|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Martha Tabram
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Martha Tabram
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:51 am |        | | While searching thru the International Genealogical Index, I found what appears to be the christening record of Martha Tabran/Tabram's husband. Although both Martha, her children & her putative husband were listed under the surname "Tabran" on the 1881 census, this christening record gives the name as Tabram. One Henry Samuel Tabram was christened in St. Mary's Whitchapel, Stepney, London on March 20, 1836, the son of John & Hannah Tabram. There are no other Henrys &/or Samuel Tabram's in the IGI within the same timespan, so this is very likely Martha's husband. If so, he was 13 years older than her, would have been 33 at the time of their marriage, & 45 when the 1881 census was taken. This begs the question of what age he actually did give on the census & how the census-taker or the 20th century transcriptionist misread it as 20. Even 30 would obviously have been very off. Also, why did not only Hy. S. but Martha & children, living separately in a workhouse, give their surnames as Tabran instead of Tabram? One possibility is Hy. S. wanted to distance himself from his immediate relatives for some reason or other, i.e. financial or social disgrace. |
Author: James Harper
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 06:51 am | | For what it's worth, I suspect (although I'm not certain) that Martha Tabram was an early victim of the Ripper.
Basically we begin with a fledgling killer, one who has probably only fantasized so far, although he's coming closer and closer. Possibly the attack on Tabram was a spontaneous thing; certainly the furious nature of the attack would derive from the killer's initial nervousness at taking the final step to murder. He may have some inclination that the abdomen and the mutilation are his primary goal, although this desire is probably not fully realised yet. He begins with the misconception that the actual death of his victim is what he is looking for, which is part of the reason why he doesn't go any further- he thinks he may be satisfied by the killing alone. Other than that, the realisation of his actions hit him quickly and hard, which is why he departs the scene quickly, without mutilating the victim.
Obviously his methods are less than satisfactory, because his victim doesn't die quickly and she doesn't die quietly- all has not gone according to plan. By the time he strikes again he's slowly coming to realise that the murder itself can be achieved much more effectively, and he puts his new methods into action. But the murder of Martha Tabram was a rushed, angry, incoherent statement- overwhelmed by the moment, he had no time to analyse his desires and actions. In the cooling off period, he's able to think about ways of making the kill more satisfying, eventually (over the course of the first few canonical murders) comning to the conclusion that mutilation is really what he's after; murder is only a way of shutting his victims up and making them available for 'ripping'.
There is much (I feel) of relevance to be found in the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Dahmer's first victim was bludgeoned in a fit of anger, something he would never do again, and the guilt and fear set in quickly, causing him to dismember and bury his victim with great speed- Dahmer didn't take time to work out his fantasies, as he would later on. This explains the difference in Tabram's killing and the later crimes. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 10:49 am | | James
Tabram was selected as the first in the series by Macnaghten, a long time ago, since those days we have complied a list of 'victims' which when studied together, may dilute the possibility of Tabram being the first, or even her inclusion at all.
Do you ever consider the failed attempt on Annie Millwood in Feb. 25th, '88, followed by another failed attempt on Ada Wilson one month later, (Mar. 28th).
Emma Smith was attacked the very next week (Apr. 3rd) and even though we know a gang was involved, we cannot rule out the possiblity that Jack was a member of that gang. Smith described only one of her attackers 'as young as 19', but how older (older?) were the other members?. Then Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and intersperced between these were the 3(?) 'Torso' murders, then Kelly, McKenzie, Pinchin St. and finally Coles. When you look at all the crimes over that period you realize that more than one killer was at work. It is this probability that tends to make us question the candidacy of Tabram & Stride.......any thoughts?
Regards, Jon |
Author: James Harper
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 11:08 am | | Certainly I have looked at other prospective early victims but to be honest I'm reluctant to pronounce definite judgement on these earlier cases without more evident. I'm inclined to view Tabram as the Ripper's work, and possibly the attacks on Wilson and Millwood, although to be honest the Emma Smith attack doesn't strike me as the Ripper's work, although that's primarily intuition that tells me so.
