pure and simple speculation. In other words, you’ve just pulled a rabbit out of a top hat. In fact, the reverse could be true. It’s quite possible that that day she hadn’t drunk so much before meeting the soldiers. “Ann Morris saw Tabram outside on entering a pub she thought she was the White Swan in Whitechapel Road. Tabram, she said, ‘was then quite alone’.” (JTR The Facts, p.33). So, if Tabram was quite alone and with no client to pay for her drinks, it’s quite probable that she wasn’t the worse for drink before meeting the soldiers.
Besides, even if she had “had one too many” we shouldn’t assume that she was so affected as to being unable to fight for her live or put up some kind of resistance. As I said, Tabram and the soldier were last seen at 11.45 p.m. (Sugden, 1998, p.30), long before her body was found.
In fact, there isn’t a shred of evidence to say that after the knee-tremble she kept drinking or pub crawling. No one saw her do that. So, even if she had been tipsy when left Pearly Poll she still could have sobered up enough (like Eddowes) as to having been able to put up some kind of fight.
I don’t know your experience on drinking, but I’d say that if that happened to you it was because you were not used to drinking, then one day you had one too many and you just paid the consequences for that. But that’s not how someone who is used to drinking behaves. I’ve had the opportunity to see many people who are secluded in a specialized centre for conflictive people, most of them with a drinking problem, and their behaviour is far from what you express.
In fact, even in Martha’s case we see this. Henry Turner said that when Martha was drunk ‘she was subjected to hysterical fits’ –Sugden, 1998, p.22. Far from going into a ‘paralityc stupor state’, Martha reacted the opposite, she went into a kind of ‘hyperactivity state’.
Besides, one again I can see the old trick to lessen her status. She was drunk… she couldn’t put up any kind of fight… etc. I feel that those speculations are just a way to dodge the issue, ie. to explain satisfactorily how her murder was committed with a total lack of noise despite people were living just a few feet away, despite she wasn’t a ‘light-weight’ woman, she was used at the hard life of those streets, probably was strong enough and street-wise enough as to have presented a better defence is she had felt that something wrong was going on or had seen that his customer could pose some kind of danger, etc.
It’s the same strategy going on. In Spanish we call it “The Law of the Funnel”. It means that someone takes the widest part of it (i.e. the part that best conditions offers) and gives the other party the narrowest part (i.e. the part that worst conditions offers).
Most of the times ‘The Law of the Funnel’ is used in Martha’s case. The theory of a drunk client who blew a fuse has been advanced many times. It fascinates me to see how what it works for a drunk killer (his being drunk doesn’t affect him to pull off that attack noiselessly and efficiently) doesn’t work for the ‘suppossed’ drunk victim (she cannot put up any kind of fight, she cannot make any noise while fighting, etc.). I don’t know whether you believe in that theory or not. But even if you don’t, when someone advances that theory I’d appreciate it a lot if you could post the same objections for which a drunk customer couldn’t carry out that type of attack, i.e “having been drunk a few times in my younger days, I can say that resistance (substitute resistance for attack) to a sudden attack would be slow, or even non-existant, regardless of who the attacker was, etc.”
“From a position walking at the side of Tabram, the killer could suddenly grab her throat with one hand, the other hand round the back of the neck, and have her down on the ground before she knew what was happening. She may then have uttered a feeble cry, but there's no certainty that it would be heard. Then the first stab in the throat would finish her. There would then be marks or bruising around the throat from being grabbed there and pulled down, but that wouldn't mean that the killer had attempted full, or even partial strangulation. Inaki is trying to be too scientific about it all, and paying no heed to plain human drunken behaviour & reactions.”
I see that the ‘cards are stacked against us, Martha’s supportes’. You’ve proposed a terrific good scenario for your theory. No way the victim could have put up some kind of resistance. Anyone would say that overpowering somebody, strangling her and doing away with her is something so simple, that just any uncontrolled customer (for some people even drunk) could pull off.
What you have just described is the way someone who has planned how to dispatch the victim would do it. Do you really think that if you are working in complete darkness (as it was that floor landing), the victim is a heavy-set type of woman, you can just blow a fuse and in an off-the-cuff reaction dispatch her so efficiently, easyly and noiselessly? Do you really think that I’m the one who is grasping at straws?
