|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1778
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 7:03 pm: |       |
I said "no similarities in method whatsoever"; I strictly referred to the method.
But now that you mention it, I don't see why the Ripper would have been the only one in Whitechapel attacking prostitutes in different violent ways. It is no news flash that the occupation was and is a dangerous one, considering gangs (which we know existed), pimps and drunk and violent clients. I have said it before and I'll say it again, the bank holidays and the weekends would be the prostitutes' busiest nights, so the chance for them to meet more clients and be assaulted on a bank holiday would be rather increased anyway, so that really doesen't tell us that much. The fact that it happened in 1888 could just as well be a coincidence -- we don't know what the real statistics say about the crime and murder rates of the previous years (according to Alex Chisholm, among others, those statistics were incomplete and misleading and doesen't tell us the whole story).
And then we also have to consider the possibility that the terribly wounded Emma Smith lied about her statement about at a gang, a deduction that is not impossible but rather unfounded and unsupported. Once again, gangs connected to the pimp trade did exist, so therefore her explanation is as good as any, even if she could have had valid reasons for painting another picture to the press and the police.
There is really nothing to link her to the Ripper. She was a prostitute attacked with a blunt weapon in the vagina while occupied with one of the most dangerous trades in the world, in a destitute and unsafe area. That's all we can say for sure; it surely isn't enough to turn her into an early Ripper victim.
I know I'm about to get smacked in the head for this one (which is why I left this thread in the first place), but I don't plan to hang around her long this time anyway, so ...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 86
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
"I said "no similarities in method whatsoever"; I strictly referred to the method."
Yeah, and the method has similarities, unless you go and change the meaning of the word on us. Perhaps not strong ones, but they are there.
"And then we also have to consider the possibility that the terribly wounded Emma Smith lied about her statement about at a gang, a deduction that is not impossible but rather unfounded and unsupported."
There are also the possibilities that she got confused and only thought there was more than one person attacking her (unlikely but possible, if she had seen some other person before the attack and incorrectly assumed he was involved during the disorientation of it all), that Jack came up to her after an otherwise unrelated assault (you yourself suggest a similar possibility with Stride), that Jack was part of the gang, or that Jack was part of a partnership of some sort (she said two or three attackers).
As far as it being unsupported, there's the problem of just how she could have been attacked where she says she was and then walked back to her lodgings, crossing the beats of several police officers. Something about that is a little peculiar.
Of course what's more peculiar is that she then got taken to the hospital and I believe none of the police saw them do that either. One has to wonder how exactly that could be. Did she not trust the police and try to hide her injuries, somehow avoid all of them the whole time accidentally, cross areas with officers skipping their beats, or what? It's pretty strange.
"There is really nothing to link her to the Ripper."
Other than potentially the things already mentioned above, of course.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Whats up Everyone?
If Glenn is getting smacked, ya'll are just gonna have to slap me too, because I (for the most part) agree that there is no evidence to support the theory of Emma lying about her attackers. In my humble opinion, the theory of her lying because she was attacked by a client doesnt make much sense. I can see the possibility but not the probability. If someone is fatally wounded, why would they make up a crazy story about who attacked them?
I dont agree with the "psychological traumatization" theory either. She was no doubt traumatized, but to go from one attacker to three just because of an injured vagina is a little far fetched. I know she was beaten, but she had the wherewithall to remember where she lived and how to get there so surely she would have remembered who attacked her.
Best Regards,
Paul
PS I thought this was a Martha Tabram thread.
Let the smackn' begin!!! 
(Message edited by paulj on May 12, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
I agree on that the circumstances seems rather strange concerning her alleged way back to the lodgings and then the hospital. As you say, Dan, there is something that is not right here. It's strange indeed.
As I stated, there could be a number of reasons for why she didn't tell the truth -- if she didn't. Maybe, as I pointed out, she was scared and was afraid of reprisals against her if she led the authorities to one or several certain individuals.
Yes, it's true -- she could have been confused as well; it is possible that she, as a result of the situation, could have mistaken one or two others standing by as accomplices and therefore interpreted it as a gang.
However, apart from that, I second to Paul's opinion; if you're terribly wounded you usually don't lie about the circumstances, unless you have very good reasons to do so. However, whether she was traumatized or not, I couldn't say, though. We have too little information, I fear.
