|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 9:57 am: |       |
Hello Robert, yes I looked over all those which gave examples that might be of relevance to the Ripper series. I wondered if anyone else would do the same. And, yes, that one you mentioned brought to mind Martha Tabram.
However, the question you ask is a good one, as Glenn pointed out, pure rage is all that is required. All too often the allegation of "sexual motivation" is suggested, and in most cases, yes this appears to be the case. But, this is usually because we eventually catch the prepetrator and he confesses something along those lines.
In a case where the killer was never found, can we really be so sure?
And, whether you know this or not,....I have been asking that very question for years.
Regards, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 594
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Jon
Sorry, it's taking me a while to find out who thinks what on which topic! I wasn't assuming that you did think the wounds were sexual.
I suppose Jack derived some strange, twisted pleasure from what he did, but whether that can be categorised as sexual I cannot say. AP Wolf sees a positively anti-sexual drive at work.
I agree that many things aren't obviously sexual. What's sexual about a kidney, or a heart? And when the Ripper killed Eddowes, her face seemed to be a higher priority than her breasts.
Robert |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi all,
If I might make a brief comment regarding Robert's previous point about frustration -- It suddenly occurs to me how very dark it must have been on that landing (as attested to by a witness who saw the outline of the body but assumed it was a homeless person sleeping there). Working from the assumption that this was his first murder, it seems to me quite possible that he had fully intended on ripping her as well, but realized (perhaps after it was too late to change plans) that the darkness made such a task prohibitive. And so, he was forced to limit himself to blind stabbing, an act which doesn't necessarily require seeing what one is doing. And thus the frustration element surfaces.
Perhaps after garnering the experience of a successful rip (via Chapman's attack, which I might point out was in broad daylight) he felt confident enough to do so in the relative darkness of Mitre's Square. But for a first murder in the darkness of a landing in George's Yard, the task may have been too daunting for the budding killer. |
Fank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 12:35 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
It's possible that you already know this, and although it's clear that in your post of Aug. 17 (to Jon) the point you made with your remark regarding the facial mutilations is that many things aren't obviously sexual, I still want to bring to your attention that it has been suggested that such injuries indicate that the victim is known to the killer. So, indeed these injuries had no sexual foundation, they might however even reveal something more mundane about Jack the Ripper: he might have known both Eddowes and Kelly.
All the best,
Frank  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 597
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi Randy, Frank
It's certainly possible, Randy, that he wanted to rip and found it too dark - maybe the visual experience was an important factor for him. Also, if he'd wanted to remove an organ he'd have had a job doing it in a place even darker than Mitre Square (unless he was a doctor).
Another thing about the landing, is that as far as I remember, it was very cramped for space (I tried to find the picture on Casebook but I think it's been removed). I think this cramped nature of the landing is another reason for thinking that Tabram was only attacked by one man, not two.
Frank, yes I know some say that facial mutilations imply that the attacker knows the victim. I think it's a bit weird, though, if this is combined with the "torso mutilations are sexual" slant, so that both these theories are in play at the same time, for then it's very difficult for anyone to stab a woman without it being a sign either of sexual motivation, or of acquaintance with the victim - and that somehow just feels wrong, to me.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 3:32 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I to was surprised at the amount of space on the landing at George yard,it is obvious that only one person carried out the stabbing, unless of course the accomplice was standing on the stair nearest the landing and they swopped after stab 38, when the killer got tired.and he finished the act with a different weapon !.
I believe this was a Ripper killing because of the amount of rage shown, I have always thought that the killer was a rough , brutal, sadistic, maniac, that attacked a suitable victim, without any fourplay,no conversation,and was in a cold flipped out state at the time of the murders.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 97
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 5:01 am: | |
Hi Richard.
For once (incredibly enough) we agree!!!!
I think there are a lot of uncertain "white spots" in the Tabram case, but that is pretty much what I believe as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
Robert, I see what you mean. Where can an 'honest killer' stab his victim without being regarded as a sexualy motivated murderer and as one that knew this victim?