Similarly I don't feel that the Torso Murders were Jack's doings either. The lack of abdominal mutilations and the extreme amputations seem to be the work of a different psychological make-up.
McKenzie and Coles I haven't had chance to review recently, although I'm not ruling them out. I'll have to get back to you on them. |
Author: James Harper
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 11:08 am | | Certainly I have looked at other prospective early victims but to be honest I'm reluctant to pronounce definite judgement on these earlier cases without more evidence. I'm inclined to view Tabram as the Ripper's work, and possibly the attacks on Wilson and Millwood, although to be honest the Emma Smith attack doesn't strike me as the Ripper's work, although that's primarily intuition that tells me so.
Similarly I don't feel that the Torso Murders were Jack's doings either. The lack of abdominal mutilations and the extreme amputations seem to be the work of a different psychological make-up.
McKenzie and Coles I haven't had chance to review recently, although I'm not ruling them out. I'll have to get back to you on them. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 11:24 am | | If you use 'similarities' as your prime guide in determining which victims were attributed to the same hand you can easily end up with 5 or 6 murderers on the loose.
- Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly.
- Wilson & Millwood.
- Stride & Coles (McKenzie?)
- Torso (4? victims)
- Tabram (Soldier?)
- Smith (Gang)
....there's 6 murderer's without even thinking about it. So, would you break them down to get more murderer's? or combine them to get fewer?
Regards, Jon |
Author: James Harper
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 12:12 pm | | I'm not primarily working on similarities. Rather I'm using a pattern of escalation and development that a serial killer might use. To my mind, it seems likely that Tabram and the canonical victims- including Stride, since I do not find the evidence for her exclusion convincing- where the victims of the same killer. As I said it's possible to add Wilson and Millwood.
I would definitely exclude the Torso Killer and Smith, which likely leaves us with two individual killers and a gang, rather than six.
Coles and Mckenzie I will have to look at again. But it's my opinion that six of the slain can be accurately attributed to the Ripper.. |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 09:23 pm | | Jon,
It is interesting that you grouped Stride with Coles and McKenzie.
What is your basis of this? I suspect it is because the similarities of the wounds.
Is there any other compelling data that may link the three to a common killer?
Is the possibility that Stride's killer did not have the time to carry out further mutaliations because of the interruption in the yard enough to explain her lack of wounds?
Would you have any info which could suggest a reason for the long durations between the three murders if committed by the same killer; Sept 88, July 89 and Feb 91?
Regards,
JDK |
Author: jim Evoy
Tuesday, 29 May 2001 - 10:59 am | | Hi to Colleen et al,
My partner is the GGGgranddaughter of Henry Samuel and Martha Tabram.
You are correct to assume that HS is the son of John and Hannah. I've covered the same ground myself in the past but you may not be aware of Henry's son from his first marriage, Henry Thomas, who is 11 and 12 years older than his half brothers. His age matches the Hy S in the 1881 census record.
Perhaps Hy S aged 20 years is a conflation of father and son.
The two female domestics are not related as far as I know. The family name comes from Cambridgeshire and there are a lot of variant spellings, Tabrum, Tabraham etc.
If anyone has come across the burial details of Martha I would be very grateful if you could pass them on to me. |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 04:28 am | | To everyone concerned with Martha's injuries,
For a long time now, I myself have wondered at how her stab wounds add up;
*neck area - 9 stabs
*left lung - 5 stabs
*right lung - 2 stabs
*heart - 1 stab
*liver - 5 stabs
*spleen - 2 stabs
*stomach - 6 stabs
*abdomen - 1 stab
TOTAL STABS - 31!
Dr. Killeen mentions that the trunk area consisted of 22 stab wounds, those being accounted for on Martha's vital organs, and termed as 'penetrated in places'. Yet it has come to my attention that perhaps the missing 8 stabs are doubled up on some of her trunk wounds, and that the Doctor only reported those that stabbed her vitals...mmm still pondering.
I know of only one other version that springs to mind in possibly explaining the 39 stabs, and it appears in Farsons (1972) book on Pg 22, where I sum it up as;
*9 stabs to throat
*17 stabs to the breast
*13 stabs to the stomach
I have no idea how he comes to this conclusion, and can only assume it comes from some press report? What I do realize, is that no where yet have I come across any book etc, that explains how Martha's stab wounds add up.