Regarding her statement, we know that these gangs -- as the likes of the Nichols gang -- existed, so I see no evident reason to doubt her word, but I can admit there are other possible scenarios to consider as an explanation to her statement.
So her being a victim of several or a lone assailant, is an open question.
But Ripper victim -- Nah!
Well, of course; Paul is correct -- we better not turn this into an Emma Smith thread; she has one of her own, I believe, although the basis for the discussions are the same.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1111
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:32 am: | |
Caz, LEANNE,
Im about to type the most hated phrase (according to a poll organise some months back) in the English language....
.....I hear what you are saying but.....
Leannes quote by Douglas and media infulences. I cannot see that in 1888. Not in the media, not to the extent Jack operated. How could the media, prior to the murders, influence Jack to that degree ?
That said, I agree with Norris and the rest of Leannes post. Including the line A killer has to start somewhere!.
....now wheres that Martha thread ??
Monty
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
"Emma Smith is an even more unlikely victim than Tabram."
Glenn,
At this point I am pretty darn well convinced that Tabram was a JTR victim. So I just thought I would put that right out on the table. My opinion only of course, but I wholeheartedly support her canonization.
I have posted a response to the above discussion on the Emma Smith board.
Rob H. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi All,
I tried continuing the thread "...and all the King's Men", but due to technical hiatus at the Casebook end, this tread was closed, and my humble offering dissapeared into thin air.POOF!
Unfortunately I have left my notes on the Tabram case elsewhere and it may be autumn before I can provide the most useful scenario for our two little guardsmen really were.
In the meanwhile, I may have a shot at the TWO witnesses at Miller's Court...who also dissapeared immediately after the murder. Hang in there folks...lots of twists and turns to come. It may even make your bowels weep.
Rosey :-) |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Gang,
At least we have got this board moving again. Come on EVERYBODY chime in with your opinions.
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1782
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Robert,
"At this point I am pretty darn well convinced that Tabram was a JTR victim. So I just thought I would put that right out on the table. My opinion only of course, but I wholeheartedly support her canonization."
Good for you, Rob. I must admit I can't feel "pretty darn well convinced" about anything myself, but OK...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 802
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
I just want to add my two penny worth.Martha Tabram was a ripper victim alright.Where was she found?Right in the heart of it all.When was she found?Just at the start!
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 803
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
........and another thing Martha was at the beginning and early stages of his evolution while poor Mary!Need I say more!
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
I don't know anything for sure, but personally this is my two penny worth: the day Tabram reaches the status of a proven Ripper victim, I'll promise I'll eat my old panama hat -- with no salt. Still, I could be wrong but I am prepared to risk it ...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
If I had a hat (bonnets and Caz have never got along for some strange reason) I'd eat mine too if Martha was really one of Jack's.
I happen to think the ripper was the copycat after Emma and Martha's murders were reported. Both crimes, after a relatively murder-free period of London history, would have given a hesitant Jack the very best launch pad - all he had to do was wait a while then begin his own hoperations in exactly the same area on the same type of victim and on weekends.
The 'coincidence' - and all that follows is IMHO of course - was simply that Jack was already waiting in the wings for his cue, he already knew the area reasonably well so only had to brush up a bit on his local knowledge, was free to travel into Whitechapel at the weekend, and rather liked the idea of finding his old bitch of a mother on every corner just waiting for her resentful son to destroy her again and again.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
G'day Monty,
I didn't say that the murders prior to 1888 influenced Jack the Ripper! I said that Jack the Ripper, (if he didn't murder Smith and Tabram), could have been inspired by their murders. They could have told him that it was acceptable to kill low-life women, who obviously meant nothing to him.
I know there was no television in 1888. That would have increased the power of the press. Look at how quickly the fear of the unknown Whitechapel murderer spread.
LEANNE |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Dear Natalie,
"...early stages of his evolution." Thats one way of describing an expanding series of actions. Another description might well be equally applicable...a cycle within cycles, a circle within circles, an ever-expanding wheel.But if you are locked into a singularity re, biotechtonics of medico-legal jurisprudence...you have your work cut out for you.
The point is, as I have repeatedly stated, the answer is within the limited evidence of the 'case evidence'...not secondary and tertiary source materials. Our local entertainment industry is dependent on this latter avenue of investigation...and gosh, isn't it all great fun!
