|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3528
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 2:28 pm: | 
|
Inaki,
Indeed, you got the ball rolling -- no doubt about that. 
Once again, thanks for your many interesting contributions and quite intelligent interpretations. I agree with others here that you are a great addition.
As for the focus on the sexual organs on tabram, I might have to stand corrected. It actually says, as you stated, Inaki, that the vagina also was attacked. OK, fair enough. I had missed that.
Still, looking at the cuts on Nichol's groin, I see very little similarities with the direct stabs into the vagina, that the sketch show on Casebook.
Now, just some comments:
"And I really appreciate all the efforts some people have done to dig up all that interesting and valuable information. But, however interesting and valuable they may be I still believe they go to (my so-called) Facts-Substitute #4. Why? Well, basically because that argument not only applies to Martha’s murder but to the whole Ripper’s murders! Although he wasn’t the first serial killer, JTR was the first to create a world-wide media frenzy around his killings."
Well, of course. Naturally! But this was probably -- as I said -- more a result of the growth of the illustrated tabloid papers plus the fact that they were a part of a series, more than their actual nature.
If we look at a number of crimes involving mutilation before 1888, they are clearly horrific enough in nature.
Why representatives for the authorities did react to that extent on the Emma Smith and Tabram murders I can't explain, because clearly they were wrong and did subject themselves to exaggerations, if we carefully study the facts of crime history.
And some of this crimes did get reasonable coverage (although it can't be comoared to the hysteria during the reign of the Ripper) -- the so called Whitechapel Murder in 1876 (involving the mutilator Henry Wainewright) did actually manufacture headlies that were rather impressive for its time. To pick one example.
So crimes of this nature did exist prior to the Ripper murders.
The hysteria was really to a large degree a creation of the press, and with that also increases the risk of copy-cats or peopel getting inspired of what they read.
We can see this also at the end of the Ripper period, where a number of copy-cats (at least in my view) pops up. And that is pretty much what can be expected in an environment that is so caught up in hysteria.
This hysteria -- and which fueled the tabloid press and illustrated papers (The Star really took off thanks to the Ripper) -- started with Tabram, which explains to some degree why the Tabram murder was seen as extraordinary and terrible beyond compare. And then, when the press (even before the police) are beginning to realise, after the Chapman murder, that the murders might be a part of a series, the fear and hysteria REALLY takes off big time.
Fact remains, looking at the horrific nature of the previous killings, the Ripper murders were not unique.
"Well, I don’t want to dwell on this subject too much, but I guess that if I were bent on murdering and I wanted to keep a low profile, I could find the way of getting round it (and I don’t know if that would have been a real problem). Besides, the killer could’ve just put a coat on and hide the uniform"
I actually can't say that I buy this. Sorry. I do not think this is possible for a soldier; win the Ripper murders we are not just talking about a long coat being seen. I am, as I said, no military expert, but I think this is a big problem.
"The “soldier theory” actually doesn’t account for why, if Martha had been strangled and was already unconscious, her attacker/s butchered her so horribly."
Why shouldn't this be possible for a soldier? After all, soldiers are involved in butchery as I see it, and we know some get affected by it in a negative way. I think especially a soldier could do it without questioning. Not ANY soldier, but surely you might have found psychotics also in the army in 1888, especially under influence of drink.
"This theory harps on the hypothesis that Martha’s murder was as a result of a sex deal that went wrong. My contention is that her murderer had the stamp of a maniacal killer and I don’t think this fits the scenario of the soldier who just blew a fuse and overkilled her (without the need for it) savagely."
Eerh... I'm sorry, but I have come across several such cases. In case you didn't know it, prostitutes are subjected to all kinds of loonies all the time, and it is next to minework and wood cutting among the most dangerous in the world. And most certainly was in 1888. You never know what to expect from a customer. I really don't see your point here. Why can't a client disputing over money turn into a raving maniac if he has that disposition?
"Also, Peter Turnbull (The Killer that never was) argues for the theory that the murders were “copycat” murders perpetrated by different men, amid a community that went into some kind of state of “mass hysteria.” "
The same idea has been put forward by Alex Chisholm and to some extent also Stewart Evans. Some conclude that one can really be certain of three canonical Ripper victims: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and I totally agree with this, although I am prepared also to possibly include some of the earlier ones (note the word "some").
I certainly do not believe all fell into the hands of the Ripper. As I see it, Jack the Ripper was very much a creation of media hype and that it stirred a lot of copy-cat spinoffs.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 627
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Inaki - the basis of what I wrote was something AP Wolf wrote in another thread. I suggest you take the matter up with her.
Sincerely,
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 09, 2005) |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Perhaps I am not getting my sources correct... this is from Quentin Pittman's article on Tabram:
"While Tabram's throat was not cut, she did receive approximately nine stabs to it. The breast, stomach, abdomen, and vaginal regions were the primary areas assaulted, with a deep wound penetrating the heart, and another penetrating the womb area above the vaginal region."
I realize that Killeen's testimony as summarized in the Times does not specifically back up this statement, so I am assuming Mr. Pittmans statement is backed up by some other source, but I do not have my books with me, because I am at work.
About the profiling thing... version two (from my earlier post)... to me it makes sense that serial killers would share some character traits, or similar backgrounds, and upbringing.
Cripes, I am actually somewhat relieved that we seem to agree on something for once (almost anyways.)
RH |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3529
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Rob,
""While Tabram's throat was not cut, she did receive approximately nine stabs to it. The breast, stomach, abdomen, and vaginal regions were the primary areas assaulted, with a deep wound penetrating the heart, and another penetrating the womb area above the vaginal region.""
True, I just now, thanks to Inaki, found a similar passage by Dr. Killeen that I had obviously missed. My mistake.
As you say, it was probably summarized in The Times.
However, looking at the sketches on Casebook about the victim's wounds -- as I wrote to Inaki -- the penetration of the vagina area doesn't really look that similar to cuts on the areas close to the groin in example Nichol's case. Although that does not in itself prove anything, they are clearly not of the same type. I still feel unconvinced about that, but of course that's just my interpretation.
As for the stabs in the throat, I personally think it is a vast difference from that to a cut throat three weeks later. It is in my view a completely different thing to do. So on that point we will probably never agree.
"Cripes, I am actually somewhat relieved that we seem to agree on something for once (almost anyways.)"
Yes, it's scary, isn't it?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3530
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Phil,
"Inaki - the basis of what I wrote was something AP Wolf wrote in another thread. I suggest you take the matter up with her."
What do you mean... her????
Or was it a slip of the tongue?
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 529
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Glenn.
You said..."I for my part fail to see Howie's point here. If people were asleep, why on Earth should they have heard a knife hitting the body flesh? Only one cut was really deep, the others were rather small stabs (although there were many of them).
I may be wrong, but It goes beyond me how those could be heard if people were asleep at the time."
Glenn..there more than likely was some noise being made,regardless of whether these wounds hit bone or not. See Jane's post above for acoustics in buildings similar to the one in George Yard.
I'm not trying to make a point at all, just an observation on the Tabram murder based on the risks involved. We both know that the murderer took a risk in an occupied building while on the second floor landing. Big or small...there was risk.
...Neither of us nor anyone else on the boards know how loud the assault was. It certainly wasn't a silent one. We don't know if anyone was awake or not for certain. Regardless of whether someone was or wasn't isn't an issue. What is a fact is that this crime made some noise...period.
Don made a comparison with the murder of Kitty Genovese,which happened outdoors.
There's a difference between the noises made inside the building where Tabram was killed and the all-out screaming of the unfortunate Ms. Genovese.
One significant one is that people respond to noises inside their home and in their buildings more than to what occurs outside. The possibility of property being taken or an apartment being broken into will make most people react faster than an attack on a stranger,outdoors,with the possibility of a weapon and "what is happening to her could happen to you". Altruism only goes so far in cases where you,as bystander, could get hurt as well.
Had someone definitely heard noises resembling a break-in at the George Yard Bldg., which of course, Glenn, is not what I was stating at all, I think someone would have reacted to these noises,as perhaps as quickly to the shrieks of a woman who never got the chance to make one.
You understand now,Glenn?
HowBrown
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 532
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Glenn...
You learn something new every day around here.
Yep...A.P. is a lady.
....furthermore, in the post that you made regarding the sleeping tenants and how on Earth they could have noticed the sounds I alluded to,I was only, repeat, only referring to the risk-level of this particular murder in relation to the Canonical Five. I forget at times that English is your second language,although you speak and relate to it on a par with the best of them. So I wanted to clarify this for your benefit,as I want you to understand what I meant in my post.
