Archive through January 21, 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 January 21, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Martha Tabram: Archive through January 21, 2001

Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:02 am
8 LEFTOVER STABS: Dr. Killeen conducted the post-mortem: - 39 stabs in total - at least 22 stab wounds to the trunk: 5 stab wounds to the left lung, 2 stabs to the right one, 1 stab in the heart through the collar bone, 5 stabs into the liver, 2 stabs to the spleen, 6 stabs to the stomach - 1 stab wound of 3� long and 1� deep in the lower portion of the body, but not mutilated - 9 stab wounds to the throat, yet not cut, carotid arteries not severed - there was a lot of blood between her legs By calculating the number of identified stabs we end up with 31 stabs clearly identified, as seen in the picture. That leaves us still 8. One reference is to be found to PUNCTURES IN THE LEGS, although sadly enough I�m afraid this source isn�t totally reliable. There is the statement of Dr. Killeen in his post-mortem that there was a LOT OF BLOOD BETWEEN HER LEGS, but no explenation how this has come about. From the same report there is the statement that the �the breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas.� The breasts and stomach is very clear. Concentration on the abdomen, when there is only 1 stab wound? In examining the report it comes to light that no other organs were hurt, than those mentioned above. If there were other stabs in the abdomen area, this could not be so. Hence the abdomen was stabbed only once. Why mention the vagina is a total mistery. Unless of course this was the area where the unidentified stab wounds were situated. It would explain the source from the blood at the legs. And because the extract of the findings of Dr. Killeen is only to be found in the newspaper, this knowledge could have been explicitly left out in regard of the feelings of the readers. And leaving it to them by logical deduction, to source the rest of the wounds. (the not total reliable source is a booklet from a someone who witnessed the inquests) Still there is another explenation: see my post on the same subject from Wednesday, August 25, 1999 - 10:01 am "At the upper torso there is enough muscle tissue that can be stabbed without hurting an organ: somewhere around the shoulders or the collar bones. Since it is less important tissue, Dr. Killeen only mentioned the total number of wounds and described only those that hurted the organs. " To my opinion both the pubic and collar bone area were stabbed. Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:08 am
PS. I still do NOT add these deductional stabs to the drawing since there is no reliable source for it at the moment.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:27 am
HOW WAS MARTHA MURDERED: (precision and alterations on post from Monday, November 22, 1999 - 07:16 am) Dr. Killeen also observed there had NOT been an indication of a struggle. It was a SURPRISE attack. Because all wounds were frontal ones, he did this UPFRONT. Like JtR. To keep Martha from making any noise, his FIRST FOCUS was the THROAT, resembling the attack on Ada Wilson om March 28th, 1888, and JtR's first focus too with the canonicals. Possibly he had cuffed her mouth with his left hand, to keep her from screaming, when he trusted her for the first time. Although maybe, not deadly hurt, she would have weakened from loss of blood. The concentration on the throat also gives a symbolic indication that he WANTED TO SILENCE HER. It does not really matter if she actually said something nasty or not. Again a symbol that returns with the canonicals. During the inflictions the killer was STRADDLED ON HER HIPS, not left or right from her. The symmetrical lay-out and the concentration on the upper torso wounds and the central heart wound all underline this. After the throat stab attack, the killer proceeded downwards, CONCENTRATING ON TORSO. His first try-out stabs near the collar bones. Getting more courage and with the knife in the RIGHT HAND he stabbed more violent into the breast area from right to left, hurting the longs. Proceeding downwards into the ABDOMEN. But as if afraid of it, left it further alone. Evidence of HESITATION AND EXPERIMENT on his part. If he didn�t want to experiment, he would not have touched the area, or had hit it as ferociously as the other area�s. He wanted to try it, but didn�t dare to proceed hurting it, hence at least and only one stab. Finally he concentrated himself on the PUBIC AREA, which hints to sexual frustration. Again like JtR. All this time Martha was STILL ALIVE, and was CONSTANTLY IN PAIN, as her clenched hands when she was found show. When the killer was tired of the violent stabbing and dazed out of his frenzy, he grabbed for the dagger type weapon, thrust it upwards in the farthest position right into the middle, finally killing the poor woman. The choice of weapon, the position which in he was seated, almost near her feet, and the fact he used his other hand leaves a sense of finale. The killer was evidently giving in to a rage. Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:37 am