But more seriously, Jack the Ripper - like a lot of other serial killers - only killed women, so the sex of the victims must mean something. Of course, one could argue that it would have been easier for Jack to 'come by' a woman and to overpower her than it would have been to find a man and kill him. I'm certainly not an expert, but still I feel that the sex of his victims was important to him...
Then, regarding Martha Tabram, I tend to think that she was one of Jack's victims too (mind you, it was still Jack the Stabber then). There are several similarities with the others he killed: her clothing was dissaranged and her skirts pushed up, her legs were open, locality, victim's age, etc. And although he had developped into Jack the Ripper by the time he killed Kelly and he had a lot more time with her, the sheer frenzy of the attack on Tabram makes me think of the one on Kelly.
But the first reason for thinking she was probably killed by JtR are the knife wounds to the lower torso and the one to her genital region. And by the way, that goes for Annie Millwood as well.
Good night all,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 614
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi Frank
I agree it's quite on the cards that Tabram was a Ripper victim. And the murders may indeed have been sexual, if by "sexual" is meant that the killer got a sexual thrill from the mutilations.
I don't think that they HAVE to be sexual, though. True, all the victims were women, so this may mean that the killer hated women. But surely that doesn't mean that the murders HAD to be sexual, does it? (other than in the trivial sense that killer and victim were of different genders).
Or it may be that some of the mutilations were sexual, and others weren't. Or the mutilations were sexual, but the organ-taking wasn't.
I really don't know.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 6:50 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I really don't know either whether (part of) the mutilations were sexual or not and in what way. We're trying to get into Jack's mind and I don't think that any of us has enough imagination to do that completely or even partly.
However, I'm a fairly imaginative guy and I tried to imagine what it would look/feel like if his victims would have been men instead of women. I can't really say why, but that didn't feel right (not that JtR killing women feels right, mind you!). Maybe it would have been less of a shock, less powerfull, less of a statement (if you can call it that).
Having thought about it some more, I don't feel the killer got a sexual thrill from the abdominal mutilations. I feel it has to do with hating women, committing the most extreme act of disrespect. The actual act of killing them may have given him a great sense of power over them, and by cutting them up he might have tried to erase them from existence, to reduce them to nothing.
If my somewhat incoherent feelings are true, then we must ask ourselves: why did he hate women? And if the answer to this question would be that he wasn't able to get into a relationship with a woman or something along that line, then that's the extent to what the murders were sexual.
But of course, if we assume that the killer for instance was a paranoid schizophrenic - one of the things Jeff Hamm discussed in his posts on another thread - then my thoughts would be quite meaningless, I think.
Good night,
Frank  |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 647
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:09 pm: | |
Hi Frank
My head's spinning too!
I know this is only subjective but, to me, he never got as far as COMPLETELY destroying a person. I feel that the most personal part of a person is probably the eyes, and he left those in place.
But of course we don't know what was going on in this man's head.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
With Mary Kelly he got quite a long way, though!
Take care,
Frank |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 297
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 1:11 pm: | |
Dan, Her's the problem with Martha being a Ripper victim:
1, she and her friend were paird up for the evening with a couple of military men.
2, she went with one of them to have an intimate encounter for money.
3, she was found in the stairwell, clothing up indicating that she had at least started if not completed her intimate encounter.
4, she was stabbed to death with a military type weapon going though her heart, and a number of "pen-knife" type wounds to her body.
5, she did not have her throat slit down to the backbone as the others did.
6, she did not have any abdominal mutilation beyond the stab wounds themselves.
So, once again, would you show me anywhere that this murder is related to the others? From the eyewitness accounts and the coroner's statement, it appears (at least to me) that she was killed by one of the men she went off with and not the Ripper. |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
Shannon,
1) So she was prostituting herself. Just like the cannonicals. (Except perhaps for Eddowes)
2) " "
3) You're drawing a unsupported conclusion there that Martha pulled them up for the purpose of sex, and not the killer. Of course Jack left the clothing up in some cases, and evidence suggests the MJK took off her clothes in preparation for an intimate encounter. This is different how exactly?