“What followed death was frenzied, random stabbing, which was totally different from the Ripper's post-mortem designs. To say that there were no mutilations because he went out with the wrong knife for the job, is just grasping at straws. Glenn, I don't blame you if you exit this debate, because none of your common sense points seem to be getting through at all.”
Sorry, but many of the post-mortem designs seen in the Ripper victims are seen in Martha’s. Positioning of the body, clothes arragements, attempt to rip her lower parts open, and an endless aditional coincidences like the date pattern, place of murder, time of murder, type of weapon used, no sex reason for it, etc.
David, you are just echoing Macnaghten’s long proved mistaken opinions. All SK begin somewhere and most of them don’t start like a fully-fledged SK. And shred somebody’s body by stab wounds is also another way of mutilating a body. At least, most people could admit the possibility that Martha’s killer intended to mutilate her body. To say that he may have gone out with the wrong type of weapon and that this conditioned the type of wounds he could inflict is not a far-fetched supposition. We know that he probably changed blades at some point. Why would he do that unless it was because he wasn’t still happy with the results achieved and thought that the weapon used was not suitable for all the wounds he wanted to inflict? If that was his first murder why should he have known everything from the beginning? Are you proposing the theory (I’d say speculation) of the fully-fledged killer who knows all from the very beginning and needs no learning, etc?
You speak about a frenzy, radom stabbing. First of all, I’d like to know why a first-timer killer couldn’t have been frenzy or show some kind of ‘uncontrolled’ reaction? Cold-blood ussually is something that comes through experience. That wouldn’t rule the Ripper out if that was his first attack.
Ah, sorry. I had forgotten that JTR didn’t need to get experience or to improve any possible mistake. He was already a fully-fledged killer. I see… But, curiously many SK admit that their first attack was more uncontrolled than the others. Why should our man have been different? Martha’s killer still showed the same fixation (I’d say over-fixation) for several parts of the body that we can see later in the other victims.
But, was Martha’s killer so uncontrolled and frenzy? Well, this objection is based on the idea that the killer didn’t intend to do what he did on purpose but the murder was just a case of a sudden explosion of anger and stabbed her 39 times. Once again we are basing our conclusions on assumptions. We simply can’t say what the killer had in mind! Apart from the reasons above mentioned, the apparent randomness of the stabbings could be a red herring. What some people call frenziness other people may call it experimentation or fixation with some parts of the woman’s body. For instance, it may appear frenzied because of the number of wounds and that these appear to be scattered at random, but it could be the reverse. Despite the fact that the killer worked in the most absolute darkness Martha didn’t present any accidental cuts or injures in arms, hands, face, etc. Her dress is not mentioned to have presented accidental cuts, tears, piercing holes, accidental damage, etc.
That’s why another alternative explanation to the supposed randomness is that the killer intended to do what he did and concentrated his attack on different parts of the body. That’s why her wounds were scattered in the sense that different parts of her body had been targeted by the killer but not in the sense that they had been caused without rhyme or reason. Most of Martha’s wounds reflected that her killer grouped the stabs into clusters, i.e. he concentrated 4 or 5 stabs in one area then another 5 or 6 stabs in another area, and so on. So, was it such an uncontrolled attack or could it have been that the killer was experimenting in different body areas? Add to this that there were no signs of a struggle at the crime scene (leading some officials to believe Tabram had been murdered elsewhere and dumped at the George Yard Buildings!), that no one heard a single noise or scream, despite they lived a few feet away. No insulting, no beating, etc. So was it so uncontrolled?
But as I said, even if we concede the killer some uncontrolling actions, that wouldn’t rule him out as the Ripper, since if that was his first attack some uncontrolled actions should be expected.
“The fact that Nichols received less severe mutilation than Chapman & Eddowes, doesn't indicate that the Ripper was still learning his art.”
As you say, the fact is that she received less severe mutilation than Chapman & Eddowes. I don’t assume anything from that. It’s you who assume that the killer intended to cause more mutilation. I say that none of us knows how much mutilation he wanted to inflict in his first attacks. Otherwise, you’d be arguing on faith and using what you know of the other murders to say that he intended to mutilate more the first times he attacked.
