|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 29, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Martha Tabram:
Archive through July 29, 1999
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 05:06 pm |        | Hi Yaz
Gott sei Dank, du bist wieder da. Hey Pal, we're in the news like Earp and the .....!
Closing time, IF I'm right, was really decided in MOE (Merry Olde England) during the first world war. (Correct me, Scribes, who can.) The expression 'Gin Palace' could help.
Yaz, rest your grey head with mine, Edana has promised to make a pub-crawl with us that the 1000 year Reich...... Enough.
Y'know, the lowest, filthiest, cheapest whore of all time in 1888 knew more than all of us together how it was then. I bow my head in humble acceptance of that fact.
Bob |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 07:46 pm | | (extract)
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
-----------------------------------------------
Ok, Chris.
On reading your above comment I was reminded about something I read about the military changing the type of bayonet.
A military or small arms historian may be able to help here, but from what I remember the typical cross-section pattern of a bayonet is triangular, with a more strong/stout spine gradually reducing to a thin blade.
As this wound was through the breastbone the cross-section pattern would be very evident, being still dicernable in the bone itself. And possibly being the entry point of a very deep wound.
Whereas the more shallow wounds, if thats what they were, being in the fleshy area may have indicated a short flat bladed weapon similar to a clasp/penknife type weapon.
If this was the case then I would understand Killeen being of the opinion that two weapons were used, the cross-section pattern of a clasp knife is very different than that of a bayonet. BUT I would much prefer to have seen a medical report describing the state of the wounds before jumping to Dr. Killeens defence. |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 08:16 pm | | Hey
Bob, what do you mean "we're in the news?" You mean the Iraq business going on?
Nice to see Jon back. Even nicer to agree with him.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 06:57 am | | Hi Yaz,
No, I didn't get to hear about that until after I'd written that post. I meant the live chat board, where people are coming from there on over to watch the Yaz'nBob show. We're famous.
I'll be away for the next days on external duty, so after today will post again probably monday.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 07:53 am | | Hey, Bob,
I hate chat boards. I wonder how many intelligent conversations I might have had with 11-year-olds on chatboards I've been on, and I shudder (not necessarily because of the 11-year-old but because my adult intellect/ego has anything in common with a prepubescent!) Make 'em stop using our names in vain, will ya? Or at least my slappy little moniker! You're the man for the job. Tell 'em you can see pentangles in their palms...scare the bejeebers out of 'em, Bob "Lawrence Talbot" C!
I hope "duty" doesn't have anything to do with world affairs in Iraq. Be safe, Bob, if it does.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 08:50 am | | Hi Yaz,
I got seduced by Avala, but every time I call, he's just gone out. It's easy to forget there's a great time difference, while you are sitting to a nice evening beer, I'm trying to avoid looking at my unshaved face in the bathroom mirror and drinking my breakfast.
About the trip. No, thank heavens. Just a research project I'm on.
God protect all our boys who have to be there and risk their necks.
Bob |
Author: Oracle
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 06:00 am | | Dr Killeen was very young (27 I believe) compared to some of the older, more experienced, doctors involved in the story. It therefore may be assumed fairly that he was a lot less experienced.
The bayonet, if such was the weapon, used on Tabram left a strong-bladed, dagger-like wound. That means it would have to have been double-bladed like a dagger. This means that it was not the triangular-edged, 'pig-sticker,' type which was of the Martini-Henry 1876 type. The wound inflicted could only have been caused, if not by a dagger, by a Lee-Metford or Lee Enfield 1888 type bayonet. These looked rather like a large dagger.
The wounds inflicted on Tabram were ALL stab wounds, and were of such a nature that 38 of them appeared to have been inflicted by a pen-knife. By this it is meant a large pocket clasp knife which most men carried in those days. It had a folding blade which was obviously not as strong as that of a bayonet or dagger. The '39th wound' was of a different nature in that it was inflicted on the sternum (breast-bone), which it had gone clean through. The doctor judged that a 'pen-knife' (as apparently used to inflict the other wounds) was not strong enough to have inflicted the sternum wound.
