|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 16, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Martha Tabram:
Archive through December 16, 1998
Author: Kent Conwell
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:47 pm |        | | Some sources report Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty-nine times. In Sugden's book on page 17, the autopsy report accounts for only twenty-two. Is there anyone who can explain the discrepency? |
Author: Erich Gipson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:47 pm | | | I have just finished Sugden's book (having read Rumbelow's prior to that). Sugden makes a case for including Martha Tabram as a Ripper victim whereas Rumbelow had discounted her due to the obvious difference in M.O. My objection to counting her as a Ripper victim is identical to that of Rumbelow. Although Sugden argues convincingly, I still feel that there is no direct evidence to link the Ripper to the killing of Tabram. Excessive overkill (ie. multiple stab or gunshot wounds, any violence done to the body in excess of what is required to cause death) is not uncommon even in simple open-and-shut domestic killings. I'd be interested to know what the casebook members think, particularly any with a law enforcment background. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:48 pm | | | I have felt for some time that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim but there are details that worry me. Were there two mutilation-murderers active at the same time in London. I'm thinking of the Ripper and the murders linked together by Macnagthen: Whitehall, Pinchin St., and possibly Rainham (which for those not familiar with England is some miles east of Whitechapel in Essex.) If we have different killers, which one is Martha Tabram linked with. Or is she all on her own, a killing by someone obviously sexually deranged but who never killed again? It's not fashionable to add to the Ripper's crimes but I am almost tempted to suggest that there may only have been one killer: a man who changed his MO just enough. I have never seen any investigations concerning the extra murders. Perhaps if we could see the Yard files on them, we might learn something more about Jack! |
Author: Billy Bond
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:48 pm | | | I'm inclined to include Martha Tabram as one of the Ripper's victims -- the first one, in fact (or speculation). What we know about serial killers today suggests that they begin on a lower level of violence, and escalate over time -- either a lot of time, or not much at all. Except for being stabbed, Tabram seems to fit the profile of a Ripper victim. |
Author: Scott Knudsen
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:49 pm | | In reading Sudgens "Complete History..." I've come across what I believe to be a discrepency and would value your opinion on the matter.
Tabram and "Pearly Poll" took their respective "clients" and parted ways at 11:45. Tabram was killed between 2 & 3am. Sudgen, while not asserting outright that the Ripper killed her, says that it is not plausable for the soldier to have killed her because of the time elapsed between 11:45 and the time of death. However, PC Barrett saw and challenged a soldier at 2 am, and the soldier replied he was "waiting for a chum who's gone with a girl". Barrett later gave a detailed description of this soldier. A detailed description that differed from the one that Poll gave her clients (especially the lack of a white band). It seems to me that Tabram was in fact killed by a soldier, just not the one that was with her at 11:45. On bank holiday night, there would certainly be no shortage of soldiers on leave. Tabram could very well have gone and picked up two more soldiers. The man challenged by PC Barrett could have been acting as lookout while his more savage companion carried out the atrocity in the alley. This fits the time of death. This theory of two killers, one man having relatively slight involvement before leaving the scene, would also explain the use of two different weapons and of right AND left handed wounds. It's probably not possible to find out at this late date, but I'd be very interested to know if any Grenadier guards on leave that night were two close friends, one right handed and one left. In summation, I agree with Sudgen that the soldier with Tabram at 11:45 did not kill her. But neither did the Ripper. I think Tabram picked up two more soldiers, including the one seen by PC Barrett, and was killed by them.
On giving the matter further reflection, I am even more convinced that Tabram was not a ripper victim. Remember the soldier seen and challenged by PC Barrett? That was at 2 am, which means that if the ripper killed Tabram he would have to ( based on time of death ) have been doing it with the other soldier and his "date" in the alley with him at the time! Now, I know that St. George Yard was dark, but was it really so dark that two people could have sex ( presumably standing up ) and not notice a man stabbing a woman 39 times just a few doors down? It seems unlikely to me.
I now firmly believe that Tabram fell victim to her client(s), probably a Grenadier Guard(s), probably drunk, who took offense at something and committed a murder that, although savage,was un-premeditated. |
Author: Scott Knudsen
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:49 pm | | In reading Sudgens "Complete History..." I've come across what I believe to be a discrepency and would value your opinion on the matter.