And some final words..
Please, you don’t need to flatter Glenn nor ‘spare our lives’. Glenn and I have debated respectfully and we have just reached a point where we said stop! I hope to have given him some points to ponder over the same he has given us points to do the same. But none of us has ever said that our points had more common sense than the opponent’s and that’s why he is not to be blamed (don’t you know that the ‘The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing‘?) for exiting this thread. We just agree to desagree. But if you like to quote someone else’s opinions to prove your points, let me quote some people, too:
“…there can be no such doubts about the man who accompanied Martha Tabram into George Yard Buildings. No common street robber or drunken lout would have evinced the relentless fury of that attack. Her slaying bore all the hallmarks of a maniacal killer.” –Sugden, 1998, p.34.
“Tabram was considered a Ripper victim by Frederick Abberline, Sir Robert Anderson, Edmun Reid, and Dew. She should, perhaps, be placed in the canon.” –-JTR – The Facts, p.38.
And please, don’t think that I’m saying that because those reputable researchers and writers give Martha the option to be a Ripper victim it has to be so. I’m just showing that many people take the view that she could have been one and strive for giving good reasons to prove the point. At least, that effort deserves some respect. So, please you dont need show such a superiority attitude. Yo don’t agree she is. Perfect. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. But don’t say that yours have more common sense than ours. You are not obliged to stay with us if you feel that your points haven't gone through as they should have. But if you decide to stay around then don't treat us as though we were talking pure nonse.
(Message edited by inaki on July 05, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3673
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Inaki,
No offense, but repeating the same points over and over again doesn't make them any more correct or other people's contribution less valid. It only shows that you haven't reflected over what anyone else has said.
It is hopeless to indulge in a discussion when ones argument constantly are being dismissed as 'tactics', 'speculations' and 'strategies' or not fitting the method of study that you have decided upon -- which is why I butted out in the first place. Therefore it feels a bit out of place when you accuse others of possessing a 'superior attitude'.
I am sorry, but what initially, in your first posts on this thread of yours, indicated to be a very interesting and fresh approach has been more or less reduced to a reluctancy to consider interpretations that goes against your own.
Hi David C,
No, although I do suffer from mercury poisoning from my teeth, there is otherwise nothing seriously wrong with my health -- so far (knock on wood...)
"It's far more likely that the killer was disturbed by Cross & Paul, and had to leave without completing his work. So I don't think that your theory of gradual evolvement really stands up very well there."
Personally I agree with that. Of course it IS possible that Nichol's killer had not yet reached the level of experience, and I could very well see the Nichols murder as his first one in this direction. If the killer DID display some sort of hesitation or inexperience, a victim like Tabram is not necessarily needed, as some seems to think.
But the interruption theory can not be ruled out either in any way and is just as valid as any other speculation. Based on the facts, it can not be disregarded as an alternative that the killer heard Cross approaching and took off through Woods buildings. The timing of Cross arriving at the murder scene seems quite close to the actual time of the murder, so it is an option that is just as reasonable as any other.
But some people are so set in their minds about the "evolution" theory that they can't even see the facts possibly pointing in other directions.
Thanks for the kind words, David.
I'll leave you to it now.
By the way, why don't you register?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 05, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 123
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Glenn,
If I've had to repeat some points is not because I think they become more correct and the other contributions less valid.
a) Repeting some points may help some people to sieve through a long thread with lots of posts.
b) Some of the repetitions only deal with some points that detract from my original intention, i.e to show a reasoned out list of facts that ussually are overlooked, played down, etc.
"It is hopeless to indulge in a discussion when ones argument constantly are being dismissed as 'tactics', 'speculations' and 'strategies' or not fitting the method of study that you have decided upon -- which is why I butted out in the first place. Therefore it feels a bit out of place when you accuse others of possessing a 'superior attitude'."
That's not true. If you give us an 'argument', i.e. provide us with a reasoning, back your points up, etc., then there is no dismissal. But many times, and I'm not saying that it's been your case (in fact, most of the times you try to elaborate your points), what I've found is not a reasoned counter-argument but just a flat rejection of the points without providing us with a reasonable good alternative. Many times those arguments show that the poster hasn't even read all the posts carefully.
