|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 08:00 pm |        | Thankyou Mesy Armo
David's point is to assume that the 39 shallower wounds ended with the same point and the width of the wounds were also the same, same blade, same point, different depth.
This, I might suggest, would have been obvious to a Doctor, so I assume Killeen's remark was based on there being something very different about the details of the wounds like width of blade and different outline or impression left by the stab wounds.
Get yourself a jelly, preferably out of a jelly mould (Jello to the 'New Worlders') and run a kitchen knife into it and back out, if your carefull you will be able to see through the jelly and make out the profile of the wound left by the blade. When an autopsy is carried out the Doctor will carefully slice through the wound to determine the shape of the blade that made it.
I'm assuming (rightly or wrongly) that Killeen had determined the 39 wounds to have been of a different and smaller width blade, thereby giving him the impression it was similar to a penknife.
Regards, Jon
P.S....how long do you think it would take to stab someone 39 times in a controlled fashion, and why bother?. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 11:23 pm | | Jon and Rosemary,
Thanks for your responses. Maybe Dr. Killeen himself prejudged the matter, thinking the same thing: "Why would someone stab once powerfully, and 39 times lightly with the same knife? So, he must not have done that, there must have been two blades at the crime scene." But if the murderer WANTS to do that, then he does it. If the blade used were long, well ground down, very narrow, and very sharp, and if it didn't widen much progressively from its tip down toward the handle, in short if it resembled the knife suggested by doctors doing post mortems in the murderer's latter crimes, then perhaps there might have been a way for him to make all the wounds on Tabram with one knife.
If we knew what he was trying to do we'd solve the case. The problem with most Ripperologists is, IMHO, they take themselves right out of having any chance to solve the case, because they think they can't afford to speculate about what he was trying to do.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 06:50 am | | Dear Jon,
Any specified depth to your Jellio-mould? This will be crucial to determining point of penknife and point of bayonet-dagger. Due to the predominance of bone in the pelvic area the wounds
would yield a similar penetration form to that of a 'smaller dagger' point? But we cannot be certain
as to the intended meaning of Killeen's 'penknife'
remark. But ONE weapon is more likely here, surely?
Dear David,
Very well put! Incidentally, I have the feeling that the real 'mystery' of Jack the Ripper only
starts when we discover him/her/them?
Rosemary |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:31 am | | Hi Tom,
my grandfather joined the British Army in 1876, (the year of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. He was one of the last of the British Redcoats. He fought in the Zulu War in 1879 and was wounded in the leg by a spear. He died in 1943 shortly after being found, by an American soldier, lying in the road, in a snowstorm, after slipping over and breaking his thigh. The bayonets used during his 11yrs service were 21 and 1/2 inches long, socket type,--(no handle), and were triangular in section, they were in use till his discharge in 1887. These bayonets were called "Lungers, would pass clear through a body and protrude the opposite side, but with prolonged violent use, as in Rorkes Drift, they were prone to bending, and once bent and straightened would bend easier the second time.
I don't think a killer would use a weapon of this length on an unarmed woman, it's too ungainly, it's easy to blame the soldier, being the last person to be seen with Tabram, but I think if for some reason the soldier wanted to kill her, he would have strangled her, he couldn't possibly have risked returning to barracks all bloodied up without injury to himself. If the weapon used on Martha was say,- section,3/16, width,3/4 to 1in, and length about 7 to 8in long, considerable force could have been used in an attack from behind,(holding the knife dagger fashion) to force the blade through her sternum to her heart.
The sternum bone clinging tightly to the blade, would cause the killer to rock the knife to remove it, making the wound bigger, any further stabbing was done to soft flesh, straight in and out but kind of trying to avoid the knife sticking again. Maybe that's why he changed his method of attack, because like you I tend to think, why weren't there any more stabbing murders? that sort of murder is not usually a one off.
Regards, Rick. |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 03:58 pm | | Putting on my best Anorak head...The knife-type bayonet was introduced in 1888 to complement the lee-metford rifle...wonder if military records would show if the tower garriso had been re-equiped?
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 04:15 pm | | Hi, Steve:
I believe Mishter Jon Smyth has been looking into this question.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Good question Steve.
Let me poste my questions to the Tower authorities, et-al, with answers...