SIMILAR TO JTR's MO BODY IN SITU: Victim found laying on her back; Legs spread open; Clothes dissaranged, turned up as far as the center of the body. ATTACK: Killer was brought there by victim herself; Done on the spot; Surprise attack, from up front; Done without anyone hearing, not even persons sleeping only some feet away; Stradled on the victim; Right handed; Use of knives. WOUNDING: Heavily wounded (39 times); First concentration on throat, to both knock her defenseless and simbolically and literary silence her; 1 abdomen wound - indication of how he wanted to try out this area; Concentration on pubic area. Done with power and violence. Death due to blood loss. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE: None. VICTIMS PROFILE: 39 years old; Prostitute; Highly probable drunk; Destitute; Alone. DATE: Fits pattern.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:40 am
NOT SIMILAR TO JTR's MO BODY IN SITU: Clenched fists. (Disregard Stride, since she is grey area too, she also had clenched fists) ATTACK: 2 knives. WOUNDING: While still alive, not post-mortem; Stabbed instead of ripped; Concentration on upper torso.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:42 am
Sorry forgot NOT SIMILAR SITU: indoors (although Ada Wilson was indoors, and MJK too)
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:45 am
From now on I regard Martha as the first victim of JtR.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 04:05 pm
We should not forget however that the killer STABBED the throat and did not cut it , this may have been done in the killer's frenzy especially if Martha was coughing , gurgling blood or the killer wanted to prevent her screaming. Jill , if you include Tabram as a JtR victim then I think you would have a case to include Alice Mackenzie and Francis Coles as well for similar reasons. I personally prefer to stick to the canonical five but the choice is yours. The Tabram murder IMHO does not display with any certainty the development of JtR's modus operandi for killing. One stab to the abdomen can not be said to have influenced the killer to want to remove organs. The blood around the genital area does lead me to compare the killing with that of Emma Smith however , who had her perineum torn : the killer may have forced the larger knife into Tabram's vagina ( yeuch ). If so , since there is no evidence of such in the Ripper cases , I would definitely say Tabram was not a Ripper victim.
Author: stephen stanley Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 05:38 pm
For what it's worth.... The old 17-inch socket bayonet had no edge (only a point) and would leave triangular wounds...I presume this is why a bayonet was suspected. Such bayonets were openly on sale in the street markets(East End 1888,W.J.Fishman). Steve s.
Author: Diana Thursday, 08 June 2000 - 05:59 pm
I believe its Douglas (FBI profiler) who said MO can change and develop, but a signature is constant. MO is how they do it. Signature is why they do it. Method may change, but if the final goal is a certain type of mutilation or the performance of a certain act that will not change. If the goal was mutilation then the murder was (from JtR's viewpoint) only secondary. If MT was dying slowly from the throat stabs then she was in a position to offer some interference with his other activities. If he did not like that he might have decided to try throat slitting on PN. (Incidentally -- or perhaps not so incidentally, my heart goes out to her.)
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:37 am
Hello All, Thank you for your reactions. It was Martha's drama that had a strong attraction to me from the beginning, the topic I have been most busy on this last year. I then started out with almost the opposite thought. I have always to the last evaluated the Tabram murder, with the notion in mind that there could be something conclusive to definitely rule her out as a possible JtR victim. But the longer I searched for it, the more indications I had for her being the opposite: the first victim to die of the hand of JtR, that we know of. Hence, at least, I can never be accused of, when deducting the method how Martha was killed, trying to adapt JtR's MO to it. But when it was right there in my face (the similarity/dissimilarity list), I only could give in.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:40 am
Hi Simon To the other non-canonical victims, I can hardly comment. I have not done any evaluation on them yet. Also there is the difference in timing. With Martha JtR is still a fledgling killer, with McKenzie and Coles, he is by far a well-developed one. As to the resembling of Emma Smith. For starters, we do not know how the pubic area was injured: Dr. Killeen mentioned a purposeful concentration of the killer for it, so it is safe to think that the area was wounded by stabbing. But that is as far I'm willing to go, I can not say where precisely and how many times she was stabbed there. So their is no way to compare this with the injuries done to Smith. Secondly, the murder of Tabram could not have been done by the same gang as with Emma. They did not care if a victim struggled or not, the killer of Tabram did. And the strongest argument is that a gang could not have done this in silence on a first floor landing of a staircase with people sleeping some few feet away. Only a lone killer could do so. Greetings, Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:46 am