4) The difference in weapons is interesting, but not necessarily conclusive. If he didn't like the way it went with Martha, could simply have purchased a better knife before going on the hunt again.
5) So? MOs evolve. The Son of Sam tried stabbing his first victim, didn't like the blood so went with a gun in the future. If Martha was his first victim, then he would undoubtedly have changed the approach if he wasn't happy with how it went.
6) " " And the mutilations clearly escalated from victim to victim.
Nothing you posted comes anywhere near ruling Martha out as a Ripper victim. We don't know that she was killed by the man she went off with, nor do we know that the man she went off with was not Jack.
Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that Martha WAS a ripper victim, but nothing you've offered above does much to lessen the strong possibility that she was.
Regards,
John |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 233
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Also with regard to point 3, she went up George Yard with the soldier at 11.45. Her body was not found until five hours later. From Alfred Crow we can be fairly certain she was dead by 3.30 but that still leaves nearly a four hour gap. The Mahoney's did not see her on the stairs which Elizabeth Mahoney passed up and down three times between 1.45 and 2.00. Okay she also said that it was dark and she might have missed her, but then there is the Soldier who spoke to PC Barrett also at 2.00. The police at the time took this to mean that this soldier was her killer but that is totally illogical. If you had just brutally stabbed a woman 39 times are you going to hang around outside the building and have a chat to a policeman? This was two hours after they went up the yard and also, as said, at the end of the time that Elizabeth Mahoney was going up and down the stairs. So if this soldier was her killer then either he killed her over 15 minutes earlier and then just hung around waiting for a stray copper to walk along, or else the Mahoney's were particularly blind and failed not only to notice a dead body on the stairs, but walked right past as our soldier boy was engaged in brutally murdering her! |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:19 pm: | |
Shannon,
Again, I post the message I already posted on the Barnett thread, but although I purposely asked you a question at the end of it in order to get some response you still chose not to reply.
Ok, here it is again:
“Dan, if there is one shred of evidence that Martha was a Ripper victim, I would have considered it. There isnt. Not one thing about her case matches any of the others except that she was killed with a knife.” – this is what you wrote yesterday.
You mentioned somewhere that Martha being killed on a first-floor landing as opposed to in the streets was also a reason for you to say that “Martha is NOT a ripper victim PERIOD!”. However, Annie Chapman wasn’t killed in the street and certainly Mary Kelly wasn’t. So, as I see it we can’t count out Martha Tabram for that reason.
Furthermore, there are several similarities with the others he killed that you seem to want to overlook: her clothing was disarranged and her skirts pushed up, her legs were open, the locality (in fact, she was killed in what can be seen as the epicentre of Jack’s hunting grounds), the victim's age and no noise was heard. Although her throat wasn’t cut, it was stabbed nine times. And on top of that, there are the knife wounds to the lower torso and the one to her genital region.
Can you still honestly say there’s not one thing that matches any of the others?”
John Hacker even mentioned another similarity: she was prostituting herself. Like John, I don’t think the use of a different type of knife after the murder of Martha is very important. I think it’s significant – and that makes the similarity - that a knife was used. Although not cut or ripped open the throat and abdomen including the genital region were the focus of attack, and this is yet another similarity.
According to Dr Killeen, Martha Tabram was killed at about 2:30 am. Joseph and Elizabeth Mahoney saw nobody lying on the landing when they returned to their lodgings between 1:40 and 1:50 am. Pearly Poll testified that she was with Martha until about 11:45 pm. Are we to believe that the soldier waited for at least 2 hours before he killed her? Well, I don’t believe it because I don’t think it’s very likely to have been the case.
Now you can try to explain these 8 similarities in whatever direction you like or just ignore them, but I think they're stong indications of Martha also being a Ripper victim. I think particularly the stab just above her vagina wasn’t a coincidence either.
Frank
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 300
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:09 pm: | |
Ok, once and for all... setting the record straight. If we fail to accept a particular clue or circumstance, we are accused of not seeing all the facts. If we see more that what another does in the clues presented we are accused of making things up to fit our supsect. Which is it going to be?