Presumably a sword or dagger was used to inflict the one injury through the heart, and a penknife was used to inflict the others. So with this in mind, and the fact it was likened to a 'frenzied attack' suggests the penknife was used with great speed and force. The only possible solution I can think of, is that perhaps if the penknife was long enough, and stabbed on an angle, then one outer trunk wound may have injured two separate organs.
I hope soon someone may figure it out, as I am yet to see a convincing account of her wounds. Many thanks to Jill De Schrijver's diagram, we may at last discover where those other 8 stabs are!
Yours
slightly confused,
Jacunius. |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 04:31 am | | PS,
I too believe as Walter Dew did, that both Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims. Unfortunately I can not explain why, as it would give away a very much guarded secret to my theory (Oh the theories abound a plentiful!). But I guess I will say this much...I am sure there were two people involved, and that the attack took place in the entranceway. She was drugged, strangled, then carried up the stairs (by the two men), where she was eventually submitted to the multiple stab attack.
Yours
faithfully,
Jacunius. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 01:30 pm | | It would have taken two men to carry her up those stairs !!! 
Okay , so I presume that she was moved from the entrance to give the killers greater privacy and thus security while they were inflicting the wounds on her ; otherwise what was the point ?
Can you confirm this Mr J ?
Now , if that is true you have to answer the following questions ?
(i) What evidence do you have that Martha was killed in the entranceway ?
(ii) Why did the killers abandon their quest for greater security by killing the next two victims in , respectively , a street overlooked by houses and a backyard overlooked by multiple windows ?
Yours in anticipation ,
Simon |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 04:05 pm | | | Because success emboldened him (them?) |
Author: jim Evoy
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 07:42 am | | | Does anyone have any information on the location of the mortuary where Martha Tabram was photographed and is this the first mortuary photo ever taken? |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 26 June 2001 - 08:57 am | | Jim,
The body was removed to the Whitechapel mortuary. This was little more than a shed in the ownership of the local workhouse. The building was located in Eagle Place, a courtyard running south off Old Montague Street. Martha Tabram's mortuary photograph was not the first of its type.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 02:47 am | | Simon,
All good theories usually indulge in conjecture somewhere along the way, it just so happens that it is here I can only guess what events took place – but I can fairly say it is looking pretty good! So in answer to your first question;
A) It seems very unlikely Martha would have ventured up the stairs, to participate in her trade with two unknown? Strangers/clients. Especially as it would have been right outside the doors of sleeping tenants (remember where her body was found).
B) Her assailants would not have risked the possible struggle with Martha right outside these rooms on the first floor either, so it would seem more logical to subdue her in the recess of the archway on the street. Then to carry her up.
For your second question Simon, I can only reveal this much;
Since my main suspect had lost the assistance of his more sane accomplice (he did not want to be further implicated in his friends evil plan of murder, and he wasn't about to squeal on my main suspect either, because that one wound to Martha’s heart was caused by him, insuring his silence), so he continued his plan, dumping Nichols body from a hansom cab (perhaps), then going on with the next four murders before he stopped. All the locations starting from Nichols – Kelly, were specific locations of importance. The reasons why those two murders (Nichols & Chapman) were so close to open windows and overlooking houses, reflect his cunning, and perhaps daring attitude to the area, he knew it so well, perhaps he felt untouchable through his own important being?
Sorry, I can not indulge more of my theory, as I run the risk of exposing my suspect, so I have a lot of omitted spaces I know, concerning names and detailed characteristics, but concerning Martha could this not be a possible scenario?
Yours
Faithfully,
Jacunius.
PS, I am not a Mister,
I am not a Missus,
nor yet from you been kissed,
but I'am your light-heartened friend,
yours truly JACUNIUS! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 08:16 pm | | It would make sense that the wound from the bayonet or large knife killed , or mortally wounded Martha , and that the penknife wounds were carried out in the more secure location of the upstairs landing.