Hello, All - Now bear with me: KILLER STATE OF MIND: Many have JtR in mind with his perfected MO when relating to early canonicals. It only makes sence to compare Tabram with Nichols, not to Eddowes or MJK. Some tend to think that JtR wanted to get to the inside of the abdomen of Nichols, but was stopped when he heard people approach. This is the application of preknowledge of after, more perfected murders. There is no proof he wanted to do this with Nichols. Actually, reminding you of the drawing of Nichols, the cuts in her abdomen have the appearance of playing and investigating the area, of how the knife cuts through the skin, ... Anyway it is a fact that JtR went no further than disfiguring the outside of the abdomen of Nichols; and that the cuts do not show any purpose (disarranged, no flaps or something alike) other than cutting it. JtR had lust for murder, that must have been there already for a long while. Many would disagree with the picture of JtR as saying to himself, "Ah, today I'm going to kill somebody. And I will do it this and this way.", stepping out of his door, walking up to Nichols, and kills with succes just how it should have been the first try. Killing a human being isn't that easy. Victims not always react as expected: they scream, fight, try to run, ... Others can come across the scene. Besides unexpected happenings, it is mentally difficult too, especially the first times: as a killer, you are going to remove a person, his dreams, his past, ... from the list of the living. Then how likely is it that JtR, could have the nerve killing a woman in open air, beat cops circling the area, knows how to keep her quite from the first moment of the attack, to avoid blood on himself as much as possible, ...? It can be argued he tried some of the MO on animals. But even then JtR also had the need of interaction with people to assess his ideas. When a killer realises that he has a lust for murder (there is a difference between realisation and the actually start of the want to kill, the last must have been existent for a while), he does not yet has the experience to do it perfectly and with full succes the first time (he would be a very lucky guy indeed). He will try, but failings must be unavoidably added to his crime list. Thus we have a mental killer and that already for some time, lusting for the chance to have finally a victim in his hands, and do whatever he wants to do with it. What would the reaction be when he finally has a succesfull chance? A total unleash of the frustrations cropped up for so many weeks, months, years. What do we observe with Tabram. A total unleash of frustrations, the frenzied attack. I first saw Tabram too as a spur of the moment thing. But the silence, and the surprise attack with direct immobilisation of the victim who did not struggle, show also IMHO a premeditated attack. The killer of Martha wanted to kill her from the moment he was with her, waiting his chance, immobilised her, and then there is the unleash of frustration.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:47 am
THE SITU = INDOORS. The killer is not so closed in as it appears. He is on a landing with a staircase where he can run up or down to escape detection. It is also dark very dark on the landing. He could act with his victim as if they are lovers in the shadow. This is good enough for him, so he lunches for it.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:47 am
WOUNDING: STABBING The killer finally has his chance to do whatever was his fantasy. In this case it first was stabbing. He stabs several times in the throat to immobilise the victim. Violently stabs the trunk and tries the abdomen. Now something odds occur: he stabs it only once and stays clear of it afterwards. The feedback you get from stabbing a chest-bone area is totally different than from the abdomen. The first is hard, it resists, you feel you are stabbing something. The last is pure soft tissue. Stab it as violently as the trunk area, and it is as if you are stabbing into air, almost no feedback besides your own muscles acting the motion. Now what would a killer like the most? Thus the killer shows interest in the abdomen, stabs it, the violent stab results in a riplike stab (soft tissue remember), he does not like the feedback and moves on to other area's.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:48 am
WOUNDING: VICTIM STILL ALIVE AND IN PAIN (same explenation as Diana) Something nags JtR after the succesful murder on Tabram: she was alive during the whole of the attack; losing full consciousness probably only at the last. Thus she showed pain. A serial killer (or a rapist, child molester, ...) sees his victim as a doll, a depersonalised object. JtR needed his victims to be dead to depersonalise them, not out of humanity or pity, but because any living reaction to what he did, would interfere his state of mind and remind him too often that the victim is a person. He has found out that stabbing the throat was effective for silencing and immobilastion, but even 9 stabs were not enough to kill the poor woman.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:49 am
WOUNDING: FROM STABBING TO CUTTING After Martha he knows his next victim must die first. The throat has its appealing and effectiveness, but the method he used before was ineffective in total. How could he solve this? By cutting the throat. From this moment he already has decided to partly cut his next victim. "How should he avoid the splatter of blood?" and other questions arise. The last could be effectively trained on stray animals. Why didn't he then cut the throat and then resorted back to stabbing, is the logical reaction? Why should he mingle the two? He is after all already busy with a cutting motion. Maybe it appealed to him. Appealed even more after experimenting on animals? He showed interest into the abdomen before. Stabbing it wasn't nice, but maybe cutting it is?