I hope that this may clarify, to a degree, the nature of the wounds suffered by Tabram as interpreted by Dr Killeen. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 11:22 am | | (extract by Oracle, above)
The bayonet, if such was the weapon, used on Tabram left a strong-bladed, dagger-like wound. That means it would have to have been double-bladed like a dagger. This means that it was not the triangular-edged, 'pig-sticker,' type which was of the Martini-Henry 1876 type. The wound inflicted could only have been caused, if not by a dagger, by a Lee-Metford or Lee Enfield 1888 type bayonet. These looked rather like a large dagger.
--------------------------------------
This is exactly what I was refering to by 'change of weapon', but could not locate the text. - thanx Oracle. |
Author: C WIT
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 07:01 pm | | CHECK THE DATES -
AUG 8 - TABRAM (8.8.88)
AUG 30
SEP 8 AND SO ON - COINCIDENCE ?
CW |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 11:27 pm | | | Well, first off Tabram was murdered on August 7, 1888, then Nichols on August 31, 1888... |
Author: Dave Yost
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 01:26 am | | HI All,
Tabram is an interesting subject indeed!
But I wonder if the disucssion of her is worthy?
Was she a victim or was she not? Many view her as being in a grey area, some with this view but leaning toward a JTR vic and others accepting the greyness but lean her toward a non-vic status. Others are most accepting of her as a vic or a non-vic.
I offer a challenge to each side of this debate.
At the US-JTR Conference in April 2000, we will be holding a panel discussion on Tabram. Who is willing to offer his/her evidence in a public forum?
Is Tabram a dead issue? Has her victim status already been decided?
Who will jump at the challenge?
Cheers,
Dave Yost
Secretary
Casebook Productions
jacktripper@fcmail.com
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_conference_on_jtr/ |
Author: Jill
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 10:26 am | | Hello all,
I have read from the "who was Jack The Ripper" site, that not only Polly identified 2 soldiers. But that Barret had identified two soldiers on August 8 out of a line of Grenadiers that were absent or on leave the night of the murder. The first one was dismissed because he had medals, not according to the soldier he had met. Since he maybe could have changed costume, could this have been an error?
The second was John Leary who gave an alibi backed up by his friend 'private' Leary on a seperate questionaire. So he was dismissed too. Still they would have 1 day to make up a story after hearing about the murder. Even if they were not involved in the murder they could have given valuable information. Are these the two 'chums'?
Besides all this, a certain Corporal Benjamin reappears after 2 days of absence (not on leave).(Polly was also hiding out for 2 days, coincidence?). They searched his clothes and weapon for blood, after he had two days of time to clean it all, if indeed he had done the bad deed. His alibi was backed up by Benjamin's father. What is the credibility of this witness?
What were the alibi's given by the two soldiers identified by Polly? Why was she so afraid to go in hiding?
Does anyone has any information, reference material about these soldiers other than their name, their given statements?
Jill |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 09:04 am | | Hello All !
I'm having some difficulty in typing at the moment, but after doing a fair amount of reading, and studying relevant pictures over the last few days, I just thought I would like to resurrect our dear old friend Martha, for consideration as a Ripper victim. The above thread on whether Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes were maybe familiar to the Ripper ties in a little with my thoughts also.
I have been haunted by the images of the victims Tabram and Chapman. These women could have been sisters (in my mind), the similarities in their appearance is so strong (IMHO). There are many other areas of discussion on whether Tabram was victim or not, but if the type of woman was anything to go on (as far as the killer was concerned), Tabram was a victim of Jack the Ripper.
Another connection I would like to open up and see if anyone would find it worth discussing, is Mary Ann Connely "Pearly Poll's" comments after Martha's murder. She stated that 'there was a man that these women were very fearful of'. Investigations then lead to Lodging house deputy, Timothy Donavon's accusation of a man named "Jack" Pizer, the infamous Leather Apron. Then when this man is cleared another "Jack" comes on the scene. Nice coincidence!