Rosey :-) |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 805
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi Rosie me old pal!Nice to see your name again.Funny I was thinking of you when I was writing a post on the pub thread last night[about "gangs" and "ganging up" and things not belonging to this thread at all]
I do honestly think that Martha was more likely than not to have been a ripper victim [time,place and area of wounds].I also think he was not so adept at this point---still perfecting the promptings of his urges....
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 806
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
You know the saying Glenn"in life there are only those who do and those who don"t dare"
you are one of the risk takers here in this case!
Natalie
PS salt can increase blood pressure apparently! |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 369
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Ok, my humble opinion, MARTHA TABRAM (Tabran, Turner) was a RIpper victim. I believe she was the very first.
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 808
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Hi Mikey,I am interested to see you think this,given your job and all that.
Monty has just posted something on Emma Smith who I have also thought may be a JtR victim for the reasons he gives about the nature of the attack.the ferocity of it being unusual and recognising that the work of a prostitute tends to increase the risk of violent sexual attacks on them compared with the population in general.
I think the case of Emma is worth further study
if indeed the ferocity of the attack together with the area targeted excelled in violence other attacks on prostitutes recorded at that time[or indeed as Monty cites in our own time.
Natalie
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
IMHO, Martha Tabram was a victim.I believe she was Jack the Ripper's first. He was learning to use his sealegs as it were with her. However, until we know who Jack the Ripper was we will never know if Martha was indeed one of his. Believe it or not, that's what makes the search so compelling. I believe the method of killing was important but not infallable. The difference may be as simple as what was easiest for him. Hi to all! Neil |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Hi Neil.
I have never understood this 'learning' argument.
A frenzied stabbing with two weapons and a methodical slicing are as different as chalk and cheese.
As far as 'perfection' goes (probably not the right term), the peak murder was Chapman's, in this the killer displayed more technique than with any other.
Eddowes was a bit of a hurried slashing, Nichols was possibly interrupted anyway, and Kelly's displayed no technique at all.
I just don't see the progressive flow, Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, are for sure by the same hand, as for the rest, opinions vary and rightly so.
Regards, Jon
"Everyday" driver40386@yahoo.ca
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
Jon Smyth,
I couldn't agree with you more!
A great sum-up in few words of my own thoughts on this very subject.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 92
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Jon and Glenn:
I will concede learning may be a bit of a stretch.My thought is that he stabbed Tabram and decided that slashing was a more efficient manner I still believe that she was the rippers first and I still stand by my belief that one weapon and one weapon only was used. In my view,The only way two different weapons works is if you have a minimum of three assailants one to hold the victim and two to stab. Glenn, you may have research to dispute this last statement and not being as versed in criminal history as you are I would accept that but I think that Tabram fell victim to only one assailant. My theory is that the wound to the sternum was the last inflicted and that the murderer had to work the knife back and forth to remove it from the wound thus causing the difference in the wounds. Kindest regards, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Neil,
I have no idea whether one weapon was used or not or if there were one or two perpetrators. That is not my main concern.
But a serial killer's MO can change, while the signature seldom does. For a killer of the Ripper's kind, the mutilations are the main driving force.
Martha Tabram was last seen with a soldier that could not be identified, and to me the Tabram murder -- in my very personal view -- implicates the deed of a sex deal gone bad and the murder being performed in a frenzy rather than by a sexual serial killer.
No trophies were taken and she was not mutilated. Both things are a necessity for a sexual serial killer of the Ripper's kind. In Martha's case the only implication of a signature is the arranging of the body, but that body position is so ordinary in violent murders that it can't be reliable as a true sign of a serial killer at large.
I could be completely wrong, of course, but my personal bet is that she was murdered by a very violent and drunk soldier that probably was her last client that night.
The idea of an escalating serial killer is not enough to convince me beyond doubt that she should be labeled as an early Ripper victim. I have no doubt that the Ripper performed other deeds before Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes but that doesen't automatically mean that Tabram is one of them.
I don't think the Ripper was the only violent sex perpetrator in Whitechapel at the time (the Bank holidays and weekends also had a lot of visits from sailors and other categories of men from abroad) and street prostitution at night was and probably still is one of the most dangerous occupations there is. Just my two penny's worth, not necessarily the correct truth.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Glenn,
implicates the deed of a sex deal gone bad and the murder being performed in a frenzy rather than by a sexual serial killer.
Wheres the arguement ? The scuffle ?? Noises made on the landing ???