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 05:51 am
WOUNDING: AVOIDANCE OF TRUNK AREA WITH NICHOLS Why didn't he touch the trunk this time. For the same reason he avoided any further stabbings to the abdomen with Tabram, feedback. Cutting through soft tissue gives a better feel, than cutting through bony area. The last scratches. Almost resembles like writing with peeping chalk on a blackboard. Hence the total avoidance of the trunk area with Nichols. He experiments with his knife on Nichols on the abdomen, how it feels, what sort of incisions can he make (not all incisions were even cuts, some had a jagged pattern). After Nichols, he left with a better feel than after Tabram. His course was set: let's play some more with the abdomen; what would it be like 'inside' next time. Simon - I believe I have responded as best I could to your objections. PS. Thanks if you got this far until the end. Sorry to post such a long marathon, but it could not be helped since a full response and explenation was required.
Author: Diana Friday, 09 June 2000 - 08:57 am
Jill, I am impressed. I wonder if the differences between area of attack with MT and PN could be partly explained by the undergarments. Victorian ladies wore formidable corsets. Could Polly's corset have slowed him down? What kind of corset did Martha have? Maybe he discovered that undoing or cutting off Martha's corset took too long and abandoned the idea with Polly. MJK did not have a corset on and he certainly mangled her thoracic area.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 09 June 2000 - 12:22 pm
Diana, Tabram's clothes specifications were: - a black bonnet - a long black jacket - a dark green skirt - a brown petticoat - stockings - spring sided boots showing considerable age I have not found any preciser data on it. But more in relation to the attack: When she was found and PC Barrett was hauled up they found her like this: her clothes were disarranged, torn open at the front Also this is a dissimilarity with JtR. And am sorry I forgot to include it on the list. But even this is easily explained, when you regard him as inexperienced enough. Maybe he had done this in his frenzy, and because he THOUGHT it was necessary in his inexperience, but then found out it was not necessary and didn't do it anymore later on. OR he did it, because it WAS necessary, for the purposes you present. What could be important about the reason why he torn it open, is that it could give a clue of how familiar he was with women clothing, and thus was married or not. But I think it can not be deducted in this case. Greetings, Jill
Author: Diana Friday, 09 June 2000 - 02:02 pm
I took a CPR class one time and they told us that in a life and death situation an undergarment should be cut with a scissors if speed was important. This would be so you could do chest compressions. Maybe Jack came to the same conclusion.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 09 June 2000 - 02:35 pm
I am very impressed with your reasoning Jill , it is excellent. But there are still a few questions I would like to ask , to see how you envisage things happening. (1) The killer has got Martha on the landing , does he attack her from behind and stab her in the throat , or does he lunge at her and stab her throat ? (2) You have said on the Nichols board that the ' bayonet ' attack must have been the last attack on Martha as it killed her. Is it possible that this could have been the first attack , yet it merely wounded her ? Could the killer have driven the bayonet in deeper at a later stage and killed her ? If not , why the change of weapon ? (3) Why use a knife in the first place to subdue Martha , why not use physical force ( i.e. like in the old Alain Delon movies why did the killer not grab Martha's head and bash it against the wall to subdue her ? ) Could the killer have been weak and weedy thus preventing him using force ?( e.g. George Chapman or James Kelly ). Simon
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 10 June 2000 - 12:33 am
Martha Tabram was a short, heavyset, 39 year old alcoholic prostitute who looked enough like Annie Chapman that the two could have been sisters. That she fits exactly the mold of the first two victims is beyond question and to that we can add the date. August 7th, the early morning after a bank holiday and the end of the first week of the month, part of the curious pattern of the other Ripper murders. Tabram is found dead, murdered by a silent, knife wielding killer who stabs her 39 times, "in body, neck and private parts". It is a vicious, frenzied attack which goes well beyond the normal type of murders that the police were used to handling. It was also, puzzlingly, a motiveless crime with sexual overtones. It was not a murder for gain, nor revenge nor for any other reason that the police could come up with. It seemed to be an abnormally vicious murder for murders sake. Regardless