Tabram and "Pearly Poll" took their respective "clients" and parted ways at 11:45. Tabram was killed between 2 & 3am. Sudgen, while not asserting outright that the Ripper killed her, says that it is not plausable for the soldier to have killed her because of the time elapsed between 11:45 and the time of death. However, PC Barrett saw and challenged a soldier at 2 am, and the soldier replied he was "waiting for a chum who's gone with a girl". Barrett later gave a detailed description of this soldier. A detailed description that differed from the one that Poll gave her clients (especially the lack of a white band). It seems to me that Tabram was in fact killed by a soldier, just not the one that was with her at 11:45. On bank holiday night, there would certainly be no shortage of soldiers on leave. Tabram could very well have gone and picked up two more soldiers. The man challenged by PC Barrett could have been acting as lookout while his more savage companion carried out the atrocity in the alley. This fits the time of death. This theory of two killers, one man having relatively slight involvement before leaving the scene, would also explain the use of two different weapons and of right AND left handed wounds. It's probably not possible to find out at this late date, but I'd be very interested to know if any Grenadier guards on leave that night were two close friends, one right handed and one left. In summation, I agree with Sudgen that the soldier with Tabram at 11:45 did not kill her. But neither did the Ripper. I think Tabram picked up two more soldiers, including the one seen by PC Barrett, and was killed by them.
On giving the matter further reflection, I am even more convinced that Tabram was not a ripper victim. Remember the soldier seen and challenged by PC Barrett? That was at 2 am, which means that if the ripper killed Tabram he would have to ( based on time of death ) have been doing it with the other soldier and his "date" in the alley with him at the time! Now, I know that St. George Yard was dark, but was it really so dark that two people could have sex ( presumably standing up ) and not notice a man stabbing a woman 39 times just a few doors down? It seems unlikely to me.
I now firmly believe that Tabram fell victim to her client(s), probably a Grenadier Guard(s), probably drunk, who took offense at something and committed a murder that, although savage,was un-premeditated. |
Author: M.G.
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:49 pm | | | I believe that Martha Tabram was in fact Jack's first victim. True, the way she was murdered was different than the way the others were killed. But perhaps Jack had not perfected his modus operandi yet. Maybe he killed Martha and then realized that his weapon was not suitable for ripping, so got a new one to kill the others. Or something like that. |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 10:16 am | | Hi Yaz,
Here I am.
To talk about Tabram, I will first talk about Stride. I don't claim that Jack was not connected with Stride's death in any way. I am not convinced that it was his hand that cut, however. Our second man theory.
Correct with Tabram that the killer could have laid her out in such a way if he wanted to demean her, and it was only said that witnesses testified that the position of the body led to the belief that sexual intercourse had taken place. Of course Tabram could be an early ripper victim.
The change in MO between Tabram and Nichols is considerable, however. Between Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, (I leave out Stride for obvious reasons) Kelly is an increasing violence and changes in MO clear, but in no case such a change as Tabram/Nichols.
Be that as it may, I do not completely rule out a ripper murder, but I would hold it as being unlikely. As always with Jack.. (Sigh)
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 11:40 am | | Hi again, Bob:
Personally, I'd rather settle the issue about Stride first (and Kelly, if any serious opposition exists to her belonging to the series). CM and I sort of dropped the ball about Stride under her topic, so I'm not sure where it stands with him or anybody who followed the debate. If you don't accept Stride as a Ripper victim, any arguments about Tabram would be difficult.
HOWEVER, you and I seem to share the notion that JtR could be two men. As two men, I don't see any difference in calling one JtR and another something else. The "Hillside Strangler" was two men but is still referred to in the singular. You'll have to clarify why your two men committing the same crime together should be called by more than just JtR.
To Tabram:
Reading modern studies of contemporary serial/signature killers helps in what follows (I found Steven Egger's "The Killers Among Us" and Robert Keppel's "Signature Killers" very useful references...but that's ALL I've read so far...others may supercede or contradict.)
Similarities in Tabram's killing to the JtR series:
Geographical area -- Whitechapel; small region of London
Victim seems to have been allowed to choose the place, unknowingly, where she was killed -- the killer did not strike her out on the street or drag her away somewhere to kill her
Time of day/night is similar to series.
The date is close to the series and fits the pattern. Nichols was killed at the end of August; Tabram at the beginning of August. Two murders in the same month; JtR's pattern of a kill at the start and end of the months.
Choice of weapon(s) used: a knife and/or bayonet/sword-thingy!
Type of victim: a working prostitute.
Cause of death: blood loss.
Secondary attack characteristics: Tabram may have been partially strangled as may have been Nichols, but definitely Chapman. 22 stab wounds out of 39 occurred in the region of victim's "trunk" The violence of the attack shocked the 1888 locals...who can be assumed were used to a certain degree of everyday violence.