Don....
Actually,the women who "help" me in my little tests get a kick out of the "loco gringo".
(Message edited by howard on June 09, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 632
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:43 am: |
|
Howard, you got there first. Sorry Glenn, I thought you knew.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
Glenn, Rob,
Guys,
Re signature. Interesting posts chaps (and all who have contributed).
Just something I would like to add and I apologise if it has already been mentioned.
Theres been plenty of words typed regarding signature wounds. Whilst this is a part of signature other factors should also be considered. Body position is a factor though in Jacks case this may have been born out of the need for practicality.
Its the rifiling of belongings and the placement thats seems to be a signature trait to me. Chapman and Eddowes bare evidence of this. Kellys folded clothing may (note may) also be a signature sign. Nichols, Tabram and Stride lack this but that may be due to possible disturbance.
Am I wrong?
Sorry if I have trespassed onto the wrong thread.
Cheers
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 105
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Ok, my take on signature:
(By the way, I agree with what Monty said)
Serial killers often have a condition called Narcissist Personality Disorder. This is a feeling of self-importance, and an obsession with fantasies of unlimited success. The person involved are often convinced that he or she is special and unique. These people are devoid of empathy, envies others and uses others to achieve their success (Vaknin).
The NPD syndrome makes the serial killer become obsessive with his fantasies. Thus their actions are geared towards their emotional satisfaction.
The signature gives away some of this.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3532
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Monty,
You are allowed to hijack any thread,
Actually, I DID mention body position among signature traits.
Because you're right, it is.
As for placing of belong. That is true, but I am not sure if we see that in the Ripper anyway, and it pretty much depends on whom of the victims we include. True, Chapman's belongings seems deliberately placed, so I agree, that may have been signature. Agreed.
As for Kelly (even though I don't reckon her as a Ripper victim)... I actually think she folded those clothes herself before she went to bed! I don't see that as the work of her killer.
Helge,
True, but narcissistic traits generally also is included in other personality disorders, like psychopathy/sociopathy/APD and even among some that suffers from paranoid schizofrenia, so that is always a tough call. I do not dare to go into a complete psychological diagnose of a criminal 116 years ago.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3533
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Phil, Howie,
(Howie, I'm still not bying your arguments regarding sounds -- sorry, old boy).
Guys,
Not that it matters, but you gotta be kidding me. A.P. a woman??? A contributor with the Boards most masculine approach, sounding like an old man with a beard sitting in his cottage drinking brandy?
Do you have evidence of this? Do any of you guys know her/him in person? (Or perhaps... wait a minute... maybe it says so in his/her book...?)
Because if that's the case, then a certain very well-known and prominent Ripper researcher has totally pulled my leg.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:25 am: |
|
Glenn,
something you just said caught my attention. if kelly folded the clothes herself, then does that mean you don't necessarily think she was killed by a client?
Jenni |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi Glenn, inaki and all
Well its certainly taken some time to catch up on the conversation this morning.
And find it facinating how many people agree Ada's Attack to be a possible early JTR. Her discription of the Sunburnt attacker must be the most reliable of Jack himself if this is the case.
Interested in all your comments. I think everyone knows I've always been pro-can Tabram.
Another similarity between the Five and Tabram is surely the silence itself.
If this was a Soldier who blow a fuse what is the chance that he did it without shouting? Surely a dispute about money would start verbally and escalate. Surely most attackers make noise when inflicting blows...you only have to watch mordern tennis to get that.
So our main problem seems to be the soldier's statement to the patrolman. Can we look at this?
Glenn is it possible for you to make this case in more detail. I might have gotten the wrong end of a stick but I had always assumed that this story relied on Pearly Polls statement that they left with soldiers.
I guess its a cheek but is it possible to list the time frames and widows of possibility for Jack meeting Tabram after the soldiers.
Also another thing that didnt quite fit, you said that the soldier was waiting for friend and that he had been first.....But Tabram was not interfered with? How long would a quick knee trembler or B job take. (Sorry if this sounds a little crass, but when needs must).
Anyway I guess what I'm saying Glenn is if the soldier is still your prime suspect can you sketch out this reason in more detail.
Just feel this is important in the context of this discussion.
Another fab sunny day in East London...you should all come and try it...doesnt happen often.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3535
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I take your point about money dispute -- I assume that would have lead to quite a noisy argument. It was only one of several options, though, but yes, your objection there is actually correct. So I think we can rule that particular one out -- at least if a money dispute would necessarily contain an argument.
"If this was a Soldier who blow a fuse what is the chance that he did it without shouting?"
I don't understand this point at all. Surely soldiers are experts in killing efficiently and silently, even under emotional stress. Incidents were soldiers have gone bezerk are certainly not uncommon. Considering the difficulties several people have pointed out here regarding the site (noises etc.), I would certainly consider a professional soldier in this case rather than an amateur.
"Surely most attackers make noise when inflicting blows...you only have to watch mordern tennis to get that."
Yes, I suspect you refer to female tennis...
No, I do not rely on Pearly Poll (her testimony and her behaviour at the line-ups contains too many odd features that makes her unreliable, although much of it of course could e explained by that she was scared for her own safety).
But I think, although her timing is strange, it is interesting that she also, besides the PC, mentions a couple of soldiers.
The witness statement that interests me is the one made by PC226H Thomas Barrett, who around 2 AM the same night -- while patrolling George Yard -- spoke to a "private of the Guards", who said that he stood there waiting for "his mate who had gone away with a girl".
Tabram's body wasn't discovered until 3.30 AM and it had not been lying there 1.50 AM.
Which means she pretty much could have been killed around 2 AM or at least between 2.00 and 3.30. I'd say those are a bit too much coincidences for my taste.
True again, there were no signs of sexual contact, so it is possible my theory regarding she having sex with any of them doesn't work -- although it could have been a knee-trembler, of course. Or else she was simply killed for unknown reasons BEFORE the sexual act was performed, of course we are not in the position to know why.
But of course one can make up a million scenarios that would fit ones expectations here -- but I guess none of them could be backed up by evidence, regardless if they contain the Ripper or a soldier. It would simply be guesswork.
All the best
P.S. Jeff, it's cloudy here today -- no summer sun. rather warm, though.
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3536
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Jenni,
"if kelly folded the clothes herself, then does that mean you don't necessarily think she was killed by a client?"
Well, I can't see why a client in the room would mean that she didn't fold her clothes herself -- as far as I know clients rarely do it for them.
But, yes, I actually suspect that her killer might not have been a client at all, although it will always remain a possibility.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Glenn sorry to push the point but where exactly in Georges yard was the soldier, at the door that went dirrectly up to the place that Tabrams body was found?
Also how do we know Tabram was not there at 1.50am. There must have been another statement.
Also how acurrately can we pin piont time of death...looks like we have a one and half hour window. Surely plenty of time for Jack to meet Martha. Also what time does Pearly Poll say that she seperated from Martha and surely one of the soldiers went with her?
Just popping up stairs to do some rostrum work back in a mo. Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 636
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Glenn - I think someone has been pulling your leg, and it's not me!!!
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3537
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Jeff,
The soldier was found lurking around the north end of George Yard, Wentworth Street.
Elizabeth Mahoney and her husband returned to her home about 1:40 or 1:50 AM in George Yard buildings. She saw no one or anything unusual when she ascended the stairs.
There also exists a statement that says she and her husband came home around 2 AM. But since they didn't see any soldiers in the vicinity this has to be questioned. As far as timings are concerned, I prefer to rely on the PC.
Dr. Killeen pinpoints her death at approximately 2:30, but pinpointing time of death detailed enough was not possible in the 19th century so we must allow a certain margin of error either direction.
Still, as I said -- too many coincidences for my taste.
Pearly Poll (who was quite unwilling to co-operate with the police and who probably lied about both timing and her inablity to recognize the soldiers in the line-ups) said that she last saw Tabram with a Private around 11:45.
Several facts indicate that she didn't want to participate in the investigation and it is fair to assume that she might have been scared for her own safety, since she was that reluctant and didn't want to attend. So she is not a reliable source, and the police didn't think she was.
But it is interesting that she also mentions a soldier.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3538
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Phil,
Email me and elaborate.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Does Elizebeth mahoney sleep close to the murder location? She was evidently awake shortly before the attack and yet doesnt report hearing anything.
Of course I'm assuming she was coming in rather than going out....doesnt that stike you as interesting. Seems to confirm our killer was very silent.
How many other entrances were onto georges yard? and were all the landings similar. Is it possible that these were a well known place for prostitutes to take clients and if this is a common knocking ground is it not possible the soldiers story was true but he was awaiting his friend on another landing.