of the fact that she didn't have her throat cut or that there were no mutilations to the body, there are several reasons why Martha Tabram can be considered a possible Ripper victim. It is obvious that there was a progression of violence performed on the victims bodies, if Tabram is included it does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that she could have been the first in this progression, as Jill has pointed out. Indeed, Sugden adds the possibility that both Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson, although he deems Wilson less likely, were possible victims of an immature Ripper, one who had yet to step over the edge into murder outright. There is no hard evidence to point to this conclusion other than the similarities between the canonical victims and the fact that it is very doubtful that the Ripper would have appeared on the scene full blown as it were. Jill has also pointed out that the McKenzie and Coles murders, happening as they did after the Kelly murder, do not appear to be part of this progression of mutilation. They simply do not follow the pattern of the previous murders. McKenzie was only stabbed in the neck and the mutilations to her body were superficial compared to those carried out on the first canonical victim, Nichols. McKenzie would have, in some ways, been a step backwards. Coles's throat was cut but was not cut right down to the spine as in the case of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, and that with a knife that was dissimilar to the one used by the Ripper. In the end it is just hard to accept that a killer who had worked himself up to "the glut in Miller's Court" would then commit the much more tame, by comparison, McKenzie and Coles murders. Simon has stated that he does not see the same anger carried out in the canonical victims as that displayed in the Tabram murder. He has a point, but is not the anger still evident in the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly but only exhibited in a different manner? Is not the "overkill" of a throat cut right down to the spine not a sign of great anger? Or the attempt to remove the heads of Chapman and Kelly? Or the total removal of Kelly's face? It has also been suggested that Tabram should not be considered a Ripper victim because there was no attempt to remove an organ and this was an integral part of the Rippers "signature" but was it in the early stages? In those victims that had organs removed, the killer made no extraneous cuts to the body. The abdomen was laid open and organs taken but this is not the case with the Nichols murder. Dr. Llewellyn described the injuries as being, "Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards." So, one very deep wound with numerous incisions running across and down the abdomen, slashing cuts that were absent from the other victims where organ removal seems to have been the focus. It has been argued that the Ripper was disturbed by Charles Cross and, speciously, the lack of organ removal is taken to prove this point but in reality there is no evidence for this argument. The extraneous slashes to the body seem to prove that organ removal was not the killers focus or else why not get to it and get away? No, it was Chapman's murder in which the killer had graduated to disemboweling and removing organs, part of the progression of mutilation which could easily have led from Tabram to Kelly. One more note to Jill. PC Barrett described the finding the body of Martha Tabram as, "The clothes were turned up," not torn up, as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed: the legs were open..." Exactly as all the other Ripper victims were found or displayed if you will. Wolf.
Author: Thomas Ind Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 06:05 pm
Quick straw pole. Who thinks MT was a victim? Who thinks she wasn't? I'll start - Yes. We can weight the results if you want, real experts like CMD & Begg can have a higher weight. Novices like me can have a smaller one
Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 09:34 pm
A victims inclusion/exclusion should always be kept fluid, especially with the evidence in the state it is in, in this case. But based on what is presently known I say NO, not a Ripper victim. Jon
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 12 June 2000 - 03:53 am
My nano-gram's worth: Yes. And if I could express myself half as well as Wolf, I'd like to have written the first paragraph of his post. Love, Caz
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 12 June 2000 - 10:54 am
I would have to say NO. Jill has made an impressive case for the inclusion of Tabram as a JtR victim , but I personally feel that you cannot draw a progression from this killing to the outrages inflicted on Chapman , Eddowes and Kelly. There is a case , I feel , to include Tabram and Nichols as victims of the same killer but there it must stop IMHO.