Then, why should I strive myself for trying to elaborate points, arguments, ideas, etc., that have already been discussed?
But, the 'superior attitude' comment has been triggered by some remarks I haven't liked. Maybe they weren't intended to mean that or maybe I just misunderstood the meaning (if that be the case I apologize for that).
But the thing is that I understood that when someone says:
"Glenn, I don't blame you if you exit this debate, because none of your common sense points seem to be getting through at all.",
it is that person who is showing (probably inadvertently) a 'superior attitude' and not the other way round.
"I am sorry, but what initially, in your first posts on this thread of yours, indicated to be a very interesting and fresh approach has been more or less reduced to a reluctancy to consider interpretations that goes against your own."
No Glenn. As you say I've tried to offer a fresh approach. But I'd like to get back some fresh approach, too. That doesn't mean that the rest of contributors must agree with me. It means that I'd like to create a debate in which I wouldn't just have to answer plain 'negatives' but a more elaborated reasoning, or failing that a more original type of objection than just something like:
"Tabram's murderer cannot be the Ripper because Tabram's murder was a drunk, frenzy client and the Ripper wasn't", etc.
That line of reasoning has been repeated quite a few times despite it has been debated and dealt with several times. Besides, I feel it's one of those arguments which takes on such absolute positions (this cannot be black because is white, period.) and offer so little counter-arguments, that it hardly leaves an option for debate (after all, no one can question something that it's taken as an absolute). So, IMHO, it becomes more a strategy to avoid constructing a full alternative than a real reasoning.
In fact, if you check my June 30 post, I said:
"Anyway, you are entitled to disagree. In fact, if you have different (or stronger) objections to the ones we have been debating why don't you propose an alternative explanation based on them? I mean, if they are different from the ones already debated about coincidences, etc.
It's easy to discount a theory or just to say 'no' to something. But it takes a bit more to propose, construct and reason out an alternative explanation."
That's why I posted my original posts. To create a debate and not to answer the typical negatives which have been debated over and over again in other threads.
Anyway, I'd like to make it quite clear that I have no reluctancy to consider interpretations that go against mine. But if we want to keep that 'fresh approach' we all should also try to offer something fresher than just the plain negative, the flat no, etc.
And once again, we should avoid remarks about the 'common sense' of our arguments or remarks about why it's not surprising that some people have exited the thread, etc.
Anyway, I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill.
David,
If I have misunderstood you, please accept my apologies. But my intention is to create productive debate and not just answer the already debated negatives that lead to nowhere. That's why I suggested you to avoid those absolutes.
(Message edited by inaki on July 05, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 114
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Inaki,
In your posts of Tuesday 5 July,you make two comments on the conditions on the landing where Tabram's body was found.One was 'Complete darkness',the other 'absolute darkness'.
Now two people saw the body lying there,Alfred Crow,who thought it was a tramp sleeping,and John Saunders Reeves,who investigated his sighting and found her dead.
So the landing could not have been in absolute darkness if they were able to observe her.
How much then,was the killer able to observe? |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 124
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi all!
Harry,
"Now two people saw the body lying there,Alfred Crow,who thought it was a tramp sleeping,and John Saunders Reeves,who investigated his sighting and found her dead."
I'd like to deal with Reeves first. "...he left his lodging at about 4.45. It was already getting light as he descended the stairs..." --Sugden, 1998, p.15.
As for Reeves, there was already some light. So, he had no problem in seeing Martha.
Now let's deal with Crow. In the following report wrote by Chief Inspector Donald S. Swanson (Metropolitan Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, September 1888) we read:
"At 3.30 am Alfred George Crow states he saw something on the landing, but took no notice and went to bed (...) It is not an uncommon occurrence for tramps and others to sleep on a common stairs in the East End, and I venture to think that the something which the cabman Alfred George Crow saw was the body of Martha Tabram." -- The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, p.17.
Crow just got to see 'something' and thought it had to be a tramp. But, note that despite the fact that Crow must have passed just a few inches away from the body he only saw 'something'. He couldn't say for sure what (or who) he saw. This points to what I said.
This is why researches, like Sugden, when speaking about that place say: "it was completely dark on the stairs as she descended...". --Sugden, 1998, p.15.