Is it not possible georges yard was a regular prostitute haunt and thus the soldier was nothing out of the ordinary....do we have any records of police patrolman and how common such things were?
Just a thought
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3539
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Jeff,
I am sorry, but aren't you grasping at straws here and makes things unnecessary complicated?
I have no idea exactly where Mrs Elisabeth Mahoney slept in the building.
But it is said that she and her husband had "passed the spot" where the body was found and they had seen nothing unusual in the building, so apparently they passed it on their way up. The Mahoney's had been out for five minutes to buy dinner from a chandler's shop.
So clearly they were going up after had been outside.
Don't you have the Ultimate Companion and the A to Z, mate? It's all there.
"How many other entrances were onto georges yard? and were all the landings similar. Is it possible that these were a well known place for prostitutes to take clients"
The landings in buildings in the area was apparently known to be used by beggars, prostitutes and drunkards as sleeping shelters.
Which could be one explanation to why people didn't take notice or woke up to any sounds that might have occurred.
"Is it possible that these were a well known place for prostitutes to take clients and if this is a common knocking ground is it not possible the soldiers story was true but he was awaiting his friend on another landing."
Anything's possible, but at some time you have to consider all facts looked at together and the circumstancial evidence. One could probably come up with a theory that Donald Duck had entered the building through a basement window, but it is certainly not supported by any facts in the case.
My interpretation is, that too many circumstancial evidence and facts points towards one or two soldiers being involved because that is simply what the available facts suggests.
Besides that, anything's possible.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
yes I do have an A to Z but not at hand so I'm working from memory. But this killing has always interested me and have a good over all.
But i find it signifcant that people were about and awake shortly before the murder. Surely they would have been asked if they'd heard anything yet they appear not to.
You place alot of significance on the policemans statement from the soldier yet this is a known haunt for prostitutes and there is no edidence that Tabram is even in the building at 2.00 am.
The soldiers statement could well be true but the only thing conecting him to Tabram is pearls statement that she left with a soldier.
I really dont see what else we can do but consider the facts and extrapilate what they could mean. At the end of the day the Soldiers Statement doesnt really seem to tell us much.
Pearl Poll says Martha left with a soldier. You could make an asumption that the two soldiers had made an arrangement to meet up at a given time but I think it unlikely they would have known Georges yard as a meeting piont.
If this was the same soldier that killed her, why hang around at all?
And isnt the two soldier theory based on the fact that it was stated two knives were used and an assumption that this meant two people rather than one man with two knives.
As you seem to be stating that the soldier is your main reason for excluding Tabram I think considering the facts about him and his statement very imortant and not micky mouse at all.
You say the facts piont towards the soldier but the only fact apart from Pearli Polls statement, which you dismiss, appears to be the statement of a soldier, standing in the north of the yard that he is waiting for his mate. You've already said that soldier travel in pairs.
It just doesnt seem like damning evidence.
And sorry if you think I'm having a laugh which I am not...just trying to get the facts straight in me head. I dont think Martha was killed by two soldiers.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3541
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
I am sorry, Jeff, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Pearly Poll mentions a soldier (although her timing can be questioned), a PC finds a soldier hanging around close to the crime scene at a reasonable fitting time when the murder might have been committed etc.
I'd say that is too much coincidences for me to dismiss. And those are the only facts we have that actually points to a suspect. I prefer to give weight to that, especially combined with the slim possibility of the Ripper changing his MO and signature within a three week period on several important points.
It is not evidence, but what is most likely or not.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Regarding this soldier,
From victims page, Tabram:
"Some time around 11:45 PM Martha and Pearly Poll went separate ways. Martha with the Private into George Yard and Pearly Poll and the Corporal into Angel Alley. Both, obviously, for the purpose of having sex.
1:50 AM: Elizabeth Mahoney returned to her home in the George Yard buildings. At the time that she ascended the stairs to her flat she saw no one or anything unusual in the building.
2:00 AM: Police Constable Barrett saw a young Grenadier Guardsman in Wentworth Street, the north end of George Yard. Barrett questioned his reason for being there and was told by the Guardsman that he was waiting for a "chum who went off with a girl."
3:30 AM: George Crow returned to his lodging in the George Yard building and noticed what he thought was a homeless person sleeping on the first floor landing. As this was not an uncommon occurrence he continued on to bed."
From the timeline we have the soldier at 2 AM, waiting for a chum who went off with a girl. We know Whitechapel had many many prostitutes, and there is no real evidence that the "chum" was with Tabram... it could have been any prostitute.
Also, as Tabram is said to have gone with a soldier at 11:45, it is conceivable that this soldier is the "chum" in question, although 2 + hours is a long time for them to be off together in my opinion.
In any case, Tabram's body is seen by Crow at 3:30 AM. This is a large window of time, 1 and a half hours, in which Tabram could easily have got rid of her soldier client and met up with another, i.e. the Ripper.
RH |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3543
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Yes, there is a time window to consider up til 3:30, but that does not mean that she was killed 3:30,
she could just as well have been murdered at 2:00 or slightly after -- especially since Killeen estimates her time of death around 2:30.
Pearly Poll did say that she last saw Tabram at 11:45 with a soldier, but a lot of points in her testimony can be questioned, since she obviously was very reluctant to get involved. It can not be proven but it is very suggestive, that she lied about the timing as well as lying about not recognizing the two soldiers in the line-up (which is what the police also believed). So her information is not reliable. Still, she does mention a soldier.
"From the timeline we have the soldier at 2 AM, waiting for a chum who went off with a girl. We know Whitechapel had many many prostitutes, and there is no real evidence that the "chum" was with Tabram... it could have been any prostitute."
Well, as I said, combined with other elements, I'd say there are quite a lot coincidences here. But that's just me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
To my understanding the time of death was estimated to be about 3 hours before the examination at 5:30, so you are right. But still, I don't see how this could be very accurate. It could have been anywhere between 2 and 3 AM in my guess. I mean how accurate is this time of death estimating anyways? Even if it was 2:30 this is still a significant window of time, in which anything might have happened. There is just not enough to connect this guy to the Tabram murder in my opinion. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3545
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
"To my understanding the time of death was estimated to be about 3 hours before the examination at 5:30, so you are right. But still, I don't see how this could be very accurate. It could have been anywhere between 2 and 3 AM in my guess. I mean how accurate is this time of death estimating anyways?"
That is true indeed, which I also pointed out in a post above. But as you say, that could just as well mean 2 AM as 3 AM -- any of them could be correct.
I have to disagree with your last sentence, though, considering the options.
I'd say there are too many coincidences here that cant be dismissed. And actually more factual stuff to go on, than a theory of a supposed second killer (which we have no evidence of at all and that no one have seen).
But as I said, my personal interpretations.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Surely the most likely sinario is that the soldier was indeed the soldier that went with Tabram.
She had finished her buisness with him and gone off in search of business.
The soldier was waiting for the corpral to finish with Pearly Poll.
His story fits.
Tabram returns half an hour to an hour later with new client.
Jack kills her. Time frames seem to match.
Only floor is that Tabram must have finished off soldier other than 'interferance'.
Remember constable Barrett see's a guardsman not a corpral.
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3546
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Well, Jeff, that is your interpretation, since you seem convinced of that Jack necessarily should be included. I am not, and we have no indication whatsoever of a second killer.
To me the grenadier found by PC Barrett is more interesting considering the timing and the location, and although I can't prove it it is not impossible that it was the same soldier that Pearly Poll refered to; she doesn't seem all that reliable and gives the impression of wanting to sabotage the whole investigation.So I think we should be a bit cautious of drawing too much conlusions of timing and other details from Pearly Poll's descriptions, considering her behaviour.
Hey, Jeff, do you really live in East End? If so, pretty cool. I remember it as quite a busy area.
Have you tried the Guinness in the White Hart pub (nice and very clean toilets, by the way -- and a good selection of food)?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
We have no indication whatsoever of a second killer.
But surely when you have a serial killer on the lose like JTR you have to consider the possibility. Right time right place to fit Jacks pattern.
I just find this more likely given Inaki's detailed post that Tabram was strangled and mutilated by the Ripper.
Think about it..if this was the same soldier and he'd just attacked Tabram he'd be covered in blood...I think Constable Barrett would notice. If she wasnt dead where was Tabram?
Not with the corporal....there must have been someone else.