Author: Jeffrey Monday, 12 June 2000 - 11:50 am
Yes ! ..... most definitely. Martha had to be one of, if not the first victim of the man who would terrorise Whitechapel over the coming weeks. I could only echo the excellent observations of our man Wolf. 2-victims from virtually the same mold, no known motive for either and a date that fits right into the forthcoming series schedule. It has to be more than an amazing coincidence if these two killings were not connected in some way. Jeff D
Author: Jeffrey Monday, 12 June 2000 - 12:07 pm
.... just as a follow-on to my previous post, multiple, frenzied stabs, as in the Tabram case, downward slashes as in the Nichols murder, to upward slashing and organ removal in the Chapman murder could be adequately explained as a progression of the killers technique. Jeff D
Author: Jill De Schrijver Monday, 12 June 2000 - 04:41 pm
Hi Simon, Wolf, All Simon - your questions. (1)I believe I have written in the deduction of the attack on Martha that it was a frontal one. With this I mean a frontal one from the beginning. He lunged for her from the front as the wounds indicate. Highly probable when Martha herself was focused on something else, her business. (2) - Dr. Killeen states that the heart wound, could have killed her independently from all the other ones: "The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place, and that would be sufficient to cause death...that all of them were caused during life" (The Times, August 10, 1888) - There is not enough wound description in the statement of Dr.Killeen, to answer this question satisfactory. But as this wound is regarded by Dr.Killeen as one and the same, only mentioned once in the summing up of the wounds, I regard at it as one stab, thus the final one. Also the strength needed to stick the knife, or dagger, or whatever, in the chest bone as the one to immobilise her, is improbable, plus to hold back on the strength to not kill her. To knock her out like that, would be very hard indeed: she would have a chance to scream and fight. While by giving a sidestab in the throat given from up front, the killer is closer to her mouth to keep her silent with a hand, and her first reaction would be one of putting her hands to the neckwound, not towards the killer. The scenario of a strong, but calculated thrust into the chestbone, and keeping Martha of struggling and screaming, is a more difficult one than a stab to the throat. There is no real proof known to us to confirm either two. But as a rule in choosing the path of deduction, I practice the one of the "easiest way". For me that means the throat stab. - the change of weapons is a puzzle. But we do not even know if it was the killers weapon. Martha could have gotten herself a knife, maybe even as payment of one of her clients. Maybe it fell during the attack. Coming out of his daze, the killer grabbed it with his other hand and killed Martha with it. I personally do not give the "why" of change of weaponry and hand a lot of value. Because the reasons are too numerous, and it gets us nowhere further. (3)There is maybe one remark of Dr.Killeen to suggest a head blow was given to Martha: "An effusion of blood between the scalp and bone". But the effusion of blood between the scalp and bone could also have been the result of the injuries done to the throat. Also no further comment of bruises is made on the body of Martha, which of course after a blow on the head would be clearly visible. As there were people sleeping only some feet away from the attack, a blow against the wall would be audible. Wolf - A plump woman lay on her back; hands at her sides -- tightly clenched; there was an absence of blood from her mouth; her legs were spread open; her clothes were disarranged, TORN OPEN AT THE FRONT, and 'turned up as far as the centre of the body', leaving the lower part of body exposed; There was no blood on the stairs leading to the landing. Reference: Complete History of Jack the Ripper and MEPO 3/140, f34 (although the last I haven't seen myself) Poll- I believe my opinion is clear about this, but just being sure: YES Greetings, Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Monday, 12 June 2000 - 05:00 pm
Simon to come back at your last post: Of course Tabram can not be compared to the victims after Nichols. Like Nichols almost can not be compared to Eddowes and certainly not to Kelly. By your reasoning in the last post, you must be concluding that none of the victims are related, and thus JtR never existed? But since you admit that Nichols and Tabram are of the same hand and if Nichols is of the same hand than Chapman, than surely Tabram is too. Or are you arguing that Nichols is a disputed canonical victim?
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:48 pm
Jill--I somewhat sympathize with Simon on this one. What if there are two separate series of murders, related in a complex way? I'm not saying I believe this, but a working hypothesis might be that some of the earlier attacks were sadistic 'gang' robberies: Millwood and Tabram. JtR was one of the gang, but soon found the motive of butchery more compelling than robbery and general mayhem. Thus, Millwood, Tabram, Nichols, and Stride were gang 'mugging' killings (all have elements of this); in Wilson, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, the very psychotic JtR went solo. Thus, he could have PARTICIPATED in Tabram, making the answer 'yes and no'. Meanwhile, my .025 piece of straw votes "yes".
