|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 10:48 am: |       |
Leanne,
Okay. This is getting ridiculous.
There is NOTHING to suggest that anyone at the time believed that Pearly Poll was a man.
And Walter Dew's comment didn't mean that she was hiding male anatomy - it means that she was doing what any good prostitute does - protecting the identity of her client. She didn't believe he was a murderer, and thus, wouldn't have cooperated.
As you said, we have the benefit of hindsight, and she wouldn't have known that this could be the start of a serial string of murders.
And her reticence at speaking at the inquest probably had more to do with the fact that everyone in London would know she was a whore when it was finished, and less to do with your baseless, if amusing, belief that she could have been a man in disguise.
Between the crazy Barnett theories and the Mr. Pearly Poll thread, I'm starting to think there's something in the water here at the ole' Casebook.
B |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 198
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
"Between the crazy Barnett theories and the Mr. Pearly Poll thread, I'm starting to think there's something in the water here at the ole' Casebook"
Brian, I do agree with you in some ways. Although Richard makes some very interesting posts- I don't subscribe to the 'abortion' theory, or the 'number 39 theory' that have been put forward.
And Leanne, I agree with much of what you post- but I just can't get my head around ol' Poll being a bloke.
But I don't think I've put forward any 'crazy' Barnett theories. You may disagree with me, but I don't think I'm off my rocker. After all, Joe barnett had a pretty decent book written about him, by all accounts. 
|
John Hacker
Police Constable
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:10 pm: | |
Marie,
Bruce Paley's book was an interesting case. His research was very well done. His work is very accessible. It is even well documented in regards to source material.
However the core of Paley's theory is simply fantasy based on wild speculation. (Ex. No record of his Joe's mother is found past his early years, therefore she left to become a prostitute. Motive!) He invents a complex personality for Joe, which is based again on speculation. He then bases an extremely circumstantial case based on his impression of Joe's personality.
To be realistic, we have very little information on which to base any information to base any kind of personality speculation on, and what there is suspect either due to the unreliability of newspaper reports or the source (JV). And yet Bruce Paley feels that he not only understands what makes him tick, but even goes so far as to play out hyphothetical scenarios with MJK that are so far out there as to be truly laughable.
I certainly recommend his book to anyone interested in Joe Barnett as a suspect, but whenever reading Paley it's always a good idea to follow the source citations to make it easier to seperate his excellent research from his highly dubious conclusions.
Regards,
John
|
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 200
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. I've not actually read the book (although I'd really like to).
So I'll have to reserve judgement until I do. I will say, however, that I've not really read a book on a specific suspect that didn't rely quite heavily on speculation. Albeit speculation based on fact.
Just seems to be the nature of the beast.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
G'day,
Oh looky looky! Here we are on the Martha Tabram board, discussing Barnett and Kelly.
BRIAN: Please tell me what it is you think is in the water here at the ole 'Casebook'! I've wondered certain things too, but we can't let our minds wonder imagining things with nothing to base our beliefs on, can we?
About Poll, who 'The A-Z' describes as: 'a big woman, with low, husky voice, drink-reddened face':
When found, after disappearing for 2 days without bothering to tell police where she was off to, a parade of the Grenadier Guards was arranged on the 13th of August. Poll picked no one!
A 2nd parade was set up of the Coldstream Guards on the 15th of August, where Poll picked out 2 men, who proved alibis. It was decided at the Yard that she could not be trusted again, (Edmund Reid, 24 Sept. 1888)
Fifty years later, Walter Dew wrote that she deliberately identified the wrong men.
In 1894, Sir Melville Macnaughten wrote in a confidential note that she 'failed or refused to identify' the soldiers.
No one was going to question her sex in writing, for fear of liable action.
We'll never get anywhere near solving this case, if we remain stuck!
I'll write about Bruce Paley's book on the board about Bruce Paley's book: 'The Simple Truth'.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 - 10:07 pm: | |
G'day Stephen,
I'm trying to keep your new 'Casebook' clean and in order. I really am!
