Archive through March 25, 2001

** 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 **

Archive through March 25, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols: Archive through March 25, 2001

Author: Simon Owen Monday, 10 April 2000 - 10:17 am
The mentality of the fighter was still there though. It could be that when Annie realised that her life was in danger she literally struggled for her life ; the adrenaline kicked in. Theres a case at Quantico of a husband stabbed multiple times who raised himself up and successfully tackled his assailant who was attacking his wife : its called the indestructability of the human spirit and the will to live , Ashling.
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 04:42 am
SIMON: IF you had phrased your thoughts as speculation, I would have ignored your post. IF you had mentioned the powerful survival instinct in humans, and then said something like--despite her weakened state from terminal illness and too little food for way too long--Annie MIGHT have mustered a mild struggle against JtR ... but you didn't say that. You made a declarative statement: Annie WAS a fighter. Phrasing speculation like a fact does not magically convert it into a fact. No matter how many times you repeat it: The mentality of the fighter WAS still there though. Here's a scenario that's more believable--because it incorporates the known facts on Annie's state of health, instead of ignoring them: 1. We start with a generality: "There's no atheists in foxholes." 2. Followed with a reasonable supposition: When Annie was confronted by her murderer, she experienced extreme fear, comparable to battlefield conditions. 3. We add 1 + 2 to = a conclusion that Annie was religious. And because she was religious, obviously when confronted by JtR--Annie closed her eyes and clasped her hands together to pray. "Dear God, I am too weak and too sick to fight off this crazy man with a knife, so please send a policeman to rescue me." Now, if I posted such assumptions as if they were facts, I think (I hope!) one or two folks here would speak up in protest. Especially if I reversed the order of my sentences & started out my post with the declarative sentence: Annie was religious--and then failed to follow that up with documented evidence of her church attendance or whatever. Your posting of an anecdote about a man of unstated physical health, of unstated age, with unstated eating habits, who overpowered an assailant with an unstated track record murder-wise is hardly revelant to the physical capabilities of a terminally ill, mid-forties, half-starved woman who obviously failed to overcome a murderer who had probably killed at least once before. Simon, perhaps you formed your opinion of Annie as a fighter from reading about her argument with Eliza Cooper. However, a close examination of that incident shows that: 1) No one backs up Eliza's statement that Annie slapped her. 2) Only Annie sustained bruises from the quarrel, meaning she definitely received blows. 3) Amelia Palmer knew Annie for 5 years, Tim Donovan knew Annie for at least 4 months--neither described Chapman as a brawler. When I first came to this board, I did wonder about Annie's apparently hefty size. In the ensuing months I learned that bloating is one of the symptoms of starvation ... and we know from Amelia Palmer's testimony (and Sugden's summary of the doctor's inquest testimony) that Annie wasn't eating regularly. Continuing to learn, Ashling
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 08:46 am
Go look at Annie's mortuary photo again. Does she look half-starved to you ? I think I can state that it IS a fact Annie was a fighter , although Ashling seems to take it to mean she was a pugalist. Chapman had been widowed but she hadn't crumbled and ended up in a workhouse , she had supported herself through hard times. She went on the streets when she had to , she crocheted antimacassars and did sewing to earn money. Annie was a SURVIVOR. Although there are conflicting accounts of the fight with Eliza Cooper , I don't think anyone has speculated before Annie didn't hit the woman. Are we being led to believe Chapman just got beaten to a pulp with no return ? There was no mention of malnutrition at the inquest , although there is evidence that Chapman struggled with her attacker and fought for her life.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 10:51 am
CMD , I haven't forgotten your promise to answer my 11 points on Polly Nichols , conference time is over now so time to answer ! Ashling , if it makes you feel better then I will revise my above statements to state " I believe that Annie Chapman was a fighter , a person able to stand up for herself despite her ill health and it is my belief that when attacked by the Ripper she would have struggled." Sheesh , its only a minor point isn't it ?
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 10:57 am
But makes a whole difference. Cheers,
Author: Diana Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 06:37 pm
I was reading Mr. Owen's post of March 23 where he challenged us with the question of why nobody ever heard the sounds associated with the murders, knife hitting bone, etc. I admit this is sheer speculation, of the type that sends serious researchers to the Maalox bottle. What if some kind of cover sound was provided? Of course in the case of Stride you had that noisy meeting going on, but in the other cases could there have been some kind of sound that was trivial, some kind of sound so ordinary that everyone tuned it out, but loud enough to hide the sounds caused by the murder and mutilation?