-------------------------------------------
Dear Sir
I would appreciate a little help...
I need to know which Guards were on Duty at The Tower of London between August & December, 1888.
Were they Coldstream or Grenadier?
Did Wellington Barracks supply Guards to the Tower?
Is it possible that any of these Guards were posted overseas in December?
I am trying to narrow the field down to find certain soldiers, but I'm not sure whether these soldiers were Coldstream or Grenadier, and they were either stationed at the Tower or at Wellington Barracks.
Thankyou, Jon
================================
Reply:
In reply to your e-mail, the 1st Bn The Grenadier Guards was stationed at
the Tower in Aug-Dec 1888; other Guards Battalions were at Wellington
Barracks.
According to the 'Army List' all the Guards battalions were in London,
Windsor or Dublin in December 1888.
Yours sincerely
Alastair Massie
National Army Museum
===============================
Alistair
Thankyou for your quick response.
I understand that the size of a Battalion varied, how could I find out how
many men were listed as in service at the time in question (Aug-Dec 1888),
and only those on duty at the Tower, there must be a list of names, is this
available to the public?
And would it have been the complete Battalion on duty or just a portion of
it?
Thankyou, Jon
-----------------------------------
Dear Mr. Smyth,
Your enquiry addressed to our Education Department has been passed to me for
a reply.
I am sorry to have to tell you that we have no listing of which regiments
were on duty here in the Tower, and that I do not know where such
information can be found. Have you tried the Guards Museum, Wellington
Barracks, London SW1E 6 HQ, Tel. 0171 414 3271 ? I think that the
information may be available from regimental sources, orderly books for
instance, rather than central govnermental source.
I hope that this is helpful. Good hunting
Sarah Barter Bailey
Librarian
Royal Armouries,
Tower of London
=========================================
And thats where I let it rest for now.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 07:42 pm | | The Lee-Metford issue was a little more complicated.
=======================================
Dear Sir
I am particularly interested in the official & unofficial position as it stood in 1888 regarding which ranks were allowed to carry weapons while on leave, say for instance out on the town in London, Eng.
With particular reference to the carrying of bayonets, and was this rule changed and if so, when & why?
Thankyou, Jon Smyth
-------------------------------------------
No Reply
===================================
Dear Sir
Maybe you can help me, or refer me to the correct source, I am trying to find out the what the Grenadier Guards carried as there 'standard issue' between August - December, 1888 while on duty at the Tower of London.
eg; Rifle & bayonet
was it, Lee Metford, Lee Enfield or Martini Henri, or some other ?
Thankyou, Jon Smyth.
-------------------------------
Reply:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your e-mail. Your best course of action is to contact the Royal Armouries at the Tower of London, H.M. Tower of London, London, EC3N 4AB. I am sure someone there will be able to give you a full and satisfactory answer.
I hope this has been of some help.
Yours John Blaney.
====================================
Then I wrote to Viper about my question:
--- Jon Smyth wrote:
> Hi Viper
> From what I've learned thru collectors and
> associations (museums havn't replied yet) the
> Martini-Henry was adopted in 1871 thru to the 1900's
> But in 1888 they also adopted the Metford rifling
> barrel c/w Lee bolt action.
> Then in 1895 they adopted the Enfield barrel c/w Lee
> bolt action.
>
> The Lee Metford bayonet I bought appears to have a
> date of June 1888, not yet confirmed.
> this is getting very close, we are down to the
> months now, I've put an enquiry in to the Tower
> asking for the exact rifle issue between Aug & Dec
> 1888. - Waiting for a reply.
>
> Jon
-------------------------------------
Viper made his own inquiries by asking this question to a relevent party:
The main question being debated at the 'Casebook: JTR' web site right
now is this:-
"Were off-duty soldiers allowed to carry side arms in 1888?"
My understanding is that officers and NCOs could, but Privates could
not do so. Is this correct or just a fallacy? One book tackled this
question (not very convincingly) and suggested that regulations were
brought in to ban the carrying of such arms in the light of this
murder. Perhaps you could comment on this also, please.
Finally, one contributor to the discussion boards posted a picture of a
Lee Metford bayonet. I know that this weapon was in use by 1888, but
would it have been standard issue to the garrisons at the Tower and
other places, or did they use something different?
