Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 11:28 am |        |
I haven't checked the medical boards but I have a question. I'm writing a novel concerning Jack the ripper and I am including Martha Tabram as one of JtR's victims. (Keep in mind its fiction!)
One of the contemporary reports mention the possibility of two weapons one likely a bayonet.
This would imply a soldier but the question is; what type of bayonet?
A spike bayonet leaves a different wound than a sword bayonet. Also a spike bayonet by design is almost impossible to use without a musket or rifle behind it. My supposition is that had Tabram's killer used a spike bayonet, there would not be neat puncture wounds. There would be rather large gaping rips to the lower chest/upper abdomen area. I'd like to get some expert input on this. kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Jon
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 01:38 pm | |
Dr. Killeen may have noted the type of wound but his notes have not survived hence we cannot be sure what the blade type was but I have assumed it to have been eliptical (double-sided blade) or an elongated triangle (single-sided blade) as opposed to a round or star shape because there was some discussion about a different knife ("some kind of dagger") being used, if the hole was round no-one would be talking about two knives.
But, its all guesswork, we simply do not know for sure.
Regards, Jon |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 06:32 pm | |
I ssem to recall we went into the Bayonet question in detail some time ago(As it was a transition period) and settled on the triangular socket version as most likely
Steve |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 06:34 pm | |
P.S....My socket bayonet is quite capable of being used without it's musket,and"East End 1888" refers to them being sold in the markets
Steve |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 09:49 pm | |
Hello all,
I'm afraid Tabram wasn't killed with a bayonet. Dr. Killeen's actually testimony was that she was stabbed 38 times with a small knife and once with a dagger. Because of the testimony of PC Barrett and Pearly Poll involving soldiers, the coroner questioned if it could have been a bayonet. Dr. Killeen, who didn't have the experience to make such a judgement, conceeded it was possible. That's all. In a home office file, which I don't believe has ever appeared in a book (I could be wrong) the following appears in regards to Tabram's murder..."Some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet was first suspected as the weapon. But bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable".
This is one of the persistent discrepancies I hope to clear up (as much as is possible in this case) in my future work. Tabram wasn't killed by a soldier.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 03:30 am | |
Hi Tom,
How do you arrive at you final conclusion - 'Tabram wasn't killed by a soldier'?
Surely a soldier could have killed Tabram without using a bayonet. Equally, had Tabram been killed with one, we would not be able to conclude that a soldier definitely dunnit.
Having said that, I do believe Tabram could have been one of Jack's earlier experiments. But then, couldn't Jack have been a soldier?
Love,
Caz |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 05:05 am | |
A careful reading of the Eastern Poste for the 11th and 18th August 1888, and of the East London Advertiser for the same dates, shows that Dr. Killeen was referring to a sword bayonet rather than to a triangular-profiled socket type. See Press Reports.
Regards, V. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 08:57 am | |
Viper: Thanks. Steve: Maybe the later variant are easier held. I teach people Civil War era bayonet drill. The Springfield and the British Enfield triangular profiled socket bayonets have no hilt. The Enfield actually used both depending on the model of rifle.That was the reason of my original question.
I do agree you could inflict some very nasty wounds by hand with a spike bayonet but it would be awkward. Does yours have some sort of hilt? Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:25 am | |
C:\My Documents
 brtmk3.jpg |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:28 am | |
C:\My Documents  brit88.jpg |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:32 am | |
The top pic is the MkIII, a single sided dagger bayonet and the lower pic is a double sided version which was available right at the end of 1888, it has been suggested that the lower version was not widely available in the military in early August.
The above pics are for info only. |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 01:40 pm | |
Hi Guys,
One thing I have always wondered about, was whether there was ever blood splattered all around the landing where Martha T was found.
Stab (puncture-type) wounds all over the body would spurt blood everywhere if the victim was alive (& especially in an excited state) at the time. I should know, I was stabbed just through my hand on one unfortunate occassion in my youth, and had to be rushed to the local hospital. The blade went in one side (the palm) and came out the other. (You instinctively reach out when such an item is being thrust at you) A person went to the area after a friend had rushed me to the hospital and screamed at the amount of blood that had spurted all over the ground and walls. I can remember it spurting as my heart pounded in my chest. She had sworn someone must surely have been murdered, with what appeared to be gallons of blood splattered about the place. And this was just from one small-type wound.