LEANNE |
needhelp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
i'm doing a Gcse project on jack the ripper, could u tell me y martha tabram has now been discounted as a ripper victim? cheers |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 443
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 6:37 pm: | |
Hi needhelp
Definitely not discounted. Against her inclusion is the fact that her throat seems not to have been cut, nor was she disembowelled. However, it's possible that the killer had yet to settle into his regular modus operandi.
In "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" Philip Sugden says : "In time and place, type of victim, the sudden, silent onslaught, the signs of strangulation, the multiple stab wounds, the absence of weapons or clues left at the murder scene, above all in the frenzied character of the attack, in virtually every other respect, the Tabram murder is kin to its successors." And he points out that the police at the time included her as a victim.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 187
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 11:35 am: | |
Needhelp,
Im with my pal Robert. She hasnt.
Monty
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 448
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 7:49 pm: | |
Needhelp, if you click on "Dissertations" and then on "Victims", you'll find "The Case For Re-canonising Martha Tabram" by Quentin L Pittman.
Robert |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 7:19 pm: | |
>>In "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" Philip Sugden says : "In time and place, type of victim, the sudden, silent onslaught, the signs of strangulation, the multiple stab wounds, the absence of weapons or clues left at the murder scene, above all in the frenzied character of the attack, in virtually every other respect, the Tabram murder is kin to its successors." And he points out that the police at the time included her as a victim. <<
I've been reading The Complete History for the past several days, and I'm about 2/3 of the way through it. I'm happy to say that Sugden confirms my own gut feelings regarding Tabram being a likely victim of the Ripper.
As a matter of fact, the very quote above I had planned on using if a serious argument regarding Tabram should arise here, since every point listed is significant, not the least of which are the two related points: "the sudden, silent onslaught, the signs of strangulation" which in my mind hold much more weight than the differences in post-mortem mutilations, since they indicate a method which the killer employed to successfully achieve his ends and thus would be less likely to vary.
The "sudden silent onslaught" means that the victim had little to no time to cry out or struggle -- which in a crowded borough like Whitechapel was imperative if the killer sought to avoid detection, particularly while committing crimes out in the open. And consequently, this indicates that there was forethought involved prior to the commission of the crime, and this degree of forethought likely indicates that the post-mortem attacks on the body were intended from the start.
Once the preliminary dispatch of the victim was accomplished, the killer was free to perform whatever mutilations he wished, and there is no practical reason why he wouldn't vary them, since they're not necessary to the success of the mission. But the primary method of dispatching the victim, by a "sudden silent onslaught" would likely not be varied, because of its practical necessity. |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
Hi Randy
I sometimes wonder: if Tabram was a Ripper victim, could the 39 stab wounds be due, not just to rage, but to frustration too? He wasn't getting the "kick" he was looking for. Then when he ripped Nichols, he knew he'd found it. Of course, I'm only speculating.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 195
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 7:48 am: | |
Robert,
You ARE my double !! 
My speculation ?? He was interupted.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 468
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 7:31 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I feel that's quite possible, and that he would have done far worse to Nichols if he hadn't heard someone coming.
Another piece of speculation : he seems to have got bored very quickly. Chapman, womb taken. Eddowes, womb again but now he wants a kidney for a change. Kelly, wombs and kidneys are old hat, so it's the heart. The thing about the Kelly murder that surprises me is that as far as I know, he didn't actually rip up the organs. He didn't take apart the uterus, or tear the kidneys to shreds. It's as if he was taking these things out and thinking "Oh, yeah...another one of those."
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 197
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Robert,
A disection ?
His actions seem curious to me also.
Both Drs Bagster Philips (Chapman) & Brown (Eddowes) states that the intestings were 'placed'.
Is that an odd statement to you ?
It seems to indicate that they were lovingly placed over their shoulders as opposed to flung....or put down.
Why 'placed' ??