Jeff
PS Actually I live in Walthamstow Village. Think it was the old victorian gas lamps that attracked me. The house was built in the 1880's we've restored the original metal fire places and any othre original features back to period. I work in Docklands however...My hair dressers down Brick lane so if I'm down there tomorrow I'm going back to Georges Yard area...see if I can get any sense of it.
Time for home soon. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3548
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Jeff,
"But surely when you have a serial killer on the lose like JTR you have to consider the possibility."
I am not so sure there actually existed a serial killer at that time.
"I just find this more likely given Inaki's detailed post that Tabram was strangled and mutilated by the Ripper."
However, according to Killeen, the stabs was not inflicted post mortem, in other words -- in contrast to the Ripper victims -- she was not dead when she was stabbed. That is according to Killeen, and he seems very firm on this point, as well as that two weapons were used.
Although I can't rule out Inaki's interpretation, of course.
"Think about it..if this was the same soldier and he'd just attacked Tabram he'd be covered in blood...I think Constable Barrett would notice. If she wasnt dead where was Tabram?"
Well, that pretty much opens up to the idea that he might have telling the truth about his mate and that it was not him, but his mate that killed her?
I have actually never thought that the grenadier that stood outside was the killer, but actually his mate.
I haven't heard of Walthamstow Village, but it sounds great. I like old Victorian gas lamps too.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Walthamstow is the edge of Eastend. If you go through Hackney down Mare Street you go Bethnal Green Whitechappel.
I'm still a little confussed by your thinking.
Either the soldiers mention by Pearli Poll are the same soldiers or we have two completely seperate soldiers form the two they met earlier.
If the Corpral was with pearli Poll was the soldier out side Georges yard the soldier who went off with Tabram....a completely seperate soldier?
In my count we seem to have at least one extra soldier?
Anyway must fly traffic gets heavy on a friday out of docklands....I can read posts at home but not post.
Jeff |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn!
Yes, the ball is rolling. Let’s see if we can score some goals…
Why representatives for the authorities did react to that extent on the Emma Smith and Tabram murders I can't explain, because clearly they were wrong and did subject themselves to exaggerations, if we carefully study the facts of crime history… Fact remains, looking at the horrific nature of the previous killings, the Ripper murders were not unique.
I think we might be “going astray” if we keep focusing on trying to explain why a thing happens instead of the thing itself. And I think this can be applied to Martha’s (and the others, too) murder/s. Of course, it wasn’t the worst murder in history. Nor were the others. But what’s the point in that (apart from the historical interest)? This is not a “who's got it bigger contest”. Does that lessen the fact that Martha’s murder was “one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine”… (Sugden, 1998, p.20,28) and that it was a turning point in the perception of Whitechapel’s people? “Such was the alarming effect on the population that a few days later about 70 local men formed the first Vigilance Committee caused by the Whitechapel Murders…” (Sugden, 1998, p. 19).
Besides, --and this aspect of the case is often glossed over-- one of the reasons the Martha’s murder hit the tabloids was that it was perceived like a “killing that had taken place just for the pure joy of killing…” (From Hell, p.21). As it’s stated in The Complete JTR, 1988, p. 3-4: “Until Jack the Ripper, nearly all crime had been ‘economic’ in origin (…) The first criminal case that bears superficial resemblance to the Ripper case is that of the Ratcliffe Highway murders of December 1811 (…) The extreme violence of these crimes produced a nationwide sensation very similar to that produced by Jack the Ripper. Again, in 1828, the activities of the body-snatchers Burke and Hare caused a similar sensation; they killed at least a dozen people, most of them prostitutes. The motive was purely economic (…) In Whitechapel, murders were so commonplace that the newspapers did not even bother to report the murder of Emma smith on Easter Monday, 1888…”.
Whitechapel’s people didn’t understand the “logic” behind her murder. Note that, not even Emma’s attack was perceived the same way. After all, there was some kind of logic behind it (robbery, sex, etc.) In these aspects Martha’s attack departed from the rest and although it wasn’t the worst crime in the East End’s history it “inaugurated” a new type of crime: the murder for the joy of murder in series of continuing episodic nature, i.e. a new type of urban serial killer had been born (although JTR wasn’t the first SK in history). That’s a Fact that will remain constant along the rest of the Ripper’s series. And this Fact cannot be substituted or lessen by saying that there were worse murders in the East End. That’s one of the reasons for why the local authorities were so alarmed. They didn’t see it as the other crimes. And it was after Tabram that they started to link it to previous murders.
The Fact is that the type of Martha’s murder can fit into the same frame of the Ripper’s murders, i.e. working prostitute, strangling, ferocious attack and overkilling, no apparent motive for it (apparently, no economic or sexual murder), sexual organs and throat targeted, 3 weeks before the first canonical, and a long etc. In this frame the rest of the murders wouldn’t fit, however gruesome they may have been.
Why shouldn't this be possible for a soldier? After all, soldiers are involved in butchery as I see it, and we know some get affected by it in a negative way. I think especially a soldier could do it without questioning. Not ANY soldier, but surely you might have found psychotics also in the army in 1888, especially under influence of drink… prostitutes are subjected to all kinds of loonies all the time, and it is next to minework and wood cutting among the most dangerous in the world. And most certainly was in 1888. You never know what to expect from a customer. I really don't see your point here. Why can't a client disputing over money turn into a raving maniac if he has that disposition?
Let’s see if I can drive my point home… My point is not whether a soldier or other type of client could have commited the murder or not. Of course, a soldier, a miner, or whoever you choose may turn into a murder. But my point is that the aspects the "soldier or the client who blew a fuse theory" entail don’t fit the facts we see in Martha’s case.
Let’s see… You’ve already mentioned some of them: you might have found psychotics also in the army in 1888, especially under influence of drink… Why can't a client disputing over money turn into a raving maniac… Or the sex deal that went wrong…
The “loony, angry client (soldier or not) theory” only fits with some of the elements of Martha’s case (or the others) but fails as a whole. It doesn’t account for why if it was a dispute over money, sex, etc., Martha wasn’t beaten, raped, shouted, etc. As Jeff puts it: “Surely a dispute about money would start verbally and escalate. Surely most attackers make noise when inflicting blows...” Anyone can kill anyone, but the fact is that Martha’s killer did it in a Ripper-like way.
Try to look it this way:
On the one hand we have a supposed angry client that blows a fuse… but on the other we have a killer who controls himself to the point that nobody hears a single noise.
On the one hand we have a supposed client who may be disputing over money, sex, etc., and on the other we have a killer who doesn’t shout or insult the victim, doesn’t beat her, but strangles her and later takes his time to butcher her.
On the one hand we have a supposed client who over-reacts instintively (as it should’ve been if everything happened as a result of a spur of the moment reaction, provoked by something the prostitute did or said), and on the other we have a killer who acts cold-blooded, takes his time to change the blade, finds time to position the body, turn up the clothes, search her pockets, etc., and make his way out unnoticed and quietly.
If I only tackled the problem isolating the elements, I could end up seeing trees instead of a forest. The individual elements are: prostitute killed, knife used, etc... what’s all the fuss about it? That happens…
But, if I takle the problem as a whole set of elements (including the psychological ones), I’ll see that Martha’s murder has the elements of a maniacal killer, somebody very much in the style of JTR, the killer who struck only 3 weeks later!
So, when it’s objected: Why can't a client disputing over money turn into a raving maniac if he has that disposition? I’d reply: Exactly! And why can’t that client be JTR? Once again, we know nothing about our man and what triggered his killing spree. That’s why that type of objection goes to Facts-Substitute #3.
Anyway, my point is that Martha’s case meet enough reasonable facts as to be labeled as a Ripper’s murder. IMHO, it has more elements than Stride’s murder (although I believe her to be a JTR’s victim, too). So, if we don’t mind to include Stride in the list (although she may be disputed) we shouldn’t be afraid of including Tabram in list, too (although some people may dispute her, as well). I think it’s only fair to restore the status she once enjoyed.
PS- However, according to Killeen, the stabs was not inflicted post mortem, in other words -- in contrast to the Ripper victims -- she was not dead when she was stabbed. That is according to Killeen, and he seems very firm on this point, as well as that two weapons were used.
But, even if my interpretation is not correct, this wouldn’t rule her out. Because, it could be argued that the fact that the Ripper caused all the wounds once the victim was dead could have been as a result of his “Malpractice” with Tabram. Take a closer look at her attack.