Hopefully you will appreciate where I am coming from. Was Martha alive when the stabbings were made or was she already dead (or unconcious) in which case blood would not have jetted out but leaked, to be soaked up in the clothing as appears to have been the case with other Ripper victims. Was she vertical or lying prostrate before the wounds were inflicted? I can't seem to find much detail on the scene of crime and hoped someone would be able to provide further information?
Does anyone have any further (graphic) detail on the state of the landing, stairs and surrounding area where Tabram was found? From what I have read there doesn't appear to have been any indication of a struggle? Do you think the bayonet-type wound would have been the first (& fatal)wound inflicted?
Many Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 02:01 pm | |
Jeff
One news account stated that only one wound was perpetrated while she was alive (presumably due to excessive bleeding), while the others were perpetrated after death.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 05:31 pm | |
Jeff and Jon,
Dr. Killeen testified at the inquest that ALL of the wounds were inflicted during life. Tabram had been strangled, laid on her back, and then stabbed. She died of hemmorhage. She was found in a pool of blood. The man who found her noticed that there were no bloody foot marks in the area, suggesting it was unlikely that splattering about the landing occured.
Neil,
So, you're ignoring the professional contemporary evidence that a bayonet was not used? Does a soldier figure significantly into your story?
Caroline,
You are quite right in stating that Tabram's killer could have been a soldier, whether a bayonet was used or not. There's no evidence to rule out that a soldier did the killings, but it seems quite unlikely that the mate of the soldier PC Barrett spoke with was the killer and Pearly Poll's testimony has Tabram going off with her soldier-client a good two hours before her death. Tabram's murder does not at all seem spur-of-the-moment. Her killer knew what he wanted to do when he walked out carrying his weapons. The idea that he would then take a buddy along with him (i.e. PC Barrett's man) seems unbelievable. Also, it would seem that all the soldiers on leave were wearing their uniforms, and the prospect of getting at least some blood on the uniform while committing such a murder would be high, and quite a risk, yet the uniforms of all the soldiers on leave that night were searched and no blood found. Like I said, it's possible her killer was a soldier, but there is absolutely no reason to think so. The only reason there was ever a suggestion that he might have been a soldier were the accounts of Pearly Poll and PC Barrett, and as the police still considered Tabram's murder as a Ripper crime after the next two deaths (I know, the name 'Ripper' didn't exist yet, but you know what I mean), but had long since stopped searching for a soldier, that would indicate that they no longer suspected a soldier in Tabram's death, either. So, why should we?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 06:39 pm | |
Hi, Neil,
Mine's A standar Bess Bayonet...But minus the locking ring used by the 1850'5/60's...makes it a little easier to use by hand.
There was also a wavy-bladed sword bayonet issued to sergeants whilst O.R.'s had the socket pattern, but it's a real monster..more like a sword....I think similiar models were used in your Civil War.
Steve |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 04:09 am | |
Hi Tom,
You're probably right. All I meant was that we can't rule out a military man, even if Tabram and Pearly's two soldiers were innocent. I wonder if Tabram's killer was watching the 'courting' couple, getting himself all worked up to pounce on "the filthy whore" later, when her soldier was gone. Jack the Voyeur perhaps?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 09:16 am | |
| Steve: I've seen the Enfield sword bayonet. They're not much used in reenacting. Tom: Actually the reason I started this thread is so I am on solid ground. It is my intention to follow the evidence as it were and have Tabram's killer use a dagger and small knife as surmised in her autopsy (What little I've read). I haven't ruled out a soldier as a suspect but don't see him as the ripper. Why? Very simple. soldiers in those days lived in very close quarters. It was almost impossible to have a private life if you were an O.R. (Enlisted for our American readers) unless you were a senior N.C.O. You were pretty much confined to base unless you were given a pass or on duty. A soldier is highly accountable to others on duty and passes were few and far between as I stated in Good queen Vic's reign, they would have been easily accounted for and the soldier brought swiftly to justice by the military. Still Her Majesty's Army might have been able to keep it hushed up. Hmmm. Neil |