------------------------------------
To which he received a reply like this:
Jon
Received this today...
"Our Reference: 8730.1
Dear Sir
Enquiry: Military Issue Weapons, 1888
Thank you for your enquiry concerning edged weapons carried by off duty
soldiers in 1888.
In 1888 no soldier, irrespective of their rank, was issued with a
sidearm. They may however have carried a personal knife which would
have been purchased privately. Officers of higher rank would have
carried a stick or cane rather than a bayonet. I am unaware of any new
regulations brought in by the army in reaction to the Jack The Ripper
killings.
In response to your query regarding the Lee Metford rifle and bayonet,
I can confirm that this weapon was introduced in 1888 and therefore
only very few would have been issued in this year. The Martini Henry
rifle was the most commonly used at this time.
I hope this information is of some assistance.
Yours sincerely
Sara Jones
Department of Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles"
==============================================
And thats where I let it rest.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 08:22 pm | | Folks I have to commend all of you on the information you've found and so generously provided to me.
Martin; For the novel, I'm including Tabram and maybe one or two other "Heretical" victims. For historical purposes, I believe Tabram was a victim but would not include her without further proof.
On Usage of the bayonet. I actually train people in usage of the triangular "Spike" bayonet. (I'm a U.S. Civil War reenactor.) The manuals of that day state you aim for the breast plate which would indicate the rib cage. However, the actual practice in combat was to eviserate your intended victim. Indeed when bayonet is taught these days, the recruit is urged to loose a round if the bayonet becomes stuck.
Looking over British field manuals for the period of 1900-1920, weapons were not carried while a soldier was on pass or furlough. I have to believe they would not carry them in 1888. However, as someone stated, the spike bayonet was available on the streets of London during that time. Not because soldiers were selling their weaponry (an offense that would have resulted in a very long prison term in a military jail and cashiering) but because Great Britain along with most of the other major powers agreed in the Hague accords of 1886(?) that spike bayonets were inhumane and were outlawed for use in warfare.
I just accessed Polly Nichols history and most of Chgapman's but haven't had a chance to digest it. Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 10:43 pm | | Henry Mayhew, in his 'London Labour and the London Poor', 1851. Takes us into the seamy shadowy life of the backstreet prostitute. One of these poor unfortunates showed him her scarred arm, where she had been run through with a bayonet. This woman extorted "The sodgers is such bleedin' cowards, they thinks nothing of sticking a woman when they'se riled and drunk, or they whop us with their belts"
The police when investigating the murder of Tabram interviewed soldiers at the barracks and asked them to produce their bayonets, clearly the above story and the police request taken together strongly indicate the soldiers were allowed out on town with their bayonets, regardless of the 'official' line we are given today.
Tom Cullen, in 1965, wrote that as a result of the Tabram inquest soldiers stationed at the Tower were forbidden to carry bayonets or any sidearms while out on leave.
Though I have been unable to confirm this statement.
Regards, Jon
(this whole discussion is on the wrong board) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 05:54 am | | Dear Neil,
A cautionary note. There are only three exits from the House of Davidoz. The door to the asylum.
The door to the monastery. The door through which
(to quote DeQuincy)...you wish you had never been born! Farewell, mon brave.:-)))
Rosemary |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Thanks,Jon ,for all the Info.....final note of interest..the 'inhumane' spike bayonet was still in use by colonial troops to the end of the century, but I suppose that did'nt count as they weren't fighting europeans.
P.S. having aforesaid bayonet as a re-enactor (Snap! Neil)...I'd hate to try and conceal one in civvies!
Steve S. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 05:37 pm | | The 21 and 1/2in triangular section bayonet I mentioned was the longest bayonet carried and used by British infantry. It was thought necessary for an infantryman to have an overall reach of at least 6ft, particularly when facing savages. If there was one thing native warriors were good at, it was scaring the sh** out of civilised army's recruits (young soldiers who had never seen action), both British and American, by their inhuman, devilish appearance.
Rick |
Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Hi all,
Congratulations to Jon for following up on the rifle/bayonet question and in confirming that it was the Grenadier Guards who were on duty in the Tower during the Ripper killings.