I like your theory about Polly Nichols being dumped from a carriage , my personal opinion though is that she was carried from the carriage in a tarpaulin and then dumped , to avoid the carriage being seen or heard ( similarly Chapman and Eddowes )
Simon |
Author: Jacunius
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 12:57 am | | Simon,
Unfortunately, no blood was found on the stairs leading to the first floor landing, so it can only be rightly suggested that no stabbing took place until she was placed upstairs.
(unless we assume that the major knife wound through her ribcage, and into her heart was so carefully done, that it didn't splat blood somewhere down there! - I don't think so)
I believe still from my own theory, and that according to contemporary reports, she was first overcome by a drugged soaked hanky?, strangled to a point of unconsciousness, then carried up stairs to have that bayonet/dagger wound to her heart.
As for the other victims, I'm glad to hear someone else out there also believes in the carriage theory. It seems nowadays that too many people attribute Jack with some special ability to hide (even though he may have lived close by, a vehicle could still explain why he was never seen rushing in-between places, if he was avoiding being seen that is!) Remembering of course that a lot of particular people had access to carriages - Jack could still be a nobody, but I think not...not now anyway!
Yours
gratefully,
Jacunius |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 03:59 pm | | I have just begun delving deeply into the Jack the Ripper case and am therefore reading Sugden's `The Complete History. . .' which, I am given to understand, is by far the best book on the subject.
At the inquest into Martha Tabram's death the cause of death was given as `due to hemorrhage and loss of blood.'(p17) On the following page a possible solution as to why no-one heard the victim cry out is presented: `the victim's cries were stifled by strangulation before or during the knife attack.' For this to be so, the stated cause of death would surely be incorrect! Or is the use of the word `stangulation' merely a poor one? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:36 pm | | Kevin,
I could be wrong, but the inquest I think, details bruising around the chin, jaw and lower face, rather than neck, on all the victims. Maybe the victims were smothered or stifled into unconsciousness before their throats were cut, rather than strangled first.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:43 pm | | Kevin, that smothered or stifled description I used, would be by a bare hand, or a hand in a glove, or a hand holding a pad of some sort.
Rick. |
Author: Kevin Mitchell
Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Rick
From what I've read so far I concur with you to a point - going along with my `poor choice of words' view.
The victim could have been attacked initially from behind in a far from classic, but nevertheless effective commando-style assault: being stifled with the assailant's left hand and stabbed to the breast bone with a knife held in their right (could such a blow be interpreted as being inflicted by the left hand if assumed to have been delivered from the front?). The assailant then drew a second knife and proceeded to stab the by then subdued woman a further thirty-eight times. Martha was stabbed nine times in the throat, but it was not `cut'. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 05:28 am | | Hello Kevin,
in fact you are asking what in my opinion in the central question of all the "Whitechapel murders/Jack the Ripper Case":
How he did it ?
Unfortunately (but I repeat this is only my opinion and I am a long way from being an expert) from the beginning this question has been subdued to the other that fruitlessly costed a lot of energy and a lot of time and even could have moved away the solution:
Who did it ? (or even Why he did it ?)
Personnally what I think is that when everybody will agree on the way it was possible to kill such a number of women noiselessly and to find their body where they were found and in the way they were, a big step towards the final solution will be done.
My idea (very simply stated) is that it is absolutely preposterous (that's a word I have learned on these boards) to think it was the work of one man (unless maybe for Frances Coles).
I must aknowledge that if I got this idea from the beginning I was not able to explain a lot that this induced till the moment I read the messages on these boards written by Ed Carter (and I advise you to read them as far as the explanation of the positions of the body concerns our subject here).
There is on this subject a very interesting board concerning the way it was done: " Crime scenes".
There you see how the traditional views on the subject (M. Fido, D. Rumbelow) try to face the problem and how in extremely interesting and intelligent ways other people like Jon and Rick try to answer the deficiencies of such theory.
I speak only about Jon and Rick because they make two very sensitive points that to my point of view bring us very near to the solution.
Unfortunately they stop short because they are (always in my opinion) irremediably caught in the trap that "Jack was one".