I can see the obvious reasons why Martha should be excluded from the series but I consider other factors such as possible interuption (we know a PC was on patrol that night) as a valid reason for the lack of signature.
Im also very wary on this reliance on Signature and MO. I cite Zodiac and Henry Lee Lucas.
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
All good points, Monty.
OK, I admit I too miss witness reports of a scuffle if we are to consider this scenario; it has troubled me as well and I can buy that point against it. Although I don't necessarily feel that a scuffle must have preceded it. I think it's interesting that on one heard anything regardless what happened, not even a sound of someone falling on the landing, no cries etc.
Still, I think there would have been a lot of violent and mentally depraved characters (maybe under the influence of alcohol) among the customers. So my point is that a violent sex maniac of some sort killed Martha Tabram, but I can't really make it fit into the Ripper's crimes.
It's true we mustn't rely too much on the stereotypes of MO and signature, but fact remains that the signature ARE important for a killer of the Ripper's type. And in Tabram's case there are none, except for the arranging of the body. I don't buy it, and I certainly don't think the Ripper would be the only one in the whole of Whitechapel capable of attacking prostitutes with a knife, not to mention the great amount of travelling visitors in the area during the holidays.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Glenn,
Yes, I agree...on many points.
A struggle could have happend, then again its possible it didnt, just a straight attack. Other knife attacks would have occurred. The signature is an important indicator (my arguement is we shouldnt dismiss a victim outright on signature alone.....and yes, I know no one is saying that, just making the point here). And the influx of persons to this area was rather large (work, Bank Holiday visits etc) and would of included the unstable Im sure.
Body arrangement is the only linking signature trait in Marthas murder and the rest, as you mention. Surely thats something. Its something Smith lacked. Putting Martha in the same pot as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes is wrong. Taking her out completely is also wrong. In my book, shes on the chopping board.....along with Stride and Kelly, McKenzie and Mylett (and two others).
Can I ask a question? Does anyone know how Marthas clothes were arranged ??
Cheers,
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
Hi Glen, you wrote:
"I have no doubt that the Ripper performed other deeds before Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes"
Given the apparent technique, I readily agree this does not appear to be his first venture in taking a life. Now, whether his background was anatomical, military or 'trade' (butcher?) is anyones guess.
"I don't think the Ripper was the only violent sex perpetrator in Whitechapel at the time"
Thats a fact, we have at the very least three savage murderers abroad at this time. Not including the gang responsible for Emma Smiths murder, we have the 'Torso' killer, we have McKenzie, Coles & I believe Stride, that if not by the same hand, at the very least they are similar.
It appears there were several villians loose in the East End with a knife, afterall a knife was a very common tool for any man to carry with him.
After the initial public shock over the Nichols murder, culminating a week later in the daring almost bravado butchering of Chapman in near broad daylight I suspect a few villians realized that if they savagely dispatch a troublesome woman with a knife there's a better than even chance it would be chalked up as "another 'orrible murder" by Leather Apron, later of course, Jack the Ripper.
Regards Jon
(getting hot & humid here) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi Monty,
"Putting Martha in the same pot as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes is wrong. Taking her out completely is also wrong. In my book, shes on the chopping board.....along with Stride and Kelly, McKenzie and Mylett (and two others)."
I perfectly agree. That is probably as far as it goes, if we ought to keep an open mind about it.
"Can I ask a question? Does anyone know how Marthas clothes were arranged ??"
Well, according to the documents they were disarranged rather than arranged. PC Thomas Barret stated at the inquest that the clothes "were turned up as far as the center of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such as to suggest in my mind that recent intimacy had taken place."
This could indicate struggle, humiliation of the victim or sexual activity, or a combination of the three, and this body arrangement is quite common in sex crimes, not just in connection with serial killing.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 22, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hi Jon,
"we have at the very least three savage murderers abroad at this time. Not including the gang responsible for Emma Smiths murder, we have the 'Torso' killer, we have McKenzie, Coles & I believe Stride, that if not by the same hand, at the very least they are similar.
It appears there were several villians loose in the East End with a knife, afterall a knife was a very common tool for any man to carry with him."
My thoughts exactly. It would actually be rather strange if that was NOT the case.
Some have claimed, that the sudden increase in rather extraordinary violent attacks against prostitutes in the same year (in comparison to the years prior to 1888) would be too much of a coincidence. well, stranger things have happened and it wouldn't be the first time a crime rate of a certain category suddenly explodes during one certain year.