Author: NickDanger Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:51 pm
Hi all, While I admire the work Jill has done (she always seems to be up to something interesting) and I respect Wolf's analytical mind, at this point I must vote NO on Tabram being a Ripper victim. I still believe she was killed by a soldier or soldiers, 'Pearly Poll' Connolly nothwithstanding. Best regards, Nick
Author: Jill De Schrijver Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 03:46 am
Hi R.J. and Nick, R.J.- In relation to the gang mugging, I kindly ask to read my post again to Simon of Friday, June 9, 2000 - 05:40 am. But maybe you are right there was a seperate series. I actually only have argued that Tabram and Nichols are not that far away from each other on the ladder of learning. And there clearly is a linkage of the same perpetrator. But at the end it may be that Nichols was not a Ripper murder. Nick - Whose to say JtR was not a soldier after all? Because I agree that there is something odd about the sighting of a soldier waiting, at 2:00 at the northern entry of George Yard, very close to the George Yard Buildings, for his 'chum' who went with a 'girl'. But would Martha be referenced as a 'girl' ? I will come back on that timeline and events some time later (next month) Greetings, Jill
Author: Diana Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 04:46 pm
I can think of a way in which the stab to the heart could have been the fatal one but not the last one. It could have been traumatic enough to cause death but not instantly.
Author: Diana Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 04:49 pm
Jill, I think it would be very helpful if you could put all your wound drawings in a row, from Tabram to MJK in sequence.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 07:34 am
Hi Diana, So you do not feel as if I ignore your request, I will follow up on it, probably the beginning of next week. And yes you're explenation about the stab could be acceptable, but the other arguments still stand for it not to be the first, IHMO. It even may be that she was still alive when he left her, left her to die on her own, between 2:30 and 2:45am. Placing the attack even more close to 2am and the sighting of a waiting soldier.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Thursday, 15 June 2000 - 07:40 pm
Jill, I could not find your quote from Sugden regarding Martha Tabram's skirts in my copy of �The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' and as this is what I had based my information on I was a bit surprised. I did find this reference, �And on the first floor landing he was horrified to come upon the body a woman, lying on her back in a pool of blood. A few details - the absence of blood from the mouth, the clenched hands and the disarranged clothes, torn open at the front - registered in his brain before he stumbled down into the street to find a policeman.' Sugden, �The complete History of Jack the Ripper.' pg 15. This comes from John Saunders Reeves newspaper report of finding the body, I believe. But on the very next page Sugden gives PC Thomas Barrett's newspaper report, �She lay on her back, her hands lying by her sides and tightly clenched, her legs open. �The clothes,' Barrett told the inquest two days later, �were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such as to suggest in my mind that recent intimacy had taken place.'Sugden, pg 16. Deposition of PC Thomas Barrett, 9 August 1888, East London Observer 11 August. So which one was it? I had never heard that Tabram's clothes had been torn before, so I went looking. On page 357 of Sugden I found this, �My friend Jon Ogen, a much respected authority on the Whitechapel murders, sees evidence of similar motivation on the part of her killer as in the subsequent crimes. Martha's clothes were turned up to reveal the lower torso but Dr. Killeen did not believe that sexual intercourse had taken place. So Jon contends that the murderer displaced the clothing in order to mutilate the corpse...'Sugden, pg. 357. I also looked through Sugden's miniature volume, �The Life and Times of Jack the Ripper, Pub. 1996,' in which he described Reeves finding of the body this way, �...on the first floor landing, he discovered the body of a woman. Middle aged, plump and about five feet three inches in height, she lay on her back in a large pool of blood. She was fully clothed but her dark-green skirt and brown petticoat had been thrown up to expose her legs and lower torso.'Sugden,�The Life and Times of Jack the Ripper' pg. 8 While searching through the Times for Reeves's inquest testimony I found that the only mention of Martha Tabram's clothing was that, �The deceased's clothes were disarranged, as though she had had a struggle with some one.' (the Times, Friday 10th August, 1888). So no mention of torn clothing but two authors did mention the clothing and seem to have explained what had happened to Tabram. �As he turned a corner in the staircase he saw the body of a woman lying in a pool of blood. He noticed that she was huddled up on her back, with her bodice torn open and wounds in her breasts.' Donald McCormick, �The Identity of Jack the Ripper', pg. 15. �She was lying in a poll of blood. Her clothing was completely disarranged, the bosom of her petticoat having been ripped away and her garments thrown upwards as far as her waist.}' James Tully, �Prisoner 1167' pg. 95. Perhaps, then, Tabram's top was torn while her skirts were turned up and so we're both right about this one. Wolf.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 11:07 am