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 03:51 pm | | In the case of Martha Tabram it seems likely that her killer either coshed her on the back of the head or slammed her head against the wall or, at least, she fell and hit her head during the attack and while she was still alive. The post mortem seems to confirms this. Having said that, that fact that her hands were clenched could also be seen as a sign of strangulation but one that was not accompanied by facial bruising, as were some of the other victims.
There is enough evidence to prove that the Ripper did indeed first strangle his victims, at least into unconsciousness, before cutting their throats and although there is not any clear cut (pardon the pun) evidence in the case of Martha Tabram this should not discount her as a possible Ripper victim.
Wolf. |
Author: Anthony Green
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 07:34 pm | | For what it´s worth, here´s my thinking on the question of whether Martha Tabram was a victim of the Ripper.
On the one hand, the (very likely) assumption of gradualism in the development of the Ripper´s modus operandi - moving from non-fatal knife-attacks (Millwood?, Wilson?), through a fatal multiple stabbing (Tabram) to throat-cutting and mutilation - together with the fact that Tabram´s murder fits the same pattern of dates as the canonical murders (7th/8th - 30th/31st), would tend to argue in favour of Tabram being part of the series.
On the other hand, this could all be coincidence, and considered alone, the most obvious scenario for Tabram is to attribute her killing to one or both of the two soldiers whom she and Mary Ann Connolly were entertaining on that fateful night.
In discussing Insp. Edmund Reid´s investigation into the murder, Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper, Cambridge 1999, p. 23) say that "In fairness to Reid, he had done as much as he could; these sorts of crimes, involving prostitutes, are always the most difficult to detect". In my view, this assessment is well beyond being fair, since it is clear that when two soldiers were identified by Connolly, they were allowed to confirm each other´s accounts without reference to any independent witnesses. Even if only one of them had been involved in murder, it is very likely that he would have been able to persuade his mate and comrade-in-arms to go along with a concocted story, and in any case the medical evidence that two different weapons had been used on the victim (one possibly a bayonet!) should have put strong suspicion on both the soldiers. It would have been natural for them to have invented some details to cover their movements at the crucial time, and to rehearse the story between them. Reid, it seems, did not want to be bothered making further enquiries, probably because he had already pre-judged Connolly as an unreliable liar (which seems hardly justified, given that her evidence compared favourably with the confusion from the police witness, PC Thomas Barrett). Even for 1888, therefore, the police investigation can, in my view, only be described as grossly inadequate and/or incompetent.
In light of this, the most obvious assumption would seem to me to be that Tabram was indeed murdered by the two soldiers identified by Connolly.
Tony |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:08 pm | | Tony:
It is my understanding from the inquest report that a dagger or stout knife was used. If it were a bayonet, it was likely a sword bayonet of the type used on the 1855 Enfield.
But before we post-humously convict the two soldiers, may I humble suggest that any sort of knife used by a sailor would have fitted admirably and would have been readily available in the area pawn shops. Such a knife even if a folding blade clasp knife would have to be stout enough to have done the job on Tabram because they would have to be able to cut Manila line and canvas on a regular basis.
While I personally think Tumblety killed the five canoniacal victims and Tabram. I think the nautical possibility suggested to the police by Larkins may possibly not be so far fetched. Though I think he was off the mark on the suspects, the possibility of a ship's surgeon or even a sailor who had been to sea for a fair amount of time might have had the medical knowledge and the ability to murder and disappear with impunity. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Michael Conlon
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 02:51 pm | | How about the possibility of a cattle boat slaughterman? (See: "The Ripper In America" in the dissertations section of the Casebbook.)
Regards,
Mike |
Author: sean patrick day
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 10:25 pm | | On the question of the killer/s silencing Martha before comencing the stabbing - has anyone heard of the term 'Burking'?
Best wishes. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 04:14 pm | | Sean:
I'm not familiar with the term. Could you explain it? Also, was Martha Tabram buried in a regular cemetery or in a potter's field? Would like to know for the novel I'm working on. I don't want to stray too far from fact even though it is fiction.