And as you say, we DO have other killings already in 1888 that we probably not can tribute to the Ripper anyway, so there is no doubt that other occurrences without the Ripper's involvement took place in 1888 and 1889.
"After the initial public shock over the Nichols murder, culminating a week later in the daring almost bravado butchering of Chapman in near broad daylight I suspect a few villians realized that if they savagely dispatch a troublesome woman with a knife there's a better than even chance it would be chalked up as "another 'orrible murder" by Leather Apron, later of course, Jack the Ripper."
Once again a very good and interesting point.
All the best
(from a rather cold, grey and humid Sweden)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 54
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
I've already said it on another thread-
Martha Tabram was the 1st victim of Jack The Ripper.
Busy Beaver  |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Glenn,
Re The DISarrangement. Cheers for that.
Busy,
Tabram No1? Yeah, you maybe right.
But what makes you certain ??
(Becareful now cos you got Guys here, myself included, waiting to pick you off like a sniper in a bell tower)
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1888
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
Monty,
No trouble.
Busy,
Were you there?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 976
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
hi,
What puzzles me with Tabram is why they climbed to the first floor landing, surely if they wanted to be intimate off the streets they could have performed just in side the door that way they could have been aware of people about to enter the building and also would have had more time to compose themselves should someone start to walk down the stairs.
Could it be that Tabram was attacked close by and attempted to find safety inside george yard and was pursued by her killer who grapped her as she reached the first landing?
Lack of screaming perhaps but mayby she was unaware that her life was in danger.
Richard. |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hi Monty.
You wrote:
"Taking her out completely is also wrong. In my book, shes on the chopping board.....along with Stride and Kelly, McKenzie and Mylett (and two others)."
I appreciate this is a 'Tabram' board but you included Rose Mylett, can you briefly ellaborate on why you include Mylett, and did you mean as a murder victim or as a Ripper victim.
Regards, Jon
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 630
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Busy Beaver
In my humble, if Martha was a Ripper victim, then Annie Millwood was his first victim.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 55
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Is there any more info on Richard Sage? He came forward to say that he was speaking to Annie just before she died, turned his back for three minutes, returned and Annie was dead. Quicker record than Stride. Well perhaps we can count Annie Millwood as a possible 1st ripper victim. The Ripper was getting his slashing techniques and more importantly his timing perfected.
Busy Beaver |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Glenn and all:
I have to make a rather abject apology. Re-reading the recent posts (And especially yours, Glenn) I didn't look at all the evidence against Martha Tabram's inclusion as a victim. I initially had doubts but used her as a victim in the novel I'm working on. I let my literary sense override my inquisitive self. Suffice to say, I never meant to imply my theory was the right one adn if that is how I came across, I tender a heart-felt and abject apology.
I see exactly what you mean and why you doubt her as a victim. You abd Jon pointed out some very valid points. We may never know if she was or was not a victim. (I'm still going to use her in the novel although I may have another unknown assailant kill her off.)
Question time:
Would you see a sailor as a viable suspect for the Tabram murder or conversely, the other five murders? I ask because a ship's surgeon or in those days almost any sailor would have had a rudimentary knowledge of what was termed "Meatball surgery" during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and on commercial vessels, unlike naval vessels, need not have actually been a doctor or had medical schooling.
Is there any record of anything being stolen froom Martha tabram that might be a trophy. like the second bronze ring in (and correct me if I'm wrong I don't have my books in front of me)the Stride murder?
Lastly, was there any indication that Tabram or any of the other victims were murdered in different locales than where their remains were found?
Thanks for bearing with me. Kindest regards, Neil |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 959
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Busy,Annie recovered from her wounds but died from natural causes [suddenly] a month later [Philip Sugden"s complete history page 31.She was a soldiers widow though only 38.The one thing all the women had in common was that they lived within a few hundred yards of each other-Annie lived in White"s Row a few minutes from George"s Yard[Martha]both killed at a holiday/weekend period.Annie Chapman,Polly Nichols,Mary Kelly.Frances Coles,Alice Mckenzie all lived near Dorset Street-so did Elizabeth Stride some of the time and at the time of her death she was living at 32 Flower and Dean Street.As were two others-Kate Eddowes at no 55 and Polly Nichols at either 55 or 56.Frances Coles like Annie Millwood lived in Whites Row next to where Mary Kelly lived.And the apron section was found on the way from Mitre Square towards Spitalfields/Dorset Street.