Author: Diana Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 07:21 pm
I have thought some more about this. Were there factories nearby giving off machinery noises? Railroad tracks? Slaughterhouses (multiple hoofs, mooing, bleating, etc.). Busy streets nearby (carriages rumbling, hoofs clopping, footsteps). What was the sound ambience in Whitechapel in 1888? Was there a constant cacophany? Was there an eerie silence in the middle of the night? Could it be that Jack would have chosen areas where there would be masking sounds?
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 01:29 am
Simon, from the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman. Testimony of Inspector Joseph Chandler, Thursday, 13th September, 1888. Question from Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner, "Was there any appearance of a struggle there?" Inspector Chandler: "No." Coroner: "Did you search the body?" Inspector Chandler: "I searched the clothing at the mortuary... The jacket was hooked at the top, and buttoned down the front. By the appearance of the garment there did not seem to have been any struggle." From the summing up to the jury by Mr. Wynne Baxter, Wednesday September 26th, 1888. "The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn.." From the testimony of Dr. George Baxter Phillips, Thursday, 13th September, 1888. Coroner: "Was there any evidence of any struggle?" Dr. Phillips: "No; not about the body of the woman." Coroner: "Was there any disease?" Dr. Phillips: "Yes. It was not important as regards the cause of death. Disease of the lungs was of long standing, and there was disease of the membranes of the brain. The stomach contained a little food." Coroner: "Was there any appearance of the deceased having taken much alcohol?" Dr. Phillips: "No. There were signs of great privation..." From the summing up to the jury by Mr. Wynne Baxter, Wednesday September 26th, 1888. "She lived principally in the common lodging houses in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where such as she herd like cattle, and she showed signs of great deprivation, as if she had been badly fed." Wolf.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 13 April 2000 - 05:34 am
Oh dear , I've got this completely wrong haven't I ? I suppose I should put the record straight then and try and sort out the mess I've made of this one. Sorry Annie and everybody. Okay then , Annie Chapman. She seemed to be a 'meek , inoffensive little woman ', a bit chirpy and cheeky from her comments to Evans and Donovan perhaps. The story that she slapped Eliza Cooper comes from Cooper herself so she would probably make the story seem worse than it was. Annie probably got jealous and underestimated her opponent ,in return she took a right beating that she was still recovering from on September 7th. She was suffering from lung and brain disease and she was poorly fed , but I don't think it would be the case that she was bloated from malnutrition : she had money to spend on beer , and if she was that hungry she would have had to spend the money on food : the fact that she had the energy to be able to travel about London on the day before her death ( she visited her sister in Vauxhall ) also supports this. As to struggling , I think I found this in Rumbelow : Annie had blood on her hand and under her nails. Modern books don't include this though so perhaps I am wrong - there was certainly no sign of a struggle at the scene in any case. Okay , given her condition its unlikely she would have been able to put up much of a fight. However death WAS by syncope and not strangulation , although there is evidence of at least partial suffocation due to the swollen face and protruding tongue. Sorry again , I think I must have got a bit carried away on this one !
Author: Ashling Friday, 14 April 2000 - 01:11 am
WOLF: Very thoughtful of you to post the inquest testimony on Chapman. Thanks! SIMON: Hope you can understand my point of view better now. I learned that erroneous perceptions of minor details snowball into major distortions of the facts--by making my fair share of mistakes on these boards. Hi Jill! My apologies to all for continuing this discussion on Annie so long. And now back to Polly ... Ashling
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 11:09 am
Hello All, I used the same template of Martha Tabram's wounds to show a schematic drawing of Nichols' wounds as far as I can interprete the post mortem and have the description of wounds. Roughly it looks like this. If you find error in it, please inform me so I can improve it. The first thing to notice is that the concentration to be found on the upper torso with Tabram is nowhere to be found here! Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 10 May 2000 - 11:14 am
As a reminder, here's Martha's:
Author: Ron Taylor Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 04:08 pm
Shortly a friend of mine will be staying with a descendant of Mary Ann Nichols. She will certainly dig to see if there is any family oral history that might help. If anybody can think of any specific info to dig for, please EMail me. A faint hope but you never know.