Jon, myself and others have discussed the bayonet question on many occasions in the past. My information on the Lee-Metford rifle and the Model 1888 bayonet is that they were still in TRIALS during 1888, although this could mean that they were issued to selected units for field evaluation but certainly not for general issue to regular army units and not even for some years after 1888.
Anyone interested in the subject will find it worthwhile to check out the following books, both by Ian Skennerton:
The Lee-Enfield Story
British and Commonwealth Bayonets
As for so called 'inhumane' cruciform spike bayonets, I'm not aware of which Hague Convention provisions might address this, but the French used a cruciform spike bayonet for years after WWI and the British developed and issued a cruciform spike bayonet for the No. 4 Mk. 1 Lee-Enfield as late as WWII. Other nations used them as well.
Many different types of socket bayonets were issued in the mid to late 19th century. Some early ones were modified for later firearms and were used for many years after their obsolescence, a practice which most armies continued almost to the present day. In any case, a socket bayonet of this type would have made an extrememly awkward stabbing weapon if used as a knife and as long as we have no access to Dr. Killeen's Tabram autopsy notes, we have no idea of what type of 'bayonet' or 'dagger' he was speculating MIGHT have caused Tabram's chest wound and what the wound characteristics were which led him to make his equivocal remark on the kinds of weapon(s) that could have caused her injuries.
Good discussion, everyone.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: P. Ingerson
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 12:32 pm | | Hi, everyone.
There's a school near where Mary Ann Nichols's body was found. Was this school there in 1888? If so, does anyone know what subjects they taught? Would it include science and biology? And could a biology teacher have enough anatomical knowledge to mutilate JtR's victims?
(Yeah, ok, ok, so I know it's not very likely. I'm just trying to think outside the box and see where it takes me.) |
Author: stephen miller
Friday, 19 April 2002 - 01:29 pm | | Hi P I can't remember nor find the name of the school but it was a board school which I believe were just ordinary schools for the time
all the best
steve
 |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 09:40 am | | Regarding the soldiers barracked at the Tower of London at the time of the Ripper murders. Our research as shown that it was:
The 38th Battalion of the Northamptonshire Foot Regiment. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 03:49 pm | | In some of my recent posts I revealed that Mary Ann Nichols husband William had children by a woman called Rosetta Walls, and can be found living with her on the 1901 census. I have now found the birth entry of the first child they had together:
ARTHUR NICHOLS WALLS. Sep index 1883. Camberwell 1d 905
I believe that Rosetta was the woman that William was having an affair with as far back as 1876 when Mary Ann gave birth to their daughter Eliza Sarah. Mary Ann was living with the wife of one of William's deceased workmates called Susan Harrison at the time, but I think it unlikely that she was the other woman (Despite the fact that she had a son called Arthur as well).
Rosetta fits the bill, and Edward Walker was right in 1888 when he said that William had been having an affair.
Marriage entry appears to be:
WILLIAM NICHOLS to ROSETTA WALLS. JUNE index 1894. Camberwell 1d. 1196 |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 04:06 pm | | | A point about the bayonet discussions. The 1853 Enfield percussion rifled musket that was exported to the United States during the American Civil War was issued with both cruciform bayonet and sabre bayonet. I believe that depended on which lot your regiment got weapons from. New York State regiments were routinely issued Enfields. One of the glaring exceptions being the 69th and 88th New York infantry regiments of the Irish Brigade. The reason being. Thomas F, Meagher believed all their fighting would be close on. Consequently the Irish brigade fought most of the war (1861-1864) with model 1842 Springfield smoothbore muskets. The sabre bayonet for the 1853 Enfield would be my guess if Jack the Ripper used a bayonet at all. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Friday, 27 December 2002 - 05:05 pm | | David Radka asked in a post In the archive to Mar 25, 2001 if Martha Tabram's wounds could have been caused by one weapon instead of two. In my humble opinion yes. Mind you I have only an idea here not a scientifically proven fact but let's say our murderer used a dagger. He makes thirty-eight wounds. they're in soft tissue and smooth. When he stabs for the thirty-ninth time, the dagger sticks in the sternum. he has to work it back and forth to get it out. Would not the wound of necessity be a jagged wound that would appear larger than the others because of the work involved in removing the blade from the wound?
Just an idea to muse over as we ponder who the ripper was and why he was. Kindest regrads, Neil |
|
|
|
|