Another thing that I am wondering is whether these women were the harridan-looking types of folk lore.Mary Kelly was mid twenties and said to have been attractive,Frances Coles was also mid twenties and said to have been beautiful and certainly her features even in death are those of a finely structured face.Even Kate who was 43 was said to look younger than her years not older and was also said to have been vibrant and lovely looking by those who had known her when she was younger.["She was A lovely looking woman with thick auburn hair" -a family friend from Wolverhampton-and her mortuary photos show her to have had the high cheek bones and gamine features
that seem to endorse these views-though ofcourse by now she had become thin and rather ragged in dress etc.Although Polly nichols was also over 40 she too was taken for a woman of 30 -35 by the mortuary doctor and all this has had me wondering
about how some of these women at least[oh and Elizabeth Stride who was said to keep herself very neat and clean] may have been quite fetching in their own way to our crazed killer.The other strange thing about them is that they could apparently all read and write.Now this was quite something for a man to have been in those times in Whitechapel let alone a woman.And two of them were thought to have been above average intelligence which in my view goes with their alcohol dependency-the dependency came before everything else and reduced them to destitution and by the same token probably to prostitution.
Apparently Frances Coles too had a fairly good job in a chemists before slipping into prostitution.I often wonder too whether Mary Kelly had started to drink in childhood because it looks like she needed to fund her addiction quite early on.
Sorry to go on and on....sometimes parts of the jigsaw start to fall into place
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi, Neil,
For God's sake -- no need for you to apologise in any way. You were just putting forward an opinion and you are certainly allowed to do so. No one here -- least of all myself -- can say truth about what happened or who really was a Ripper victim. There are certainly those who does not share mine or Jon's opinions on the matter and it's perfectly understandable. What it all comes down to in the end is more or less qualified guesswork based on personal hunches and personal interpretation of the evidence.
Who knows, maybe Tabram was a Ripper victim after all, but if she was then I would suggest -- like Alan -- that Millwood was an earlier one.
I still have doubts about hers and Tabram's inclusion, however (as well as a few others -- considering pure facts we can ascertain that at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were murdered by the same man).
Still, I am pleased to see that you at least might take those points in consideration and keep an open mind about it.
Although the timing is a bit of a problem, I would still put my money on the soldier she was last seen with. As far as the Ripper in general is concerned, I think it's possible that a sailor with good knowledge of Whitechapel -- arriving in London on the weekends -- could be the Ripper, but he could also be a local former slaughterman or something like that (to me the nature of the mutilations have always pointed at a slaughter or someone with rough medical knowledge -- a ship's surgeon is an interesting idea -- rather than a more professional medical man).
Finally, every indication on the murder scenes points at the fact that the killing and mutilation took place where the bodies were found, considering traces of blood under the victims or close to them, the intestines and so on. As I see it, the bodies were not moved.
Good luck with the novel, Neil. Sounds interesting.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 9:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
You wrote:
"but he could also be a local former slaughterman or something like that (to me the nature of the mutilations have always pointed at a slaughter or someone with rough medical knowledge -- a ship's surgeon is an interesting idea -- rather than a more professional medical man)."
I agree, the public surgeon was taught to be steady, slow and methodical, even one doctor claimed he couldn't have performed such mutilations in under 15 minutes (going from memory here). This is some confirmation that the murderer was not a regular public surgeon, too slow.
I gave some reasons on another thread so I won't repeat them here but suffice to say your thoughts are well within consideration. Someone, if a surgeon, who was use to working fast, or simply someone, not a surgeon, who had some rudimentary anatomical knowledge and a substantial helping of luck.
A couple of years ago I happened upon a link on the net, and I'm sure it came through Johns Hopkins, but could be wrong. The site reproduced a page from a 19th century doctors notes on a hysterectomy. I read the notes and it described the procedure in colourfull detail but what would strike any 'Ripperologist' was contained in the opening lines.
The procedure commenced with the surgeon taking a knife and inserting it in the lower pubic area and carefully drawing it up to the arch of the rib cage, exposing the entire abdomen.
Now, how familiar is that?
Regards, Jon
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 6:36 am: | |
Jon,
My views on Mylett are somewhere on the Rose Mylett Yea or Nay thread (a thread you yourself contributed to) , but I shall give you a brief overlay.