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 04:25 am
RON: Hi. Is your friend staying with Andy and Sue Parlour? Thanks, Janice
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 11:06 am
Hi, Janice: According to the Parlours' own book, "The Whitechapel Murders" by Kevin O'Donnell based on the researches of Andy and Sue Parlour, "Andy is related to Mary Ann Nichols, the Ripper's first victim in 1888." (Introduction by Kevin O'Donnell, p. xi). Obviously there is a difference between "a descendant of" and "related to" so presumably the person with whom Ron says he will be staying is not Andy Parlour. Chris George
Author: Ron Taylor Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 11:21 am
No, it is not the Parlours.. Not being coy but the lady concerned is elderly and about to undergo some surgery so I don't feel free to mention her name without her permission. I'm not EXACTLY certain of her relationship myself until my friend has visited. But, it seemed a shame to have even a remote possibility of finding something of interest without taking it.
Author: Ron Taylor Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 11:29 am
Sorry, should have mentioned the lady's maiden name was Nichols so it appears quite possible she is a direct descendant.
Author: Ashling Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 08:32 pm
Thanks Chris & Ron. No worries, I don't need to know the relative's name. If it had been the Parlours, I would have asked for clarity on some of the statements made in their essay in Mammoth JtR. I'll check my files and perhaps get back to you with a question or two. Appreciate the heads up. Janice
Author: Ron Taylor Wednesday, 31 May 2000 - 09:22 pm
I am no expert (believe me!!!) But everything I've read about serial killers says, Look at the first victim. I don't want to fall into the trap of defending a theory that I've seen so recently in this group. But my hypothesis is that the killings were not that similar. I've looked at the PM reports etc and I really do not believe JtR existed I think these were unrelated murders. I will pursue research. The next step I intend to take is to get good copies of the PM photographs and give them with the PM reports to a modern forensic pathologist and get his or her views as to whether these murders were committed by the same person, whether the killer)s) were left/right handed and whether anatomical knowledge was involved. As far as I know the last forensic pathologist of note to comment on this was Francis Camps and that was a long time ago. Whatever I find, I will publish. But, unlike some recent exchanges in this group, if those views conflict with mine I'll happily abandon my hypothesis. I would encourage everybody who has an interest in the subject to test various hypothesese against the evidence. More importantly I would encourage those with detailed knowledge to examine their views without the vicious persnal attacks we have seen lately. All serious JtR researchers should consider themselves on the same side (i.e. in the search for truth) not as passionate defenders or attackers of particular theories.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 03:16 pm
Ron - I have no questions (and, indeed, would not want to burden the poor lady with interrogation of interest only to a Ripper fanatic), but I would be curious to know if the woman has or is aware of any contemporary photograph of Mary Ann Nichols. I am not quite sure if any of the canonical victims were ever in a financial position to avail themselves of photography, but if such an article exists, it would be a welcome counterpoint to the view of her poor, pallid corpse lying in the mortuary shell. CMD
Author: Diana Thursday, 01 June 2000 - 08:05 pm
Your views, Mr. Taylor are refreshing. I too feel that if a theory is really great it won't need a defense based on verbal aggression.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 07 June 2000 - 02:54 pm
I'd argue that Tabram was by somebody else entirely but Nichols and Chapman were by the same murderer. Look at the diagram of Tabram's wounds - one stab would have been enough to finish the poor old doll off. But there are over 30 wounds to her body , a frenzy of violence has been inflicted on her. In contrast both Polly and Annie were laid down on the ground in order for their throats to be cut and the mutilations on Nichols seem to have been done in order to remove organs as happened with Chapman. Now this suggests to me an organised mind , not a disorganised one. A dispassionate mind in relation to the object of its cruel work. It does not suggest the work of a true lunatic like Kosminski or Cutbush. True lunatics are usually easily caught anyway. Since I don't have much credibility anyway , it doesn't matter if I re-emphasise the fact that the serial killer hypothesis in relation to Jack simply does not work , in that experts cannot agree whether he was an organised or disorganised killer in relation to the murders. Surely then he was neither and there is something more to all this than is immediately apparent.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 03:39 am
