Author: Jill De Schrijver
Saturday, 03 August 2002 - 08:29 am |        |
Well at least this is something I could post right away... And I have Scott Medine to thank for puzzling the numbers out finally...
THE UNIDENTIFIED 8 WOUNDS
39 stab wounds were mentioned. Only 31 were clearly identified. I suspected the other 8 were chest wounds, but never touching vital organs.
My suspicion was right.
all wounds:
9 throat
5 r lung
2 l lung
1 heart
8 somewhere else
5 liver
2 spleen
6 stomach
1 riplike wound at abdomen
makes 39.
Now let's count the identified chest wounds...
5 r lung
2 l lung
1 heart
That's only 8 directly identified chest wounds. But there have to be 17, right. Stomach, spleen and most of the liver does not belong to the chest area. Thereby 8 wounds were delivered into the chest, without hitting vital organs, that is the upper area above the lungs.
8 identified chest wounds, 8 unidentified upper chest wounds makes 16. I suspect that one of the liver wounds was high enough to be interpreted as a chest wound.
Thanks Scott,
Jill |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 09:26 pm | |
| Jill: Just read your summing up. Thanks that will help in my research. I am working on the section of the novel that deals with Martha Tabram now. Again Thanks. Kindest regards, Neil K. MacMillan |
Author: Vicki
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 12:44 pm | |
Jill,
The inquest didn't specify all the wound locations. Were there pictures or sketches of the other wounds, police files, witnesses, that could identify the other wound locations?
I know Martha was said to have 39 wounds, but they were not all described.
I was also wondering, if anyone knows, why an official inquest wasn't more thorough in describing these locations?
Vicki |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 02:36 pm | |
There are no sketches or pictures as far as we know, no.
But you can read the archived Martha Tabram discussion on logical deduction about where those 8 unspecified wounds could have appeared. With the first post in this thread as the logical conclusion.
The reasons why they were not specified during the inquest is speculated on as well in the same archive files about Martha Tabram.
Since I conclude the 8 wounds were chest stabs, the reason must have been that these unspecified 8 stabs had not hit any vital or internal organ, instead only muscle. |
Author: Vicki
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 06:24 pm | |
Thanks Jill
I tried doing a search before I asked, but couldn't find the right thread. I'll try using the keyword "deduction."
Vicki |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 02:55 am | |
Ripper Victims (Archived... that is the Topic 'Ripper Victims' with a lock symbol) -> Specific Victims -> Martha Tabram
Ripper Victims (Archived) -> General Discussion -> Martha Tabram continued |
Author: Vicki
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 08:48 pm | |
Thank you Jill,
The books I have, don't have a lot on Martha.
Vicki |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 24 September 2002 - 09:42 am | |
In case this hasn't been covered before, there is a 'Martha Tabran,' age 30, listed as a 'flower hawker' in the 1881 census for the Whitechapel Union Workhouse. I thought for sure this was Martha Tabram, but I also see a Frederick Tabran listed as well as a child, Charles Tabran. I guess this is probably someone else, but I'll post a link anyway. This is a good site about workhouses.
1881 census
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 01:36 pm | |
David you are right this is information taken from an old thread
Author: Colleen Andrews
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 11:51 pm
Pinpointing the “Ripper Victims” in 1881
I have located most of the alleged victims of Jack the Ripper in the 1881 British census. This census has been made widely available by the Church of Latter-day Saints as a genealogical tool in the form of 25 CD-ROMS & includes a national index.
Martha (White) Tabran, a.k.a. Martha Tabram:
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 5 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 was probably closely related to her husband, but exactly where her husband was in 1881, or what name he was living under, is a mystery. |
Author: mia lisa anderson
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 11:32 am | |
I read that Martha's last known address was 19 George Street. Can anyone tell me where this is? Thanks.
Mia |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 02:56 pm | |
| Spitalfields, next door to #18, Rose Mylett's address when she was strangled on 19 December 1888. Hmmm... |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 06:26 pm | |
| Both addresses were apparently Doss houses, so the coincidence may be less strong (Mylett's death was also ruled an accidental strangulation). |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 10:21 pm | |
Slight correction, Scott, Coroner Baxter made it clear to the jury that he did not want them to bring back a verdict of death by natural causes. The final verdict was wilful murder by person or persons unknown.
Anderson disagreed with Dr Brownfield's post mortem report on Rose Mylett and asked Dr. Bond to perform another autopsy. Bond eventually agreed with Anderson's conclusion. Baxter resented the meddling of Anderson, and thought that the original conclusion of murder by strangulation was accurate.
Cheers, |
Author: mia lisa anderson
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 10:49 am | |
What I was looking for was where George St. was or is located. What other streets is it near?
Thanks.
Mia |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 04:18 pm | |
Mia,
South of Aldgate, between Jewry Street and Minories, City of London.
Cheers |
Author: mia lisa anderson
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 04:41 pm | |
| Thank you, Jack. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 05:48 pm | |
There were a number of George Streets in London. The one in question ran virtually N-S for approx 130 yards, from about half-way along Flower & Dean Street, over Thrawl Street and down to Wentworth Street. In other words it lay between Commercial Street and Brick Lane and was roughly parallel with them. It was later renamed Lolesworth Street when the Flower & Dean rookery was pulled down and rebuilt a few years after the Ripper murders. There's no real indication of the original street left now because that whole complex was completely rebuilt again c1984.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 07:09 pm | |
Unlike George Street, there is only one Viper!
Thanks for clearing that up.
Cheers |
Author: mia lisa anderson
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 11:16 am | |
| Thank you, Viper. |