The official line that it was an unsuspicious death caused by possible self asphyxiation (She was drunk, passed out and strangled herself via her stiff collar) is very well....er...suspicious.
How could she have asphyxiated herself lying down with the ground supporting her head?
If she fell unconscious whilst upright and fell how come the handkerchief was found ‘neatly folded’ around her neck and not end up either on the floor or partially off her neck?
These are just a few problems I have with the official line. But to answer your question yes, I believe Rose was murdered.
Was it Jack? Not so sure. But yards seems to be a factor in these murders. Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes all have links with yards and yard entrances. Im not sure if this is something but its definitely a fact that these murders took place in or around yards.
Also, and I know Glenn is going to disagree…which is fine with me because I do see and understand his point, the scarf is said to be neatly folded around her neck. This neatness I see at Nichols scene (replacing of garments) along with Chapmans (comb, muslin etc), Eddowes (placing of body parts) and also Kellys (folded clothes).
But this discussion should really be taking place on another thread.
Cheers,
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Hi Monty,
As you say, I know this is not the thread for it, so I have a reply to you on the Mylett thread.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 23, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
Jon,
All good points again.
As I see it, the method of the Ripper seems more consistent with a butcher ripping up cattle rather than a doctor's professional hand.
And a butcher would also be familiar enough with the placement of the different organs inside the body in order to find the location of the womb, kidney etc. Anatomical knowledge (not "medical"!) would -- I guess -- be something available to more than just professional doctors in East End in 1888.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Natalie, This is really weird, but I had been thinking about what you said in your previous post (I've got my victim list and notes written all over the place in a hope of finding a breakthrough link!). I turned the idea over several times in my head thinking about the crimes and the way that they were carried out and I came up with the probability that Jack did carry on killing right into 1891. I even think we are looking for a killer who in his own right may have been reasonably intelligent, and of course with the criminal element to be able to carry out these crimes without the fear of guilt or of being caught.
Busy Beaver |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 99
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Natalie:
Would a few hundred yards make a difference in an urban setting? I would suspect that they all frequented the same pubs and one time or another slept in the same doss houses. I suspect that is just coincidence.
As to how attractive the women were is somewhat debatable. Martha Tabram's morgue photo shows a somewhat overweight woman as does Chapman's Nichols may be somewhat overweightas well, Stride was somewhat thin as was Eddowes. The only truely attractive one I could find was Kelly I include McKenzie and Coles in that. The one thing all of them except Kelly had in common is they looked as if they had been hard used throughout life. I have only a sketch to go by with Kelly as the only extant photo I have seen of keely is the one taken of her mutilated corpse at 13 Miller Court. So physical attraction may be a non-factor as well.
I speculate of course but I am also lpaying devil's advocate as it were. The key to there attractiveness being a factor would be more salient if we had extant photos of them whislt they were alive.
Busy, I haven't read enough on the alleged later victims (Cole, McKenzie et al) to comment on whiether JtR carried on into the 1890s I tend to believe he did not at least not in Great Britain. However, as with all things in this case or most, the only one who really knows is Jack himself and he's playing those cards close to his vest.
In closing thanks for the mind stimulation all of you. Neil |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 963
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Hi Busy,Thanks for your reply which like my meanderings hovers around different images of the killer and his victims.I"m beginning to wonder if they all knew him and he them[and never suspected him of being the ripper].Did they maybe chat with him in the local pubs-was he someone they thought they should trust-a local "do-gooder"rather than a ruffian?Catherine Eddowes was reported to have beeb seen having what appears to have been a "deep and meaningful" conversation with a stranger in a pub[she presumably a bit tipsy he apparently "earnestly trying to dissuade her from her drinking and style of life "-whatever that meant!This was reported by a friend of hers who said this "stranger" had offeredher £5 to give up her way of life.It was a week before her murder.
I wonder if this is who gave her the money the day she was supposed to go to her daughters and ended up drunk and dissorderly in Aldgate High Street?The day before her murder in fact.Was he a "visitor " to Whitechapel-a sort of "lay preacher" intent on reforming certain types of women?Did he engage them in conversation sometimes
in pubs perhaps-enjoying the "preparation" ormaybe genuinely trying to carry out what he considered was a "sacred Duty". It seems strange so many lived in this tiny enclave thats all.And like you I wonder if he started with Martha Tabram and Finished with Frances Coles.