First the killer strangled her, stabbed her throat and other parts of body a total of 38 times… For all purposes, in his eyes she would be dead… But, what if she made some kind of move showing that she was still alive? That’s why her killer may have looked for a better weapon, changed blades and run it through her chest. In fact, that could explain why the next time he’ll go from stabbing to slashing the throat open. Next time, he doesn’t want to “get the surprise” that his victim is still alive when she wasn’t supposed to… Remember: “Malpractice makes perfect”
(Message edited by inaki on June 10, 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
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 715
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Why do you keep saying "We have no indication whatsoever of a second killer."? That doesn't make sense. You haven't proved anyone as the first killer, so there's no "second" involved anywhere.
And, heck, a direct interpretation of what you are saying is that we have no indication of a killer other than Jack the Ripper, who is the only first killer we have. I know that's not what you mean, but that's a more natural reading of your words.
We don't know who all Tabram saw that night or what time she was killed. Heck, if the medical doctor is off on his times (and he may very well be, even these days it's hard to find the time of death precisely, back then it'd be more of a crapshoot) Martha may not have even been killed until after 3:30 am sometime. The witness at that time, Crow, said he thought someone was sleeping... and maybe she was and the killer saw her there later and killed her then. Certainly for as narrow as that stairway was and the pool of blood Tabram was reported found in, Crow was lucky to not have stepped in blood and trailed it around if Tabram were indeed dead at that time.
Trying to write this off as the work of the soldier she was said to be last seen with more than five hours before her body was found and three hours before the doctor's estimated time of death requires making a number of assumptions about what happened that night that we just do not have the evidence for.
(Message edited by dannorder on June 10, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
I’m all for having Tabram as a victim of Jack, suits me just fine, but I do ponder the salient fact - as Phil mentioned - that no whores were killed in Whitechapel in 1888, apart from the whores attributed to Jack.
Even when you find a whore killed in 1888 and think ‘ah, this is one they have not seen yet’, she becomes a possible victim of Jack.
Like the Smith chick.
I still want someone to tell me why everyone stopped killing whores in Whitechapel in 1888, but carried on in 1889, and were certainly at it in 1887?
Interestingly there is a case in April of 1888 of a soldier attempting to kill a whore and I would urge all to study this as essential background to the case.
This was James Brown - say it out loud I’m black and I’m proud - aged 24, a private in the 7th Dragoon Guards who slit Eliza Jane Lowe’s throat while failing to pleasure her at a respectable brothel in Bow.
Problem with all this is that anyone charged with murder in 1888 is very unlikely to be Jack because Jack was never charged with murder.
Groucho Marx would understand that.
Very strange is that violent and murderous attacks on policemen reached an all time LVP high in 1888 as well.
Perhaps it was a good year for the roses?
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3549
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Since you continue to write such enormously long posts, I can't possibly answer all of it, or else I would have the work cut out for me all night, so I'll have to take a pick. Maybe I can address some of the other points later, but I have already gone over them on other threads.
"Anyone can kill anyone, but the fact is that Martha’s killer did it in a Ripper-like way."
No, not as I see it.
Sure, it was an over-excessive murder with a lot of overkill, but murders on prostitutes generally ARE motiveless and meaningless. And I certainly am not equally convinced of that it in many other parts is "Ripper-like". I can't agree with that, but that is of course my interpretation.
"On the one hand we have a supposed angry client that blows a fuse… but on the other we have a killer who controls himself to the point that nobody hears a single noise."
No, I can't see a killer must act as one or the other.
If Tabram now according to your theory was strangled (which the medical report actually denies and contradicts), that does not exclude a maniac who later stabs his victim in frenzy. Do you think stranglers only are controlled killers? Because they certainly not; a large number actually gets off on it. You come back to the noise part, but if she WAS strangled, then that can be done rather quietly -- which, as I said before, pretty much is why this method usually is preferred. But it does not have to imply a person that is controlled -- on the contrary; strangulation can be done deliberately for efficiency but also as a result of rage, sexual arousment and frenzy, and often that is the easiest way to attack someone. So it doesn't rule out a crazy knife killer. You can't necessarily put those traits against one another.
I have already addressed the money dispute thing with Jeff, and I have pretty much -- thanks to his points -- retracted that one.
"On the one hand we have a supposed client who over-reacts instintively (as it should’ve been if everything happened as a result of a spur of the moment reaction, provoked by something the prostitute did or said), and on the other we have a killer who acts cold-blooded, takes his time to change the blade, finds time to position the body, turn up the clothes, search her pockets, etc., and make his way out unnoticed and quietly."
Which is how a killer of this type usually reacts, regardless if it's the Ripper or anyone else. Again, those traits do not contradict each other. The frenzy and obsession that fills the killer during the killing and inflicting of signture is often followed by a spell of rational thinking and calm, which is mostly why they manage to escape from the crime scene. Those two goes hand in hand. This is not extraordinary and I fail to see why the Ripper should be the only one capable of this.
"But, if I takle the problem as a whole set of elements (including the psychological ones), I’ll see that Martha’s murder has the elements of a maniacal killer, somebody very much in the style of JTR, the killer who struck only 3 weeks later! "
I totally disagree.
"And why can’t that client be JTR?"
Well, he could be, but why should he be necessarily? You base your whole concept on the Jack the Ripper was the only person in London at this point in 1888 -- considering the vast amount of people visiting the large capital of London (soldiers, seamen, travellers etc.)-- that was able to perform psychotic motiveless murders. And the torso murderer shows us that he wasn't. I don't buy that.
As I said, it is quite possible that the Ripper was triggered off by the murders of Tabram and Emma Smith, and that option can not be disregarded.
"Anyway, my point is that Martha’s case meet enough reasonable facts as to be labeled as a Ripper’s murder. IMHO, it has more elements than Stride’s murder (although I believe her to be a JTR’s victim, too). So, if we don’t mind to include Stride in the list (although she may be disputed) we shouldn’t be afraid of including Tabram in list, too (although some people may dispute her, as well)."
That I can agree on. OK.
"But, even if my interpretation is not correct, this wouldn’t rule her out. Because, it could be argued that the fact that the Ripper caused all the wounds once the victim was dead could have been as a result of his “Malpractice” with Tabram. Take a closer look at her attack.
First the killer strangled her, stabbed her throat and other parts of body a total of 38 times… For all purposes, in his eyes she would be dead… But, what if she made some kind of move showing that she was still alive? That’s why her killer may have looked for a better weapon, changed blades and run it through her chest. In fact, that could explain why the next time he’ll go from stabbing to slashing the throat open. Next time, he doesn’t want to “get the surprise” that his victim is still alive when she wasn’t supposed to… "
Well, that is pretty much speculation and personal theorising based on personal preferences, isn't it? Just like it is a common notion turned into "facts" that Kelly's corpse looked the way it did because the killer had moved indoors or had more time.
I mean, of course it's possible, but certainly not the only solution written in stone.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3550
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
"Why do you keep saying "We have no indication whatsoever of a second killer."? That doesn't make sense. You haven't proved anyone as the first killer, so there's no "second" involved anywhere."
Eerh... sorry, a bit of a slip of the tongue there I guess... I am tired from all this writing. Of course I meant a "second man". Thanks for pointing it out, it does look a bit weird.
"Martha may not have even been killed until after 3:30 am sometime. The witness at that time, Crow, said he thought someone was sleeping... and maybe she was and the killer saw her there later and killed her then. Certainly for as narrow as that stairway was and the pool of blood Tabram was reported found in, Crow was lucky to not have stepped in blood and trailed it around if Tabram were indeed dead at that time. "
Well, assuming that she or anyone else was sleeping on that landing is to stretch it a bit, isn't it? At least in my view.
We have a witness at 1:50 saying that nobody was there, we have a soldier outside hanging around at 2 AM (where we have no reports from inside the building) and then we have a witness who saw a body lying on THAT SPECIFIC landing on 3:30. I think it is fair to say that she was killed somewhere between 2 AM and 3:30 AM. And in my view -- because of the grenadier loitering around outside on that north corner of George Yard and Wenthworth Street, I'd say her death was close to 2 AM.
"Trying to write this off as the work of the soldier she was said to be last seen with more than five hours before her body was found"
No, not that one! As I said, I rely on the soldier found at 2 AM by PC Barrett, not the one produced by Pearly Poll (unless she fiddled with the timing). I certainly wouldn't refer to a soldier seen at 11:45 as a foundation for any theory.
But heck, I could be wrong -- however, that is what the facts tell me. But nothing would please me moe if Tabram was a Ripper victim, because I do like Gunthorpe Street as a murder site. But to me several facts points in other directions.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 539
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Glenn...my man...
What don't you see in the statement I made about Tabram?
No more risk than in the C5 slayings? No less risk than in the C5 slayings ?
No sounds being made?