Post-mortem positioning of the body: Tabram's dress was raised and left so by the killer; as was Nichols, Chapman, Eddows, and of course -- worst of all -- Kelly.
Dissimilarities between Tabram and the traditional five:
Victim was stabbed instead of cut.
Throat was not cut.
No attempt at mutilation of abdomen.
Do the similarities outweigh the dissimilarities? Are we seeing here a pattern of escalating violence where the murderer finds a better way to kill (cutting vs. stabbing), and an enhancement of his violent preoccupations from multiple wounds to mutilations? We see, in the traditional five, the possibility/probablity that partial strangulation was dropped after Chapman -- does that lend more weight to the argument of the switch from stabbing to cutting?
I guess you know my answers would be "Yes" to these questions and that Tabram should be included as a JtR victim...an earlier developmental stage of his killing arc.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 12:11 pm | | Hi Yaz,
I will just be satified there to say, Hmmm.. I am still not convinced.
Stride was, um, evidently not allowed to chose the place, if Schwartz is telling us about the actual murder scene and not describing some quarrel he saw Stride having with a 'harmless' client.
Boooh!. I hear.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 12:41 pm | | Hey, Bob:
Stride chose to stand where she did and that was where she died. I don't know of any stories that she was brought there by another either voluntarily or against her will. The 15 minutes -- actually less -- between what Schwartz saw and the discovery of the body pretty conclusively proves she was killed in that time. Only Schwartz and the "second man" chose to leave -- run away. Who does that leave as her killer? If we continue on Stride, we should probably go to her topic.
We'll agree to disagree on Tabram then.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 01:27 pm | | Hi Yaz,
You're like greased lightning!
But.... I'll keep it short so we don't have to go to another topic..
Stride chose to stand in view of at least Schwartz and one other beside the supposed client and therefore was obviously not intending to do hankey-pankey booboo with anyone at that moment. All other led Jack (I assume) to the place where they could and there is where they died.
Stride's murder was ... different.
OK on Tabram.. I don't however claim that you are wrong. Just my grey cells are probably not so active as yours.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 01:55 pm | | Bob!
I'M greased lightning??!!!!!?? I can't keep up with you!
Last snark on Stride: Schwartz didn't see the second man, what makes you think Stride saw him? Or if she did, she cared? Maybe she figured there was a waiting line? It is interesting that of all the victims, Stride -- at least from having registered as a prostitute in Sweden(?) -- was probably the only "professional"...the one I'd pick to be the most savvy with her patrol-area and customers. She probably figured she had it under control until...she didn't.
I'm worn-out after following you from "pillar to post", Bob!
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 03:01 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Pouf! Whiz! Bang! Yaz is there again. Wow!
Honest, Yaz. Now I need a pause to think up a reasonable answer. We already seem to have got (im)famous for our e-mail shooting match.
I'll think up some tricky answer and mail back later.
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 04:15 pm | | Bob and Yaz -
I would have to agree (!) with Yaz and say that I do give some weight to considering Tabram as a Ripper victim. As was mentioned, she shares many similarities with the later canonical victims, even as I wonder if the "two weapons" theory might be somewhat of a blind alley.
My only hesitation with her concerns the location of her murder. Even more than the backyard of 29 Hanbury, the interior of George Yard Buildings seems a recklessly foolhardy place to commit murder; as I asked in an MJK posting, how could the killer be so certain he would not be disturbed? After all, the Mahoneys and Alfred Crow were treading the stairs; and with that evening being part of a Bank Holiday, one might reasonably expect daytrippers or revelers to be out and about.
For that reason alone, Tabram's murder strikes me as an impulse killing - which is not to say it couldn't have been the Ripper.
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 04:47 pm | | CM!
Where have you been skulking? And just what does that exclamation mark mean?
Yes, the location of Tabram's murder is a little troubling, but very similar to Hanbury street (Chapman) and even more similar to Berner street (Stride! -- there, we're even). I agree on the impulse killing. If it was our boy, he stabbed many many more times than was necessary to murder (the experts I read call it "overkill" -- go figure where they got such a descriptive name! Falls into the "duh!" department.) He got more pleasure from the act of stabbing than any satisfaction or reward from Tabram's death -- either as vengeance or robbery. If it is JtR, he's on the road to increasing that "pleasure" through the ways he killed the traditional five.