Hi Neil,I do agree about Martha Tabram and Annie Chapman fitting the stereotype of the rather unprepossessing prostitutes of folklore.Frances Coles[if indeed she was a victim of JtR]on the other hand is reported in several books as the prettiest of all the Whitechapel murder victims
Philip Sugden quoting from Dew,Richardson.,Wensley and Benjamin Leeson.[as well as some others.[see pages350 and518 the complete history of JtR].She came from a respectable family and was trained to work in a pharmacy but even at 18"often smelt of drink".
{incidently in Rumbelows book Mary Kelly is depicted in a newspaper report a very stout indeed with a big nose and very heavy features
and underneath is written that this is a true likeness accordig to her friends[or words very similar].Perhaps this was considered attractive in Victorian times or maybe she had good skin and hair etc but a lot of the information we have on her is contradictory whereas there is a consensus of opinion on Frances Coles and her beauty.
Anyway the point I was trying to make was that they had other things in common than are often emphasised eg they lived very near to each other,therefore probably frequenting the same pubs
and picking up the same men.They were literate[most of them] they seem to all have had alcohol dependency issues that precipitated their downfall
some of them had attractive features which may have been part of an attraction to the ripper despite the dirty clothing etc.[apparently some men like this sort of thing-Napoleon for instance who used to plead with Josephine "not to wash".I"m not being facetious here but trying to get to know a little more about this character we call the ripper to try to understand what moved him to commit the crimes.
Good to talk to you
Natalie |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 101
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Natalie;
Point well taken.I guess in police or historical work it would help to know the victims as well as the perpetrator. I haven't read the discriptions and the only photos I personally have seen are the morgue photos and of course the one I mention of Kelly at the murder site.
I haven't done much research on ther later alleged victims. As a matter of fact, I am still concentrating on Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols pursuiant to where I'm at on my novel.
The person Eddowes could have talked to could have been reverand Barnett (I think the first name was George but don't quote me>) Neil |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 964
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 8:53 am: | |
Thanks Neil,i will start some research on Barnett this weekend!
Hope your novel is going well-sounds good!
Natalie |
d g cornelius
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 1:09 am: | |
Ripperatti:
The comments of the past day, up to and including DS Smyth's of 9:53, have been particularly astute regarding the medical qualifications or disqualifications of our Ripper or Rippers.
In my humble opinion to date, the brutal butchery of the crimes, most obviously that of MJK but not excluding the prior ones, have argued strongly against their being the works of a trained physician. Please forgive me for citing the same scripture in two separate posts, but I am reminded of a MAD magazine marginal cartoon: little girl comes into room, with surprized expression on face and skull in hands, and reports, "Mommy, Mommy, look what I found in Billy's head!"
But DS MacMillan's "Meatball Surgery" discussion points out that even recently, and with a much greater frequency during the innocent 1880s, a lot of people, who really shouldn't have been, were cutting up a lot of other people with the full sanction of the law, in ways that were obviously not taught at Hopkins or St Bart's. A recurring topic of these boards is speculation regarding how many seconds, minutes, or hours were required to dismantle the unfortunate Ms Kelly. I am reminded of reading somewhere, probably a Guiness Book of Superlative Grand Guignol, of the record time for a leg amputation having been achieved in the nineteenth century. It was something like 48 seconds, and apparently no one sought to improve on it because the record holder lost a few fingers of his own in achieving it. Although seemingly competition of the very sickest sort, a very real incentive for speed existed when performing repetitive surgery without anesthesia on a battlefield of the Crimean or American Civil Wars.
Which leads to the practitioners of such physic, who under the pressure of war ranged from the greatest physicians of the time to bunglers who couldn't hold a job in an abattoir. One individual who claimed to have done battlefield surgery--whether he actually did is another matter--is our Dr Tumblety, the Zelig of abhorent behavior. I am not convinced that the good Doctor was responsible for any of the Whitechapel Horrors or their echoes elsewhere, but I would not be surprized if it was someone very like him.
CI Severn, I share and appreciate your observation that C. Eddowes was, on the evidence of the photos, probably once a very attractive woman...when she still had her nose attached. I similarly suspect that you happily remain a most attractive woman, despite being the subject yourself of a rather scary photograph.
Respex to all,
d g cornelius |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