Of course, I'd like you to understand that 'completely' dark is a figure of speech. It doesn't mean 100% dark. When I've mentioned that it was completeley dark has been to show that the 'working conditions' were a thing we should take into account before proposing some (favourable) scenarios for the murderer. It was much darker than Mitre Square, since there was no lamppost around, there was no moonlight, etc. So visibility would be very poor.
That's why, despite Crow was able to just make out something, it could also be said that it was completely dark.
Thus, the criminal probably couldn't see any details, the same way Crow couldn't see them, either.
(Message edited by inaki on July 06, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 115
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Inaki,
I cite the AtoZ book,which states Crow as saying he saw a body.I have been out all hours of the night,in all kinds of weather,and except for very heavy fog,there is never darkness so complete as would shield the victim ,at the distance she was, from the killer,or the wtnesses.I can't,from source material,find any reference by the witnesses as to how dark it was.
As most of the stab wounds were made by a pen knife type blade,the initial stabs would not be life threatening.As the killer needed one hand to stab,Tabramm would,if concious,either be able to scream,or make some attempt to defend herself,in either case some noise would probably ensue.
Therefor it is most probable she was rendered unconcious first,and the grouping of the wounds might indicate a controlled stabbing period and not a frenzied approach.
I do think she was a ripper victim. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 125
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Harry,
Thanks for your coments.
Yes, I didn't mean 100% darkness when I said that. I based my remarks in the Swanson report, Mr Sugden observations and some other researcher's observations, too.
Anyway, bear in mind that the murderer didn't happen on the streets, where some kind of light would be available.It happened indoors and there was no staircase light on.
The fact that Crow must have passed a few inches away from the body and he couldn't discern anything but what he thought to be somebody (he couldn't tell whether it was a man or woman) sleeping on the floor landing, shows that visibility would be very poor. Just enough to go up and down.
And from Swanson's report I infer that initially Crow just saw 'something'. What happens is that as he was so used to seeing tramps sleeping there that he immediately linked that 'something' with someone's body.
Anyway, my point was to show that the working conditions for the murderer wouldn't be that good. My feeling is that if everything just happened by 'accident', i.e. the murder was just a spur of the moment action, probably there'd have been a bit of a fumbling, tripping, etc. If you add that it was probaly a wooden floor landing, then some stomping, crackling noises would be expected.
These are some of the reasons for which I think Martha's murderer planned how to dispatch her before going up those stairs.
IMHO, the suppossed and frenzy attack is just that, suppossed. In other posts I’ve tried to provide with an alternate explanation for such multiple stabbings. The thing is that the notion of ‘uncontrolled’ attack is so ingrained that takes a lot to try to see things differently.
But as you have also mentioned, the grouping of the wounds might indicate a controlled stabbing period and not a frenzied approach. Add to this, the lacking of accidental cuts in face, arms, hands, etc., or that the inquest report fails to mention what you rightly noted: “39 stab wounds are an awful lot,and if only half were made through clothing, it would,I think,cause enough damage to elicit some remark at the inquest”.
The reports describe her clothes as old, worn, etc., but no mention of accidental cuts, stabs, etc., is done. All this could suggest a more controlled type of murderer.
(Message edited by inaki on July 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 126
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
As regard how Martha's murder departed from the every day type of crime, murder, etc., and cannot be treated like the other typical violent acts committed in the East End, I'd like to echo some remarks made by Bob Hinton when dealing with Martha's murder.
After mentioning The New York Times report on the murder, he reflected on it the following way: "It is interesting to note that this crime was really very unusual, otherwise why would a paper printed the other side of the world would be interested." --From Hell, p.17.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki.
If you look at my follow-up post, I apologised for being too presumptive in saying that Martha was "almost certainly drunk", and changed that to "more likely than not", based on her known history of drunkenness.
I will concede however, that the date of Tabram's murder DOES fit in with the pattern of the Ripper killings that followed. Some people now believe that Kelly may not have been a Ripper victim, but I DO, and in that case, as you said, the dates are all consistent, even Martha's.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 128
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Hi all!
I just wanted to let you know that I'll be away until September, so most probably I won't be able to contribute anything in the Casebook.
Have a nice summer and take care so that we meet here after it.
Best wishes,
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
|
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