Glenn....there was no way that the killer of Tabram KNEW that any of the conditions which assited in the facilitation of his murder of Mrs.Tabram existed. Thats why I added the mention of her murder on the thread. Inaki is examining why Tabram is NOT considered a C5 victim to those who DO NOT consider her a C5 victim. I placed the original post in an attempt to explain how risky HER murder was vis a vis the subsequent murders. From where I sit, her murder was as risky as any if not more.
And before I forget,Ms.Wolf's repeated mentioning of the fact that NO other prostitute was killed in 1888,unless by Jack according to what some feel,deserves much,much more debate. Its a very good and stimulating argument.
Glenn...you haven't given up beer,have you,pal?
Skoal !...
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3556
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Howie... my man...
It might be that I am just simply too tired, but I can't really grasp the meanings of your post. What are you saying exactly?
I was only saying, that IF Martha Tabram was strangled (that is, if Inaki's interpretation is correct), I can't see why that would make a considerable amount of noise -- unless the murder started with an argument. Even an amateur can, with some luck and with a good deal of surprise effect, silence a victim by strangulation or suffocation without any real noise being produced, no matter how thin the walls are.
Now, if she was NOT strangled first, as Dr. Killeen suggests, then we might have a problem to face here.
Besides that, I fail to see the point.
How risky the site was compared to the other Ripper sites is in my mind an uninteresting and difficult argument, only leading to speculations. I guess you can argue in either direction, as the discussions about the other sites have proven. There are probably as many opinions about how risky the sites were, as there are bricks in the walls.
And even if Tabram's murder was risky, so what? Does that mean that it is proven that Jack did it, or that was the only one taking unnecessary risks? I don't get it.
No, I haven't given up on beer, mate, but it still has to be either Guinness or Porter.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 18
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hi all!
Thanks for your contributions and keeping the ball rolling…
Glenn
So you haven't given up beer… humm… now I undestand…
Just kidding. Dont hate me for that… I should’ve given up beer, too… 
that does not exclude a maniac who later stabs his victim in frenzy…
That’s exactly what I mean. Martha’s murder has the stamp of a maniac at work and not the work of a drunken or angry client. Besides, it’d be good to bear in mind that Martha was a heavyset woman and most probably was used to dealing with all types of drunken brawlers, but nevertheless she was overpowered and posibly strangled without her being able to flee or fight for her life. I fact, the post mortem report listed no defense wounds. According to Dr Killeen “there was no evidence of a struggle.” (Sugden, 1998, p.17). I think you are missing my point when you say “but if she WAS strangled, then that can be done rather quietly”. Maybe yes or maybe not, I don’t know for sure. But my point is that Martha wasn’t able to make any noise while he strangled her. Do you think that it’s so easy to strangle somebody noiselessly and so efficiently as to avoid any kind of struggle and defense wounds?
No previous brawling, no verbal escalation that became physical aggression, no raping, etc. Everything was carried out in total silence. This frame of circumstances leads me to think that Martha was attacked by surprised and didn’t see things coming until they happened and had no chance to react. This is very much like the ripper worked.
Which is how a killer of this type usually reacts, regardless if it's the Ripper or anyone else
When you say a killer of this type… what type of killer do you have in mind? The maniac type of killer or the drunken brawler that kills on a spur of the moment decision? If you are thinking of the latter, sorry but I disagree totally. If it was that kind of killer, then he didn’t react as that type of killers usually react. If you are thinking of the former then I agree with you. The killer of Martha was a maniac murderer, as the Ripper was. And if it happened that you’d be thinking of a mixture of both killers, i.e. a drunken brawler who is a maniac, too, then I may also agree with you, because as we know nothing about our man, we can’t emphatically say that JTR couldn’t have also been a regular punter, and that alcohol triggered his homicidal impulses. Brawler or not he’d still be a maniac murderer.
Anyway, I think that this type of objections are due to a lack of a unified theory. As I see it, most of Tabram detractors use a bit of the “drunken client theory”, a bit of the “maniac client theory”, and so on, to blend them into some kind of amalgam.
But that’s misleading. When we say that “that’s how a killer of this type usually reacts, regardless if it's the Ripper or anyone else”, I have the feeling that we are introducing different types of crimes in “the same bag”, so to speak. I’d like to see the data that supports that a crime like Tabram’s murder usually happens that way. And when I say like Martha’s murder I mean in the same (or very similar) conditions as it happened.
I very much suspect that, we might be treating them all alike, i.e. a murder commited by an (ex) boyfriend, husband, prostitute client, etc., that happens in somebody’s bedroom or in a isolated place in which there is no soul, with the type of crime we see in Martha’s case. Martha’s murder was carried out in a “hostile” environment, foreign to the killer. There were people living 12 feet away. As Howard rightly remarks, “there was no way that the killer of Tabram KNEW that any of the conditions which assited in the facilitation of his murder” or if suddenly, somebody could climb up the stairs and catch him red-handed (or should I say blood-handed?).
Martha’s killer chose to ignore the risk and spend enough time butchering her. This is reminiscent of some of the Ripper murders. For instance, in Chapman’s case Mrs Richardson told the press that “Several persons sleep at the back of the house, and some had their windows open, but no noise was heard from the yard.” (Daily Telegraph, 10 September, 1888, page 3). Does that prove that JTR did it? No, but it is just another fact that fits the rest.
Many prostitutes have died at the hands of their clients but Martha’s killer had a different psychological behaviour. IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth, than saying that “that’s how a killer of this type usually reacts, regardless if it's the Ripper or anyone else.” Those casual killers that kill in the same (or very similar) conditions to those found in Martha’s case don’t waste time positioning the body, the clothes or things like that. And those who do it are the type of killers like JTR, i.e. Yorkshire Ripper; Boston strangler, etc… the prototype of maniac murderer. Anyway, if you have the data that contradicts this, I’d appreciate it if I could see it and see if it matches the same context.
followed by a spell of rational thinking and calm.
Once again I’m afraid that you are comparing a domestic murder, or typical urban crime, --in which the (ex)boyfriend or angry lover kills his partner at home or in an isolated place-- to Martha’s murder, in which the killer had that supposed spell of rational thinking after spending some time strangling the victim, opening his blade (when for all purposes, in the killer’s eyes she would be dead or in a dead-like state) and stabbing her 39 times (by the way, why do you call rational thinking to wasting time positioning a body, turning her clothes, up, etc.? I think the rational thinking would’ve been to flee as soon as possible…). The killer’s intentions weren’t just killing her but destroying her. Very much like the Ripper intentions. This psychological aspect is often overlooked.
But, and this is a big BUT, I challenge your interpretation that her butchery was “followed by a spell of rational thinking and calm…” The spell of rational thinking didn’t happen AFTER the murder but BEFORE the murder, and look at the Facts:
The killer was rational enough as to silence her before knifing her to death. The criminal was rational enough as to avoid any shouting, beating, etc., and was rational enough as to do the deed quitely, despite as you put it, he may have got off on it. As I said, I‘d like to see those other cases in which a killer “blinded with anger” controls himself so well, to check that the context and framework are the same or very similar.
“"But, if I tackle the problem as a whole set of elements (including the psychological ones), I’ll see that Martha’s murder has the elements of a maniacal killer, somebody very much in the style of JTR, the killer who struck only 3 weeks later! "… You say: “I totally disagree…”
Why? Didn’t you say before: "that does not exclude a maniac who later stabs his victim in frenzy…"
I get the impression that, once again, we use a bit of this and a bit of that theory due to a lack of a unified theory, as above-mentioned.
considering the vast amount of people visiting the large capital of London (soldiers, seamen, travellers etc.)-- that was able to perform psychotic motiveless murders.
Exactly! And JTR could have been one of those travellers, seamen, etc. That type of objection begs the question and goes to Facts-Substitute #1. To say that there might have been more crazy killers working at the same time doesnt’t detract an inch from the fact that the the only “crazy prostitute killer”, who killed them in such savage way, that we know of at that time, was JTR. We don’t need introduce new and unknown elements to add it up.
The Torso Murderer is another typical red-herring. This is a clear instance of how if we concentrate on a single aspect we may end up seeing a single tree and not a whole forest. Apart from begging the question, too, and take for granted that the killer couldn’t have been JTR (I’m not saying that he was) this type of reasoning diverts you from the main road, i.e. victim's line of business, location, very close in time to the other victims, pattern of dates, strangulation, positioning of body, clothing arragement, throat and sexual organs targeted, total silence, etc. The location isn't the same, the bodies were hidden when the Ripper victims were not, the dates don't fit all that well, etc. The Whitehall incident and the Pinchin Street torso in 1889 don't meet most of the criteria that Tabram meets. It all indicates that the killer dismembered the body to make its transportation easier and dump it somewhere. Desmembering implies that, most probably the killer worked indoors and not like the Ripper.