Monty
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 156
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Hello All
I lean toward the belief that Martha was a JTR victim. the main argument against her being a victim is the so called bayonet wound, different crime scene signature and non-removal of organs.
Firstly, we can't state with certainty that it was a bayonet. She went off with a soldier so what do the officials conclude, one wound resembled a bayonet wound. Depending on the way the weapon is thrust and withdrawn it need not have been a bayonet. Is a bayonet wound that distinctive from a long truncated knife wound?
It troubles me that she was gone so long with her soldier. How long would either a hasty murder or a hasty act of sex of some sort take to carry out. There was plenty of time to pick up the real killer and lead him off to her own doom.
Secondly, Robert could be exactly right. JTR was still experimenting with the murder style that gave him the most sick satisfaction. Merely thrusting at the body with a knife until he was arm weary was not what would have appeared to give him the most satisfaction. Does his later mutilation, organ removal and arrangement of the intestines, as Monty suggests, show that he was still working on his most satisfactory criminal signature if and when he killed Tabram.
Just some random thoughts.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Monty, Gary
Yes, "placed" does sound a bit odd. When Brown used the word, it may have been because he knew of the Chapman case, and so inferred a deliberate design. But Phillips also used the word, and his case was the first time the intestines ended up on the shoulder. Mind you, Phillips also used the word about Chapman's left arm.
Gary, you once suggested a mortuary attendant. Are you suggesting an autopsy attendeant, Monty? I gather from a link of Joan's that these people were unqualified medically, serving as general dogsbodies at autopsies. But I suppose that they could have gleaned a fair amount of rough anatomical and surgical knowledge, and simply by chatting to doctors in murder cases they could have found out about strangulation points, flow of blood etc. They might also have picked up some knowledge about police beats etc from chats with the local bobbies - although if there weren't too many murders in that area, this wouldn't apply.
Gary, if Tabram was a victim, it's interesting that he never really stopped stabbing - Nichols had two stab wounds, and Eddowes was stabbed internally I believe.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 162
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 7:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I believe that placed or perhaps posed is the term we are looing for. I believe the bodies were posed with legs spread and knees drawn up for maximum shock value for the people who found the body and for the authorities.
I wouldn't doubt that the killer came from the same class as an autopsy attendant because he would have had an interest in dead bodies and wouldn't have minded being exposed to the viscera.
Or how about a security guard who might have liked to rub shoulders with the police and obtain information on their habits and practices.
I also wouldn't rule out a sailor. Especially one who may have worked on the cattleboats.
I like your term about many of the mortuary attendants serving as dogsbodies at the autopsies. I wouldn't want any loved one of mine to be handled by these chaps or even many of the doctors who performed the autopsies under laughably poor conditons in places such as the makeshift sheds that appear to be used.
I recall Dr. Ind's professor saying that Dr. Brown was a "...bloody fool" for saying that the kidney left in Eddowes' body was both bloodless and congested. Which is another way of saying it had no blood in it and at the same time was congested with blood.
I often wonder about the true number of murders in the East End. I believe actual homicides would have been greatly under-reported and under-investigated in the this part of town where most bodies belonged to the poorist classes.
I agree that It is interesting to see Tabram having been stabbed so many times. It seems to me her killer was not getting the satisfaction he wanted from the killing. In other words that he really wanted to be able to open the body, handle the organs and generally be much more invasive as he was in most of his later killings.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 8:10 pm: | |
Hi Gary
I'm not sure about the homicide question, but I do feel that there must have been a great deal more crime in general than was actually reported, because of a reluctance on the part of the local populace to gain a reputation as a "copper's nark" or whatever the saying was in those times.
I imagine it was a bit like a school, where there was a code of people sorting out their disagreements without squealing to "teacher".