Hi Simon, I would have agreed almost totally with you some time back, but actually recently after strongly reconsidering the MO on Tabram while stabbed (surprise attack going first for the throat, murderer stradled on her hips, ... read my post on Victims->Specific Victims->Martha Tabram from Monday, November 22, 1999 - 07:16 am for more) and precising it and altering it, I am convinced it was JtR. I will in future on that board explain in more detail with the learning stage in mind: explaining even how easy it would have been to switch from stabbing to ripping, and from pre-death hurting to post-mortem mutilation. Actually the mutilations on Nichols, are not that organised, only focused, as the wounds on Martha are also focused, only on different area's. Greetings, Jill
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 03:45 pm
It would have been very simple , if Jack killed Tabram , for him to change from stabbing to ripping - but the question is why ? I deduce an immense amount of anger in Tabram's murder , the killer had gone into a frenzy. I believe his original weapon inflicted the first wound to Tabram and was probably stuck in her torso , thus the killer produced his penknife and inflicted the further wounds. This is absent in the Nichols case , it is almost a dispassionate murder IMHO. Where has the original anger gone that enabled the murder of Tabram ? This anger was present in the killer and there was some spark that lit the fuse that brought it all out in destructive fury. Even in the MJK murder there was control in the murderer - he covered the face with a sheet , he placed the breasts and piled up the flesh on the table , he may have even folded up MJK's clothes. Please correct me if I am wrong , but I think I am right in saying each serial killer has a SIGNATURE. This is acts inflicted on the victim to satisfy the killer's needs , not just merely to kill the victim. Thus mutilation of the cadaver is part of a serial killer's signature. I think if Tabram had been Jack's victim then there would have been some attempt at mutilation of the corpse or an attempt to remove an organ ; I agree that there was likely sexual mutilation in the Tabram case as Jill has said. But it was different to the attempted mutilation the killer tried to inflict on Polly.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 06:02 am
Simon, to correct one statement of yours: The sternum wound = heart wound of Tabram. It would have killed her. Since she was stabbed while being alive, the sternum wound was the last one, not the first. About the signature: I have posted again on the Tabram thread, whre I explain how JtR was a fledgling and did not have a set signature. As to the mutilation of Nichols, in the same posts I explain that JtR is merely trying his knife out, in this new movement (look at Nichols drawing too). He shows no intent to go for the inside of Nichols and get to organs, the incisions are to varying for it, both in placing and preciseness. I can and will not compare Tabrams wounds to the mutilations on any other victim, besides Nichols, because those have a mature signature. Probably, after them, JtR himself would not have liked to be reminded to the poor messy job he did with Tabram.
Author: Rebecca A Bonell Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:49 pm
hi my names rebecca can anyone tell me what color polly's hair and eyes were.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 08 January 2001 - 10:08 pm
Hello Rebecca, Polly Nichols, aged 43yrs, but looked younger, 5ft-2in tall, grey eyes, brown hair turning grey. she had some front teeth missing, high cheekbones. Annie Chapman, aged 47yrs, 5ft-0in tall, blue eyes, dark brown wavy hair, some bottom front teeth missing, stout build. Liz Stride, aged 45yrs, 5ft-5in tall, curly black hair, some bottom teeth missing, but she was attractive and looked younger than her years, eyes--sorry!. Kate Eddowes, aged 46yrs, auburn hair, hazel eyes, height, I'm sorry I don't know, about 5ft-2 or 3in. She was a cheerful soul, always singing, in spite of her poverty. Mary Kelly, aged 25yrs, 5ft-7in tall, hair, a very dark chestnut,though some have her blond, eyes blue. Hope this has helped you a bit. Rick
Author: Rebecca A Bonell Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 01:29 am
rick thank you very much it help even out the results. i ended up going back to all my sources and just tallying up who said what color the most times my list is now very similar to yours. polly - graying brown hair and brown eyes annie - dark wavy brown hair and blue eyes liz - dark brown hair and light gray eyes catherine - dark auburn hair and hazel eyes mary - blue eyes but it was a tie between blonde and dark chestnut hair. any votes for one or the other? rebecca
Author: Colleen Andrews Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 09:39 pm
Mary Ann (Walker) Nichols in 1881 (adapted from my posting "Locating the Ripper Victims on the 1881 Census") Polly Nichols has eluded identification so far through the 1881 census. According to sources, her marriage broke up in 1881 & indeed on the census, her husband & children are living alone at 6D Block Peabody Buildings, Lambeth, Surrey. William Nichols is described as a married 38-year-old machine printer born in Oxford. In spite of his own father's testimony after Polly's death, the oldest son Edward John was still living at home on the 1881 census; he was 15 & described as an "engineer turner." His birthplace is given as Camberwell. Percy George was 13 & a printer; his birthplace & that of Alice Esther (9) were given as Walworth. Eliza Sarah (4) & Henry Alfred (2) were listed as being born in Blackfriars, Middlesex. There are a couple of possible candidates for Polly herself: one is Mary A. Nicholls, described as an unmarried 