One question concerning Tabram when she was found: Was there any money on her? Sorry to keep nagging about this, but it could be a clue as to what JtR was.
We know she had been with the soldiers about an hour and a half before, so she very likely had money on her. If none was found, and no one saw her at a pub (according to Stride's witnesses' testimony, perhaps the pubs closed at midnight), then it is likely the murderer took the money.
If the murderer stole Tabram's money, and JtR killed Tabram, part of JtR's MO is robbery. Tabram's case would be the clearest indication of this -- unless one of the house residents stole it from the corpse before the police arrived, or the money was taken from her at the "morgue" (or whatever, the Infirmary?) A robber-thief is a very stealthy character; uses the traits of a stalker in his trade as he chooses victims and opportunities.
If JtR was a robber/thief as well as a murderer, that might be a behavior that earned him a police record sometime before August 1888, no? And as dim as this trail is, it might be the path from which JtR emerges as a serial killer, no? Robbery, assault, then robbery with assault, then murder with robbery as a minor secondary trait (habit, maybe)...that's a likely trajectory.
!
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:30 am | | Hi
CM where wuz you?
Pubs in London then shut when they felt like it. There was no legal closing time, that came during the 14-18 war.
I have tried alll over but nowhere can I find out if Tabram had money on her or not, maybe someone else knows something.
Yaz, according to my information, Tabram did also have abdominal wounds, albeit stabs and not cuts.
The position of the body, the type of wounds, etc. all give to me a picture of rob-murder. The overkill doesn't mean so much to me as perhaps others, such violence occurs even in domestic scenes. Perhaps it was the man's (Jack's?) first time and he hammered away at her so often just to be sure.
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:23 pm | | Hey Yaz,
Where are you? Please don't go away. Speak to me.
I promise not to ignore Martha Tabram any more. Let us have a good fight over Stride, though.
You can have the first punch.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:32 pm | | I can't find any reference to money being found or not on Martha's body. From an (admittedly) cursory glance through Sugden, it would appear that most of the inquest was reported by the "East London Observer." Perhaps one of our many British friends with access to microfilm files can solve this question for us?
One small question that has always niggled at me is the general acceptance of 2 weapons being used on Tabram, solely - it would seem - from Dr. Killeen's report that the wound to the breastbone might have been caused with a sword bayonet or dagger. Could Killeen have been wrong? Would a penknife have been able to make a mark approximating the trace of a bayonet? Since at times we seem ready to dispute the claims of almost all the medicos involved in the case, perhaps a reassessment of Dr. Killeen is needed?
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:32 pm | | Hey!
I'm skulkin' about, Bob. Just tired of typing today.
On Bob's point about the pub closing times (he does qualify his statement by the important word, "legal"), I'm skeptical because of the witnesses (I think including a PC) who judged their movements by the closing time of the pubs -- at or around midnight. I wonder what might be complicating the issue of when pubs closed in 1888: a local ordinance? a custom? individual owner's choice? How can that small item be determined today? It's important in Stride's case...not so in Tabram's or the others, I admit.
I also hope records can be found on Tabram's possessions since she was working that night and is likely to have been paid. Also, I think Stride is reported to have told a witness she had six pence (p. 197, Sugden)...which she may have spent on drink or....other things!
Tabram's body had stab wounds, not mutilations, to her abdomen ("trunk" of her body -- Sugden again).
My interest in any money trail is not to show a motive in the JtR killings. The presence of a much lesser offense may only be a sign of the killer's criminal origins/background -- also, if such a background can be reliably PRESUMED (we'll may never know), I think it may shed light on how the two vectors of the killer and his victim intersected when and where they did...that is, possible stalking as in a thief or robbery suspect's MO.
We need to do something, CM, about the medical testimony. It may be just an agreement amongst the majority of us since I don't believe taking what we have to a modern forensic pathologist would get us anywhere. If people don't trust Bond, who was A) alive at the time, B) saw at least one victim, C) had access to all the medical and police notes extant in 1888, D) could follow-up with questions to his medical and police peers, and E) seems to have the confidence of top police officials up to the Home Secretary (and maybe beyond?)...who will they trust? Can somebody with a modern M.D. license and a few decades experience (I don't knock either for rendering judgements on modern evidence) render a BETTER judgement than 1888 contemporaries?
We need a sound historical approach to dealing with 1888 medical evidence. It don't do, as Lord Peter Wimsey would say (will Edana know who created Lord Peter?), towin' in our contemporary experts who have little or no sensitivity to historical sources/medical beliefs and practices of 1888.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