Re the mortuary assistants or autopsy assistants, I wonder whether it would have been almost instinctive for one of these to have removed Chapman's rings - the sort of thing they'd done lots of times to dead bodies, almost without thought. Of course, this doesn't mean anything, because the rings could have been taken by any hard-up Ripper, or maybe they were taken as trophies by a Ripper who could have been from any social class.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 163
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I believe that of the options you mention, the idea of taking Chapman's rings as a trophy makes the most sense. Objects that he could keep that could be used to help to relive the crime and the thrill of the kill over and over. Until the
urge to kill again became too strong and he had to go out looking for another victim.
Best
Gary |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:41 pm: | |
Hi All
On the ‘placing’ of body parts and autopsy assistants, a correspondent to the Star, 10 Sept. 1888 had this to say:
“T. C. M.” writes: - May not the horrible murders of Whitechapel be the act of some insane butcher or dissecting-room porter? Mrs. Richardson’s account of the ghastly sight of the last poor victim seems to bear out my theory of the crime being the deed of some miscreant who has been accustomed to some such work on the dead subject. As a medical man I am struck by the fact of the viscera being taken out and placed alongside of the unfortunate victim, as if for inspection by the demonstrator at a post-mortem examination. Anyhow, I think all dissecting room or post-mortem porters of the hospitals or mortuaries and even veterinary assistants should be scrutinised as to their state of mind also, and especially should some account be ascertained of all such persons who have lately left such situations, either of their own free will or by dismissal.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 479
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
Alex, thanks for posting that item. I'm not sure whether the correspondent is saying that Mrs Richardson's account bears out a theory which he'd already formed, or whether he's simply citing it as evidence for his theory. It's very interesting.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 164
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 6:33 am: | |
Hi Alex
Thanks for the post. Didn't Peter Sutcliffe, The Yorkshire Ripper, work for a time for a funeral home? I seem to recall a fellow employee being amazed at how comfortable he was around the dead bodies. I will try and find the quote.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 480
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Hi Gary
I don't know about the funeral director, but he was a gravedigger for a while, wasn't he? And then later he claimed that he had heard a voice coming from one of the graves.
Robert |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
Hi Robert.
Yes, that sounds plausible enough, assuming that the attack was (as so many assume) "frenzied" as Sugden describes it, which I would say is a fairly reasonable assumption.
But since you mention it, it got me thinking about the general pattern of all 6 murders taken as a whole. To wit, the theme of frustration followed by resolution seems to flow through the series. Accepting Martha as a Ripper victim, she would be the test case, in which the Ripper basically just did it in order to prove to himself that he could do it and get away with it, but either not quite knowing what exactly he wants, or perhaps not willing to take it as far as he'd like to have done. In either case, there'd be a residual dissatisfaction with the results, which would compel him to commit another crime in order to fulfill his desires. And perhaps after considering it for 3 weeks or so, he finally figures out what he wants to do, which is to disembowel the victim. Unfortunately (at least from his point of view) he was frustrated in that instance (Nichols) as well,since apparently he was interrupted before he could finish the job. And so, a relatively short time later (a little over a week) he kills Chapman, where he does a fairly complete job on her.
Then another 3 weeks or so go by and he decides he wants to do it again, but this time he's interrupted after only getting to cut her throat. And because this was probably even more frustrating, and perhaps because the heat was getting hotter from the Police and he might not have a lot of future opportunities, he kills again on the very same night, this time outdoing his previous effort with Chapman.
Now notice that the two shortest gaps between murders each occur after he's been interrupted in his crimes. In the first case it was 8 days and in the second case it was a few hours. (Correct me on the times between Stride and Eddowes if I have that wrong). This would seem to support my thesis here, since frustration is a powerful motivator and it would likely make him impatient to try again.
Ok, now the interesting part. After the double event, he lays low for an even longer period of time, perhaps waiting for the heat to die down, or perhaps waiting for the perfect opportunity to present itself to him when he could kill a woman in-doors where he wouldn't be disturbed, and then commits his most extreme mutilation ever.
Do you think it's possible that the reason he stopped killing after this was because he finally achieved satisfaction? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