37 year old milliner, lodging at 23 Rotherfield Street, Islington with Francis & Catherine Cleveland. She gave her birthplace as Clerkenwell, Middlesex. This Mary A. is a year older than sources say Polly would have been, & was unmarried, although she may have merely told the census-taker that. Another possible candidate is Mary Ann Nicholls, a married 40-year-old laundress, lodging at 61 Wellington Road, Islington. She was living with one George Crawshaw, a married 40-year-old "scavenger," & while both are described as lodgers, there were no other people living with them, & George is also described as the head of the household. He was born in Holloway, Middlesex, & Mary Ann in Finsbury, Middlesex. This candidate would look very promising were it not for the fact she was 6 years older than Polly is thought to have been. A third possible candidate is one Mary Ann Nichols lodging at 59 Crown Street, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, London. She listed herself as a widowed 38-year-old charwoman born in St. Giles. She was lodging with a Charles & Frances Hartley & there were 4 other people lodging there as well; 3 men & 1 woman. I noticed something in Sugden's book I overlooked regarding Polly Nichols: according to Sugden, she was in Lambeth Workhouse from September 6, 1880 to May 31, 1881. Unfortunately I cannot find any reference in any of my sources to the exact date the 1881 British census was taken, but I decided to search the index again anyway. The only Mary Ann or Polly Nichols born between 1840 & 1850, living in a London workhouse in the 1881 census was one Mary A. Nockold, aged 38, an unmarried needlewoman. However this Mary was in the Islington Workhouse, not the Lambeth one, & she was described as a lunatic. Her birthplace was Holborn, Middlesex. This is unlikely to be the right Polly Nichols. Another intriguing possibility, though, is a Mary Nickels, aged 34, married (though her husband is not in the household), & a cook for Edward & Lucy M. Drummond at 13 St. James' Place, Westminster (St. James). This Mary gave her birthplace simply as London, Middlesex. She was 2 years younger than the Ripper victim Mary Ann Nichols, but this is the only detail that rules her out. Mary "Nickels'" employer was retired from the Bengal civil service & evidently quite wealthy: the household also contained a butler, footman, kitchenmaid, lady's maid, & housemaid as well as cook Mary, all catering to one couple & their 13 yr old daughter.
Author: Tom Wescott Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 11:51 pm
Hello, Does anybody have any new thoughts, theories, ideas in regards to Polly Nichols and/or her murder? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 07 March 2001 - 06:40 am
Hi Tom: Check out the "New Ripperologists" board where I make a case that Polly Nichols' murder might have been Jack's first rather than Tabram, based on the location. Chris
Author: Neil K. MacMillan Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 09:57 pm
Since I've been reading about it, I've always thought that Martha Tabram was one of JtR's victims although not neccessarily the first. I believe that he switched from stabbing in the case of Tabram to slashing/mutilation with Nichols because stabbing just wasn't doing it for him. I believe he was looking to get a horrific reaction from the public (Why I don't know) I will state in Tabram's case, the weapon most likely was not a spike bayonet. The triangular shape of the bayonet is comparable but the spike bayonet has no hilt as a sword bayonet (One that resembles a knife) does. It would be a very awkward job to inflict injury with a triangular bayonet not attached to a rifle. The number of wounds preclude the use of a rifle mainly for time constraints. I suspect a dagger and I assume that a dagger was likely used to some degree on the other victims particularly if it also had a well honed edge(s) I think Tabram was a dry run for Nichols and the others. I think the progression in interesting. There are several stab wounds with Tabram, a few slash wounds on Nichols culminatiing (Maybe) with the horrific mutilations visited on Kelly. I would like feed back on this as I am researching a novel onm JtR. Thanks Neil
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 06:18 am
There is a good deal of respectable opinion supporting the view that Tabram couod have been a Ripper victim. It's one of what I call the 'grey areas' in Ripper studies, where a case can be made either way without one being so forced as to make the other look highly probable. I'd say for a novel, use it however suits you, Neil. But if you move out into writing actual history, don't assert it one way or the other as definite, and don't rest more than one further deduction on it, or you're building a card-house. Enjoy your Ripper work, Martin F
Author: Jon Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 08:46 am