You see Martha as a Ripper victim, fine, all well and good. I fail to see the connection.
What did she have in common?
1, she was a prostitute who was murderd with a knife.
2, she was killed in the middle of the night.
3, oh and her clothes were pushed up.
Is that about it?
What she doesnt have in common:
1, she was not strangeled (Polly, Annie, & Kate were)
2, she did not have her throat slit down to the backbone (Polly, Annie, & Kate did)
3, she had no signs of abdominal mutilation (Polly, Annie, & Kate did)
4, she appears to actually have been engaged in intercourse (Polly, Annie, & Kate were NOT at the time of death)
You claim that the killer evolved. Evolved from what? How do you go from a stabbler to a Ripper in the course of 1 murder in 3 weeks time. Where are the intermediate killings where he prefected his craft?
Darwin couldnt make the evolutionary leap of faith your asking for...
Shannon |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:36 pm: | |
Shannon,
"You claim that the killer evolved. Evolved from what? How do you go from a stabbler to a Ripper in the course of 1 murder in 3 weeks time. Where are the intermediate killings where he prefected his craft?"
Er, there's a pretty smooth progression of mutilation from Nichols through Kelly. Where exactly is the leap of faith required here to place Tabram before Nichols?
If we dismiss Tabram, then we have someone leaping from non-killer to Ripper in a SINGLE step. This is more plausible WHY exactly?
Regards,
John |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 301
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
Placing Tabram before Nichols in time is one thing, placing her before the others in the sequence of murders assume too many details.
Complete change of "signature" for starters. A killer changes his method of killing as did Son of Sam. He may even change his location, but a signature is his statement to the powers that have told him to kill and that part of the crime has to be done out of respect for the entity that provided his bounty.
If you believed the killer evolved, where are the first murders, or did he just start out by stabbing a prostitute 39 times?
If you believe there is a connection here, why didnt the police of the day see it? It was only three weeks between her murder and Polly's. They saw her murder as being committed by one of the members of the military she was seen with earlier that night. If she was killed by the Ripper, why didnt her friend come forward after the reward was offered?
Shannon |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 9:25 pm: | |
Shannon,
Where exactly is the change in signature?
BTW, I am not sure where you got the defination of signature as "his statement to the powers that have told him to kill and that part of the crime has to be done out of respect for the entity that provided his bounty." That's one I've never heard before I am at a complete loss as to how you think that applies here.
Let me be perfectly clear here, I don't know if she was a ripper victim or not. But the reasoning that you are offering to try and exclude her isn't particularly logical.
"If you believed the killer evolved, where are the first murders, or did he just start out by stabbing a prostitute 39 times?"
The killer started somewhere, with some victim. Tabram, Nichols, or someone else entirely. The details changed from killing to killing. You offer minor differences and try to blow them up into major proportions. By this approach we could easily come to Turnbull's conclusion that the killings were ALL the work of different people.
I don't understand what your objection is to the possibilty that the killer might go abdominal stabbing to abdominal cutting. There are certainly far more extreme examples of changes in MO in the history of serial killing.
As far as the rest of your questions.
"If you believe there is a connection here, why didnt the police of the day see it?"
Let me turn that around and ask you if it's so obvious that Joe is the killer, why didn't the police of the day see it?
"It was only three weeks between her murder and Polly's. They saw her murder as being committed by one of the members of the military she was seen with earlier that night. If she was killed by the Ripper, why didnt her friend come forward after the reward was offered?"
That was their best lead and they pursued it. They tried getting Pearly Poll to ID the killer and it was a complete bust. I don't see how a reward being offered changes anything whatsoever unless you are assuming that she was intentionally covering for the killer.
Now I would appreciate an answer to my earlier query:
If we dismiss Tabram, then we have someone leaping from non-killer to Ripper in a SINGLE step. This is more plausible WHY exactly?