As to weapon(S) used on Martha. I believe a sword is a bit of a stretch. WEll near impossible unless you're talking about something like the French Napoleonic Era or American model M1840 artillery short swords which were patterned after those carried by the Roman legions. The Enfield sword bayonet is also a possibility. Even then, the length is a bit prohibitive. One weapon could have made all the wounds if the killer(s) had to work it back and forth to remove it from the sternum. I still like the possibility of a clasp knife using a regular blade and a marlinspike such as sailors, particularly boatswains's mates, still carry in our navy. I beileve the possibility of the marlinspike making the sternum wound is a good one. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 12:33 pm | | | George Yard Buildings. I have never really managed to form a clear idea of how this building was designed. It's a former weaving factory. When I first read about the murders, I was of the impression that the stone staircase and the landings were on the exterior of the building. The 'East London Advertiser' mentions that tenants in the building could see Wentworth Street from the top balcony of the building. But where is this balcony? It is nowhere to be seen in the photographs of the buidling. More confusion: If one looks at the small picture on front of the 'Illustrated Police News' of Sept. 15th, it shows a woman walking in the archway; the building appears as though it opens up beyond the arch, creating an open space in the center of the building. But in the excellent photograph supplied by Stewart Evans on this site, one gets a very different impression. It appears to be an ordinary tenement, and the staircase must be on the interior of the building. Am I to assume that Tabram was followed into the building by her killer? Does anyone else share this confusion? |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 02:17 pm | | R.J.,
Can you just remind us all where you got the information that George Yard Buildings was a former weaving factory? Thanks.
Regards, V. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 03:44 pm | | Viper--I don't know where I picked up that bit of wisdom (?). It certainly runs counter to the Weekly Herald's claim that the model dwellings were 'erected' by a Mr. Crowther around 1875. I'll retrace my steps; until then, write it off as my bad memory, though I would swear I read this somewhere.
As for the building having a balcony, this comes from the Eastern Post, 18 August, 1888. "Shortly after one o'clock in the morning they were again disturbed with terrible screams, apparently coming from [Wentworth Street and George Street]. They went on to the balcony of their dwelling, and found that there was not only one, but two separate rows going on."
The Illustrated Police News sketch is on page 5 of Letters from Hell.
Best wishes, RJP. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 04:34 pm | | | PS. Viper---I see under the Casebook's "Timeline" : " George Yard Buildings, to the back of Toynbee Hall, was a tenement converted from an old weaving factory".... so I pass this hot potato on to Stephen.... |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:10 pm | | Dear Neil,
There can be little doubt that the visera is the center. Bad omen?
Rosey :-) |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:22 am | | RJ,
As you guessed, my reason for asking was that various other sources describe the building as a block of "model dwellings" and that the Weekly Herald of 17th August had it dated c1875 in its description:-
"The model dwellings at George Yard Buildings were erected about thirteen years ago, and Princess Alice, but a short time before her death, visited the poor residents there, and extolled the ingenious method of housing them. The structure was erected more as a philanthropic than as a commercial venture by Mr. Crowther, a gentleman well-known in the district…"
I have studied the pictures in the Ultimate Sourcebook, between pages 116 and 117; on page 5 of Letters From Hell, and also on page 199 of Ramsey’s East End Then and Now. Judging from what the photographs reveal, G.Y.B. does look like a mid- or late-Victorian structure with that brick-built Gothic doorway and the trefoil window adjacent to it. Ramsey's pictures give a hint of a shared, central stairwell with some kind of barred or balconied area to the rear, suggesting that the stairwell, though certainly covered, might not have been glazed in originally. I do find the idea of a central staircase partly exposed to the elements quite feasible; the photos mentioned above all seem to have been taken between the late 1920s and the early ’70s. It is possible that the stairwell had been glazed in since 1888.
George Yard Buildings was built facing east. Assuming that the building was balconied, in order to see Wentworth Street to the north and north-west, there either had to be a balcony on the north end of the building - for which there is no evidence - or the residents needed to look to the north from a rear-facing balcony. Alternatively there could have been a balcony at roof level, in which case it could have stretched all around the building. Without more information it is impossible to say what the arrangement was for sure. However, a Goad Plan from the turn of the last century does have a dotted line showing a jut on the back (west side) of the building and the words "concrete galleries" on it. I would suggest that's probably your answer. The Goad Plan also shows that the plural form 'Buildings' in the name is because G.Y.B. consisted of three separate but adjoining blocks.