Jeffrey, Wolf, All Thank you Wolf for the many versions of the statements and their refernces, you have posted in relation with Tabrams clothing. Jeffrey - you were bringing up D.R.'s bottle-neck-theory again at the Eddowes thread. The same possibilities of escape or hide-out are available with the staircase of Tabram. It is mentioned by several witnesses that because of the gas-lamp that it was dark at the landing. Since the place was often enough used to sleep, the landing would not have been very small, thus indicating room enough for JtR to creep back into the shadows. Also if he heard any footsteps coming down on the staircase he could run down the stairs and be away in open air, turn around the corner and gone into a crowd of people. Or if the footsteps were coming up the stairs, he could as easily run up and hide out upstairs, until it was safe to leave. When that body came up the body, he could either listen if the finder would come after him, he could brake himself free by the threat of a knife stab and dart away before the other even could make an ID on him. Or the finder could run downstairs again from the help of a PC, with just enough time for JtR to run downstairs himself and clear away from the area, before the PC and witness was back. This method in the learning stage, would already be applied early if some mishaps had occurred before, because such a method could easily be tried out under unsuspicious circumstances, without interposing and unpreconceived reactions by other people. Greetings, Jill
Author: Colleen Andrews Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 09:23 pm
Martha (White) Tabran in 1881 (Adapted from my posting "Locating the Ripper Victims on the 1881 Census") The 1881 census lists Martha's surname as Tabran. There were very few Tabrams in England in 1881 & none of them could be Martha, her husband, or her children. However, there were only 6 Tabrans in all of England, & 3 of them were Martha's immediate family. Although Martha was said to have lived with a Henry Turner after the break-up of her marriage, in 1881 she was living in the workhouse at 35 St. Thomas Street, Whitechapel, with her 2 sons. She gave her age as 30 (making her born circa 1851), said she was widowed, & described herself as a flower hawker. Her birthplace was listed with a question mark, & then Surrey, as were both her sons. Frederick & Charles Tabran were aged 8 & 7 respectively. The only plausible candidate for Martha's husband in all of Britain in 1881 was one Hy. S. Tabran (Henry Samuel?), a general labourer & boarder at 14 River Terrace, Greenwich, Kent. The problem is this H. S. Tabran was only 20 years old in 1881, & therefore would have only been 8 years old when Martha married Henry Samuel Tabran in 1869. Obviously this cannot be Martha's husband, nor could it be a son of hers. He may have been closely related to her husband, but exactly where her husband was in 1881, or what name he was living under, is a mystery. I feel the theory put forth that there was a transcriptive or clerical error in recording Hy. S. Tabran's age on the census is a very strong possibility. In fact the 1881 British census on CD-ROM is entirely transcriptive; in order to view images of the actual census page one has to order the relevant microfilms from Salt Lake City, & in this case it is obviously necessary. The reason I searched for the spelling Tabran rather than Tabram is that a search under Tabram yielded me nothing. There were, in 1881, 86 people surnamed Tabram in the United Kingdom. None of these were Marthas or Henrys or Samuels. In contrast, there were in 1881 only 6 people surnamed Tabran. One of these was Martha, 2 more her sons, the 4th was the mysterious Hy. S. Tabran, & the 5th & 6th were unmarried female servants. One Mary J. Tabran, aged 19, was living with Charles & Rosa M. Langley at 58 Shaftesbury Road, Hammersmith, London in 1881. Mary J. was born in Dalham, Suffolk, was unmarried, & described herself as a general domestic servant. She could have been a sister of Hy. S., although they were listed under differing birthplaces. The 6th Tabran was one Ellen Tabran, aged 17, living in what appears to have been a confectioner's store at 29 Chapel Street, North Meols, Lancashire. She was born in South Meol, Lancashire, & described herself as a kitchen maid/domestic servant. The head of the household was one Annie G. Moss, unmarried, aged 24, a confectioner. There were 2 other assistant confectioners, 3 apprentice confectioners, & a cook living in the same dwelling. All were unmarried & only 2 of them had the same surname. This Ellen Tabran could also have been a sister of Hy. S. Tabran according to their ages, but again, she has a different birthplace from either Hy. S. or Mary J.