Well, that is pretty much speculation and personal theorising based on personal preferences, isn't it?
Sorry Glenn, but I disagree. What you call speculation I call it hypothesis. A hypothesis that fits the known facts without distorting or forcing them.
Speculation is to say that there might have been more Ripper-like killers working in that few months span. As far as I know, no Ripper-like murderer was arrested at that time. Speculation is to say that the grenadier seen by the Pc could have been the killer when he was never seen with Tabram or near her while she was alive. Speculation is to say that an explosion of anger was chanelled quietly, etc., etc.
When I offered that possible scenario of how things may have happened I did it using the known facts, i.e. I didn’t make up a story assuming the existence of more crazy killers in the same area, or that all the tenants may have been deaf and that’s why they didn’t hear a single noise, etc. Its purpose was to show that there can be some reasonables explanations that explain the discrepancies without forcing the facts.
"Anyway, my point is that Martha’s case meet enough reasonable facts as to be labeled as a Ripper’s murder. IMHO, it has more elements than Stride’s murder (although I believe her to be a JTR’s victim, too). So, if we don’t mind to include Stride in the list (although she may be disputed) we shouldn’t be afraid of including Tabram in list, too (although some people may dispute her, as well)." You say: “That I can agree on”
Well, I’m glad to hear that. If when all is said and done, we can agree on that, then I’ll say, Mission accomplished!!
"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: 3561
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Actually, I am more of a red wine and cognac man, but if beer has to be considered, porter or dark heavy stout has to be it.
"That’s exactly what I mean. Martha’s murder has the stamp of a maniac at work and not the work of a drunken or angry client."
Hmmmm... and why can't a drunken client (if we exclude JtR) not be a maniac killer? I would say a lot of murders or assaults on prostitutes would argue against that conception. Prostitutes have an ability to draw to themselves a lot of weird characters.
"The killer was rational enough as to silence her before knifing her to death. The criminal was rational enough as to avoid any shouting, beating, etc., and was rational enough as to do the deed quitely, despite as you put it, he may have got off on it. As I said, I‘d like to see those other cases in which a killer “blinded with anger” controls himself so well, to check that the context and framework are the same or very similar."[...]
"But my point is that Martha wasn’t able to make any noise while he strangled her. Do you think that it’s so easy to strangle somebody noiselessly and so efficiently as to avoid any kind of struggle and defense wounds?"
(note: IF she was strangled)
Yes, absolutely. And you do not even be an advanced criminal or a madman to be able to concieve it; as I said, if you want to silence a victim quickly and make as liitle noise as possible, strangulation or suffocation in combination with element of surprise is the best way. It's being done all the time -- in occasional killing, serial killing, domestic killing etc.
I am afraid you have a very narrow perception of human -- or rather criminal -- behaviour.
Killers are complex and if they are intoxicated (which we of course have no proof of in the case of Tabram's killer) they can practically act in any way possible.
"Exactly! And JTR could have been one of those travellers, seamen, etc."
No, that was not the point. The point was that since London was and is a big city with a lot of visitors (travellers, seamen etc.) it is also possible that there were more people than JtR in the area that might have been able to committ these types of crimes -- maybe not as a serial killer but still capable of committing an occasional murder of psychotic nature. You certainly can not rule that out. But since I know that you avoid every possibility that includes "coincidence" I realise that that is a big fish to swallow.
"...doesnt’t detract an inch from the fact that the the only “crazy prostitute killer”, who killed them in such savage way, that we know of at that time, was JTR."
Yes, that we know of, but do you mean that has to be the same as he was the only one? Because that logic I don't follow.
"The location isn't the same, the bodies were hidden when the Ripper victims were not, the dates don't fit all that well, etc. The Whitehall incident and the Pinchin Street torso in 1889 don't meet most of the criteria that Tabram meets. It all indicates that the killer dismembered the body to make its transportation easier and dump it somewhere. Desmembering implies that, most probably the killer worked indoors and not like the Ripper. "
You're missing the point, and you attach yourself too much on MO. I didn't say that the torso murders were similar to Tabram's murder or the Ripper crimes, but they are still examples of murders that are more extreme than the average murder on the street. Dismembering is not uncommon, but it is not the result of an average killer. So apparently there were more killers than JtR capable of committing crimes outside of the ordinary knife assault on the street or domestic crime of passion.
"Sorry Glenn, but I disagree. What you call speculation I call it hypothesis."
Well, if you state that he did this and that because "next time, he doesn’t want to “get the surprise” that his victim is still alive when she wasn’t supposed to", that is my book too much speculating. You can not in any possible way know how he reasoned -- considering it WAS the same man. Sure, it's a theory, but just remember that that is all it is.
"Well, I’m glad to hear that. If when all is said and done, we can agree on that, then I’ll say, Mission accomplished!! "
Well, we can agree on that there are enough facts and indications that allows Tabram to be considered as a possible JtR victim. Because there certainly is; there are similarities in method, in location, type of victim etc. And as I said, if she would turn out be a JtR victim, I would fully embrace it. I have no personal agenda.
But so far there are in my view not enough indications that would support a re-canonization (if she now ever has belonged to the true canon), which is another thing altogether and personally I think it is wrong that Stride belongs there also.
However, I could be wrong and if that is the case and new evidence comes to light t shed light upon this crime and its context, I am willing to reconsider. As I said, to me the scale is tipping 60--40% in favour of her not being a JtR victim, but it can tip over on the other side. And you have produced excellent arguments on several points. I prefer to leave it like that for now.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 444
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Having watched the debate for a little while now, I think I have managed to get a fair picture of what is being suggested from both sides of the fence.
I must say Inaki, you have put forward some intriguing ideas which have at least advanced my own thoughts on whether or not Martha should be included as canonical.
There are a few things that I did think were very compelling arguments in favour of her inclusion. One was that if it was a sudden burst of anger by an enraged client, then why was there not a build up to the attack? It would seem very reasonable to expect some angry words, some accusations, some signs of escalating violence.
The fact that there were none did make me rethink her killer being her soldier client suddenly losing his temper with her and attacking her in a frenzy. I would think it more likely that there would have been at least some noise in that scenario.
Having said that are there any rational and acceptable reasons why no noises were heard if in fact her killer was an enraged client?
One could be that in fact there were noises, but the residents of the building did not want to get involved. There is some grounds for thinking this a possibility. Cries of 'Oh murder' were heard on a regular basis and simply ignored. That is a fact. Numerous witness testimonies confirm this. Human nature being what it is people have always been reluctant to get involved.
It is of course not totally unreasonable to think that they were simply heavy sleepers.
The fact is that if witness testimony is to be believed, no-one heard anything in any of the murders at that time. (With the exception of some possible noises heard at Bucks Row)
Of course this may have been the case. It is totally possible that there were no noises at all in any of the murders, including Martha's.This would give a common link between them, but it cannot be stated as a fact that Martha's death was noiseless. There are too many variables involved.
You have quite rightly said that we should stick to the facts and the facts that I think we can rely on as being unassailable may be a little more limited than first appears.
Firstly it cannot be stated for a fact that she was strangled or suffocated enough to render her unconscious. There are other alternatives that are just as viable. The doctors testimony for one is against it, but in fairness, we cannot rely wholly on what they say. They have been shown to be mistaken in many instances. However there is a viable alternative to the strangulation/suffocation scenario which must be considered.
Martha was extremely drunk even at the time she picked up her soldier client. Her and Poll were completely paralytic by the time they seperated to service their two clients.
You are quite right that a sober Martha would put up a worthy struggle for her life, but one who is very drunk would be no match for a grown man who was hyped up to the point her killer must have been. It is even not at all out of the question that she had passed out in a drunken stupor prior to the attack. Not provable of course, but as viable as or as a supplement to the strangulation hypothesis.
It is quite possible though that the lack of noise and struggle was simply because she was so drunk, and not attributable to any skill or stealth on her part of her attacker,
The only fact that we have to go on in the end from the foregoing is that we know Martha was extremely drunk. This does make a great deal of difference to the whole situation.
Now none of the above makes it more or less likely that Martha's killer was JtR. I am merely pointing out that even 'facts' can be subjective.
Another 'fact' that needs to be examined is 'Was Martha's body posed after death?'
Just because she was in a similar position to some of the other victims does not necessarily mean anything at all. In fact the similarities are not quite as strong as it might first appear. Polly did not have raised legs, her legs were splayed but flat on the ground.