Something we can also deduce about the central stairwell is that it was very wide, this from the comments of Elizabeth Mahoney at the inquest. She confirmed that it would have been possible for residents to walk past the body in the dark without seeing or bumping into it, thus making the time of death potentially harder to ascertain.
Not only is it very difficult to draw firm conclusions from the illustrations, it is hard to draw conclusions because of the diversity of model dwellings in general. Such buildings were constructed to a wide variety of patterns. The evidence of this diversity can still be seen today. For instance, the 1890s Morrison’s Buildings in Commercial Road (only 130-odd yards from the corner with Berner Street) have a very open plan design, far moreso than that suggested by George Yard Buildings. In contrast the very first block of Peabody Buildings (by H.A. Darbyshire 1863-65), at the corner Commercial Street and Folgate Street are totally different with stairwells enclosed. Learning from the difficulties with the design, the 'classic' Peabody buildings were different again, good examples of which can still be seen in Dufferin Street, Finsbury, among other places. Then you have the model dwellings in Goulston Street, where the graffito was left.
For anybody with a keen interest in the Whitechapel murders and a bit of time on their hands, an architectural walk through the area is a worthwhile exercise. One often reads complaints on the boards that the murder sites have changed beyond recognition, and in their immediate vicinities that may be true. But there are still plenty of buildings about that can give you a flavour of the times – visitors just need to look a bit wider and use their imaginations.
Regards, V. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:16 pm | | Viper--Many thanks for taking the time to help me out with this. The Eastern Post of August 18th seems to be saying that the 'dead wall of the Leterworth Building' on George Street was visibile from the balcony, if this changes anything. The 'concrete galleries' to the rear of the building is interesting, and, as you say might be the answer.
For what it's worth, there's an artist's rendition of the G.Y.B.'s stairwell from the cover of 'Famous Crimes'. It can be found between pages 74 & 75 of Evans & Gainey's Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer.
Swanson, in his report in September, 1888, discusses Alfred Crow seeing a figure on the landing. Swanson states "It is not an uncommon occurrence for tramps and others to sleep on a common stairs in the East End." I think this is what made me assume that the stairway was 'partially exposed to the elements'. I'm not sure my thinking is particularly well-reasoned here, it just seems less likely to me that tramps would have been tolerated if they were sleeping in the actual interior of the buildings. Cheers, RJ Palmer |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 12:33 pm | | RJ and Viper, Winston Ramsey offers a photograph of the first floor landing and staircase where Tabram was murdered in his book The East End Then and Now. The picture was taken in the Autumn 1972 just days before George Yard Buildings was demolished and shows a fairly narrow passageway perhaps slightly less than a metre wide. Ramsey also salvaged the wrought iron gate that closed off the Gothic arched entranceway to the building and placed it in his garden wall. The book, although expensive is well worth a look.
Wolf. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 04:57 pm | | Yes, Wolf. I noted that and remember thinking that if Ramsey's photograph depicts the main part of the staircase then it doesn't look as wide as was implied in the inquest reports of Mrs. Mahoney's testimony. On re-checking those I was intrigued by this report in the Eastern Post:-
"She was sure it [the body] was not there at two o'clock as she went in, as it was in the wide part of the stairs and quite in the dark." [My emphasis].
Am not sure what to make of that, but would guess that the witness possibly meant that the body was not on a curved section, where the stairs were effectively narrowed for safe passage.
(For those who don't have the book, the picture was taken on what purports to be the first floor landing of G.Y.B. in 1972, shortly before the building's demolition. There are three stairs leading up to another flat area, with what possibly looks like a railed gate or balcony behind it. We can't see what is on either side of this smaller landing, but presumably the stairs continue upwards at a 90 degree angle either to the left or right. I did consider scanning the picture and displaying it here, but I did that recently with a picture from another book and was worried about having breached copyright by so doing).
Regards, V. |
|
|
|
|