Regards,
John |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 10:45 pm: | |
I wonder if she met JTR after she finished with the soldier. The timing is suggestive. If the soldier was JTR why did he hang around so long? |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 10:58 pm: | |
I reread the Tabram story and began to be bothered by some questions. Even assuming she was murdered at say 1:00 am, why did she hang around George Yard buildings for two hours after finishing with the soldier? Quite possibly she was in a state of inebriation and decided to sleep it off? What was JTR doing in the area? Was he trolling for victims and the two of them decided to go up on the stairwell or did he live there and come upon MT as he was heading home or alternatively heading out? |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 303
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 4:06 am: | |
John, the change is actually a lack of signature when compared to the others. In each murder (no I don’t include Liz) the killer performed three actions; strangled the victim, slit the throat, and performed an abdominal mutilation. These are the killer's A, B, C's and none appear on Martha. Some may call it trivial, but to the mind of the killer it’s anything but. Jack (and I know I will take flack for this) actually showed a level of compassion for his victims by killing them very quickly so they didn't suffer, and then inflicted the mutilations post mortem when they couldn’t feel it. Polly, Annie, and Kate were all strangled/suffocated and had their throats slit completely through in a second to make sure death was instantaneous. This is not the mark of a true serial killer who relishes the control of life over death he shows his victims. This is more the actions of a hunter stalking a deer and making the kill as quick and painless to the animal as possible.
The serial killer achieves two goals; control, and possession of the victim. As meaningless as they seem to some, to the killer they are extremely important. The killer needs to dominate fully the victim. Its in deciding how, when, and where the victim is to die that the killer exercises their "god-like" quality. This was not displayed in these murders.
The serial killer or sexual serial killer savors his work, obsesses on it, and keeps souvenirs and sometimes detailed records. He is not in pain; he causes it. His need exceeds sex and violence. It is a pathological desire for complete mastery; he wants to engulf and to annihilate a victim.
The enjoyment they receive is worth the risk they take and one reason most all serial killers are themselves killed rather than surrender to the authorities and have to live the rest of their life in the control of an institution.
A serial killer chooses a victim by subconscious as well as conscious thought. His psyche tells him that he is a god, and has the power of life and death. This is the higher power I referred to as the one that the killer has to show his respect to by killing all the victims in a similar "signature" fashion. Not so much a split personality with one side of his brain talking to the other as it is his innermost psyche telling him that he doesn’t know he really is a god and to prove it all he has to do is take control of the life of another human, make it his possession and do with it as he pleases without having to ask permission. His psyche bestows on his conscious the right to become omnipotent, and since it comes from within, the killer believes the power to be real.
John: "Let me turn that around and ask you if it's so obvious that Joe is the killer, why didn't the police of the day see it?"
The police make a fundamental mistake about the workings of a serial killer. They believe that they have to make one person fit all the murders. Which we know today isn’t the case. The Boston strangler was never convicted of murder, only aggravated sexual assault. The Atlanta child murderer was only charged with two murders even though he committed well over twenty. Gacy was only convicted of a couple of the murders even though he killed over thirty.
Had the MEPO realized that it was impossible to link one person to all the crimes, and to charge and convict on one crime to get the killer off the streets I believe the case would have had a different outcome.
Why more plausible to go from non killer to Ripper without an evolution? Because Jack is not a true serial killer in the respect that he derives pleasure from the kill, nor does he fit the clinical description of a mass murderer or spree killer.
A serial killer is addicted to the rush from the kill. Jack wasn't. The killings are not sexual in nature, they were done very violently, very quickly, and the throat and abdominal wounds are all done post mortem when the victim could feel no pain. Martha and Liz both suffered, none of the others did. Yes, you can say this to be a trivial point but it is the crux of my belief about the killer, and why I believe Jack could do the things he did, justify his actions, and after the death of Mary lead what appears to be a "normal" life.
Shannon
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 238
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
If you believed the killer evolved, where are the first murders, or did he just start out by stabbing a prostitute 39 times?
Annie Millwood, an attack in which the perpetrator plainly directed his fury at the penetration of the abdominal area of his victim but in this case did not actually kill her first. |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 113
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
A woman who is alive and getting her abdomen mutilated is going to scream--loudly, I imagine. Strangling them and then slitting their throat probably had less to do with compassion than a desire not to be caught. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