Kate had only her right leg raised. Liz, if she was a victim had her feet flat on the ground and her knees together and leaning to the left, in the natural position for them if she were simply lowered backwards.
Her legs may also have been in that position simply because she was about to engage in sex with her killer before she was murdered.
True lying flat on her back would not be the most usual position for someone in her situation. The most likely would have been standing up against the wall, but bearing in mind that she was extremely drunk, this might have been her preference. We cannot say for a fact that she was posed in that position by her killer. There are other possible alternatives.
I know in an earlier post that the mention of there being 'no connection' was brought up.
The fact is, we actually can't say for certain whether or not Martha had sex with her killer, albeit not actual sexual intercourse.
It could have been oral sex which would leave no trace, it could have been a knee trembler, in which case the emissions from killer would have joined the accumulation already on her clothing or her body.
We know that the doctors were wrong in other cases when they spoke of their being no connection. As I said before Polly on her own admission had engaged in sex several times that day and yet there were no signs of connection.
Fact: We cannot say for certain whether Martha had sex with her killer or not.
Basically all we can do is make up our own minds on the likliehood of her being a victim of JtR, but as Glenn said, I don't think that we have enough evidence to include her as a canonical victim. I must say though that I am leaning far more towards her being a victim of JtR than I did before your posts. You have really put forward some extremely good arguments and I have had to rethink a great many details. So thank you!
Love Jane
xxxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3568
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
"There are a few things that I did think were very compelling arguments in favour of her inclusion. One was that if it was a sudden burst of anger by an enraged client, then why was there not a build up to the attack? It would seem very reasonable to expect some angry words, some accusations, some signs of escalating violence.
The fact that there were none did make me rethink her killer being her soldier client suddenly losing his temper with her and attacking her in a frenzy. I would think it more likely that there would have been at least some noise in that scenario."
No Jane, absolutely not. As I stated in my post above, there do not need to be any build-up to such an attack. That is a misconception and crime records are littered with such incidents. The "noise" issue is not valid enough to lead us into anything conclusive.
As for the rest of your brilliant post, very good points about
1) Martha's drunkedness (and possible incapacity to put up a defense),
2) the body position; as you say, we can not know for certain that this was deliberate and in some other sexual murders I have seen recorded, this has some times been purely unintentional. So, good point, that should be taken for granted.
3) the thing about oral sex, semen and sexual connection and the doctors' opinions.
Very interesting and compelling views, as usual.
And I agree, I myself have never been so close to accepting Martha myself, as now after Inaki's posts and the discussions they have created.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 548
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Glenn...
Let me try again to be clear...
1. There exists a sizeable group of people that discount Tabram,due to individual perceptions surrounding her death. In particular, the absence of mutilation in the way Nichols,Chapman,Eddowes,and of course MJK were mutilated.
2. While not suggesting that Mrs. Tabram was or denying that she wasn't a C5 victim , my original post was to demonstrate that the killer of Mrs. Tabram faced as much of an,if not more, opportunity of being caught,stopped in mid-kill,or at least seen while in the act.
He obviously knew that there was no one else around on the inside of the building,as he began his 30 second [ approx.] assault. Had he known there were people up and about,he would not have committed it. Based on this, he was taking a risk that there were not any people up and about and only guessing that they were not a threat to what was to follow. He could not have been certain of this condition. There was a floor above this one....
Include the fact that he didn't know who was doing what in any of the apartments of that floor,nor if anyone else ,was engaging in what my main squeeze Jane Coram called a knee-trembler on the third floor, themselves.. Thus,this murder,while possibly a part of the Ripper's work or not,for comparision-purposes, is as,if not more,risky than at least Chapman's and Eddowes' and imho,more so than Stride's and Kelly's, and Nichols.
Yes,there would seem to be more time taken in the C5 murders [with the possible exception of Stride]....But I am not referring to the time-risk, only the action-risk from inception to conclusion
Do you see now, old bean?
P.S. Hi Jane !
HowBrown
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 549
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
In addition,since I don't lean towards her as being a C5 victim [not that that matters..], but my reason would be precisely because of this indoor risk,which occurred before the Nichols murder.
Its very clumsy...its very time consuming in an occupied accessible place...and has less in common with the modus operandi [ read: throat slitting ] of the other C5 victims.
But it is good to review our sentiments on these matters from time to time,as we can allow ideas turn into fact and be immovable towards new ideas or old ideas seen through different eyes,such as the ones Inaki has posited here.
(Message edited by howard on June 11, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3569
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Well, Howie,
It's a good point, of course, but as we don't know if her murderer was a client or not, I am not sure if that helps us, although I totally get your drift.
There is of course a vast difference between a murder and indulge in sex with a prostitute, but even for a regular sex customer that uncertainty about the conditions was more or less a problem and you'd therefore trust the prostitute and her knowledge about the place, wouldn't you?
Let's assume for a minute that her killer was a client (drunk or not etc.), who suddenly attacked her, but had no initial intention to kill her but did for some reason!
I mean, it wouldn't be the first time that happened.
Then, he didn't really think about the risks anyway. We can't assume that her killer actually intended to kill her, regardless if he was Jack the Ripper or not. And such murders are usually done in a spur of a moment.
I am not so sure that he knew the premises.
It was usually the prostitutes that chose the locations, so if you wanted to kill a prostitute you would really have to grasp the chances they gave you, but within the frames and limits they had chosen.
Therefore I think the risky conditions on the locations is a red herring; Tabram's murderer really didn't have much opportunities to choose from anyway, apart from the ones she gave him. And if he didn't intend to kill her from the beginning but suddenly got into a fit of rage, he probably didn't think much of the conditions anyway. At least that is a possibility. So I wouldn't draw too heavy conclusions from it. But I see your point.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 445
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Hi Howie!
How's my favourite man from Philadelphia?
The landings of those buildings were used all the time by prostitutes as good places for servicing clients, which is almost certainly why Martha took her soldier there in the first place.
The similar buildings in Goulston Street were used all the time for this right up until they were demolished and many a time in the 1960's we would have to pass couples 'practicing their dancing techniques' as we were going up to my friends flat.... interesting..........
The point is that you are quite right in mentioning that it was a very risky venue for him, whether he was JtR or not. He would literally hav e been trapped if anyone had come up the stairs at that particular moment.
We know for a fact that people were walking up and down all night as the inhabitants of Whitechapel in the LVP seemed to keep very flexible hours to say the least.
Those stairways were very narrow and if he had been confronted by.......say another prostitute and her client, possibly a serviceman, he would have found himself on a very sticky wicket.
I would say it was far more risky than any of the other venues for that reason alone. If I wanted to play Devil's advocate, I might reason that if he were JtR he may have put himself in such a risky situation due to inexperience and learnt a lesson from it.
I personally feel though that it is more likely her killer merely found himself in that situation without premeditation.
I totally agree with this comment of yours though:
'But it is good to review our sentiments on these matters from time to time, as we can allow ideas turn into fact and be immovable towards new ideas or old ideas seen through different eyes, such as the ones Inaki has posited here.'
Nice one Howie.
Anyway, that's my two pennerth.
Love you loads
Jane
xxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3575
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
A very good post, Jane, and I agree with all of it. Brilliantly put.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 643
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:17 am: |
|
On the risk elements only:
If jack did kill Tabram (I have an open mind) then he had a number of alternatives -
* if someone came up the stairs to dodge to the floor above/if from above to go down the stairs
* there might always have been a chance to escape in the confusion of finding the body (though personally I suspect this would only have entered Jack's head if he were cornered)
* we don't know how ready Jack would have been to use his knife on others if cornered. Perhaps it's as well that the Mahoneys, Crow and reeves did not find out
* if jack was really cunning and heard someone approaching - he breaks off and rushes past the newcomer, before they see the body, shouting "Run for help there's been a murder!!" (It might just have worked).
But at the end of the day, although conventionally we regard Jack as more or less cunning and calculating (depending on the suspect and whether you include letters, graffito etc) the risks may not have meant anything to him. He may just have been lucky.
If Jack was (say) Kosminski or Cohen, practically lunatic, he may not have thought of risks, just did it and got away and was lucky.
If we take a minimalist view of the Whitechapel murders for a while the luck might only have run to three - Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (with Tabram, Stride and MJK falling to other hands).
If Tabram were killed by a client (rather than Jack) again risk may not have entered into it. For whatever reason the client flared into violence and Tabram died, he got away, end of story. Jane put that last thought much better than I, when she wrote, "her killer... found himself in that situation without premeditation."
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