Hello Neil Whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not will largely depend on your view of what the Ripper was. And by that I mean, if you view him as a progressive killer, starting off clumsy and improving his technique, then you will likely include her in with the rest. However, if you feel Jack was organized, methodical and had purpose then you may exclude her and view her murder as the result of a frienzied maniac, possibly a drunken soldier. We have discussed Tabram's candidacy as one of Jack's work in depth more than once without coming to a firm conclusion. A few points to consider.....Dr. Killeen, as you know, makes reference to a singular wound through the breastbone and he suggests "some kind of dagger". As the British army had recently introduced the dagger bayonet to replace the spiked-blade it has been assumed it is this new type that is meant. As a wound through the breastbone would leave a clear hole pattern indicating the profile, or cross-section of the blade then we might take Killeen's suggestion as a hint that the wound was not triangular as indicative of the spiked bayonet, but an elongated slit, wedge shaped, indicative of a dagger. Whether double-sided or not is not clear. Below are two British bayonets from 1888. $C:\My Documents\88brit.jpg$ Double sided. $C:\My Documents\brtmk3.jpg$ Single sided Now, I had it on reasonably good authority (from a soldier) that no soldier worth his salt is going to stab a person in the breastbone. Bayonets are for the belly and any soldier, who is trained to kill, would never risk sticking it into a chest area, for the simple reason, you cannot guarantee easily getting it out again. If the blade pierces bone this will grip the blade and removing it becomes a difficult task. Unfortunately, not having Killeen's own words we cannot say for sure if he suggested a bayonet. We have a couple of press reports from the inquest, and in one he is recorded as saying "some kind of dagger", but in the other he is said to have indicated "..caused by a sword-bayonet or dagger". Knowing how the press would add a little literary licence to colour up their press releases, we cannot be sure who is reporting the truth, both press agencies were supposed to be present so why the difference?. The weapon which made the deep wound may have simply been an ordinary dagger and no connection to the military at all. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 08:49 am
C:\My Documents brit88.jpg
Author: Jon Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 08:51 am
C:\My Documents brtmk3.jpg
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 10:44 am
Hello, It seems to me that the inclusion of the word 'dagger' was quite likely an invention of the press to further link suspicion to soldiers. A killer soldier is much more newsworthy than a drunk vagrant. Some reports don't mention anything of a bayonet but simply quote Dr. Killeen as having said 'dagger'. My guess is that any inference made to a bayonet by Killeen was in response to a probing question from a journalist or even a jurist who simply had 'soldier' on his mind. As to Tabram, I still fail to see why more do not include her as a Ripper victim, considering the wealth of information we have on serial killers at this time and that, considering the progression of the murders, Tabram's wounds and the lack of organization in her killing would make sense and are certainly not grounds for excluding her. It was a vicious sex crime, not a crime of passion. 39 stab wounds. Whoever did that could not have been a 'one-time-killer'. It's asking a lot of coincidence to say that Tabram's killer began his murderous career and then put it on hold so Jack could become a legend. It's possible, don't get me wrong. I am just surprised that we don't see more authors counting Tabram in. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: David M. Radka Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 02:22 pm
Here's a pop question that some of the assembled may want to tackle: Could all of Tabram's wounds been caused by a single weapon? We tend to think there must have been two weapons at that crime scene, because the wound in the sternum is big and the rest are little. But could the murderer have had some ritualistic purpose in mind, remembering that eerie rituals were performed at some of his subsequent crime scenes (the arrangement of items at Chapman's feet and the mutilations of Edowes' face are two examples), which could account for his stabbing Tabram powerfully and deeply once, then many more times lightly and shallowly? If we can work down to there being only one weapon at that crime scene, many things change in how we consider the evidence. Just wanted to throw the bone of contention. David
Author: Jon Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 03:15 pm
Reasonable question David, but that would depend on us having Killeen's notes verbatim, which we don't. In one press report he is supposed to have said "one weapon was long and strong" then the rest of the wounds "were done with something like a penknife". He may have been paraphrased here or it may be the editor's summation of what he said. But, my point is, the track a penknife blade leaves in sliced flesh is radically different than one left by a strong dagger-type blade, the penknife blade may not have been pointed, the singular deep one might. We're back to speculating because we have been short-changed on worthwhile testimony. Regards, Jon
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 25 March 2001 - 07:14 pm
Dear Jon, David has a point, if you pardon the pun. The more 'controlled' STAB wounds from the bayonet-dagger would most certainly look as if they were inflicted by a smaller weapon such as a penknive. At this time...there was no Jack the Ripper, and with hindsight, its possible to perceive the... early stage... in a future full-blown homicidal cycle. Everything else seems to fit! Where were the series of 'controlled' stab wounds located on Tabram's body? Rosemary