It is this man Donavon, I would like to consider further. The A-Z quotes 2 (maybe 3?) men of this name. Donavon does figure in the investigations, and although I do not want to throw another suspect into the pot, I do think that this man who pointed the finger at a Jewish man, and who could possibly be the same man who was convicted of murder a few years later, with connections to at least 1 (possible) victim, would be worthy of some discussion, and possible further investigation.
Nice to be (hopefully) back ! Cheers everyone. The Cauterization discussion is quite interesting. I've been reading as much as I can on these boards over the last couple of days, I'm struggling a little to type though.
Hello Everyone !!!
Jeff D |
Author: Jill
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 03:17 am | | Hello Jeff, All
As for MO (besides stabbing and 1 rip instead of ripping; the attack on the throat/9 stabs; the posture of the body while no recent intercourse had taken place according to the post-mortem), I could be convinced she could be one of Jack's victims IF the investigation did not make such a messy job of the soldiers alibi's.
First they release one of the identified soldiers by PC Barrett, without even finding out his name, because he wore medals. They easily could have checked him for an alibi. Now people still can doubt his innocense.
Second they release Leary (the second man identified by Barrett) whose alibi was idependently (?) backed up by his compagnion of that night, Law. They had one day time to fabricate an alibi. This alibi should at least have been backed up by others who were in the pubs in Brixton. So their innocense is also doubtful.
Then there is Corporal Benjamin who was absent for 2 days. Who risks penalty for being absent without leave, to visit his father? He had some time to clean his uniform and I'm certain soldiers themselves knew how to polish a bayonet.
Corporal Benjamin is not effectively cleared.
As for other sloppiness in this case: What was a Private, who was in the barracks during the murder, doing in a line-up of soldiers who were absent or on leave during the night of the murder? ...Duh! Thus a soldier who was indeed absent could possibly not have been attending the line-up?
As for Pearly Polls declerations, they can be seen in a doubtful light: she evidently did not know from the beginning the difference between a Private with extra good conduct stripes and a Corporal. During the inquest Reid tries to discredit his own star witness. Who would be believed: the wife of a soldier with 2 good conduct badges or a prostitute who hadn't stated her meaning in a clear order?
Also she is mentioning on the inquest that there was an arguement about money, NOT with Tabram. How could she know there wasn't if she last saw Martha when they had split up to have sex. Her mentioning they ALL left as good friends, implicate more people than Pearly and her Corporal. Evidently Connolly cannot speak as a coherent witness, and I believe should not be treated so (which doesn't mean I think she's a lyer).
So far there hasn't been much material to clear some of the soldiers? Then are we looking for a Soldier Jack? Wouldn't that have been noticed soon enough?
Jill |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 08:55 am | | Excellent Jill
Though you were'nt to know, I have been going over the same aspect of the Tabram case just in the past few weeks, and I am still waiting reply's from the Tower on a few questions.
I feel inclined to discount Polly's testimony, not totally, but in view of her competence and the fact that she can only help us as regards what was happening 2 hrs prior to the murder, I decide to go in favour of the testimony of P. C. Barrett.
At least P.C. Barrett was near the scene and possibly within 30 mins of the supposed time of the murder.
Barrett thought he spoke to a Grenadier Guardsman, but as you point out it appears to have been a bit of a fiasco as far as the I.D.'s go, at the Tower.
Dr. Killeen's statement about the state of the 'chest-bone' wound being similar to that of a dagger or dagger bayonet, may be due to the shape of the wound thru the chest-bone (cross-section) c/w the possibility that this wound was very deep.
So, this tends to implicate a soldier, but would a trained soldier plunge a bayonet into a boney area, when they are trained not to do just that?,....the standard issue for the military at that period was the Martini-Henry rifle, with a long socket type bayonet. This could not be described as a dagger-type, it is more of an elongated spike, 18-24" in length.
However, in December of 1888, the military were introduced to the Lee-Metford rifle, with a dagger-type bayonet, sadly this introduction was 4 months too late for us to speculate on, unless anyone can find out if there had been any pre-issues, in the preceeding months, that would raise a very interesting question.
Short of that, we might be looking for a continental bayonet, dagger-types were more readily available on the continent than here at home.
I had considered if Jack had been a soldier then in the days following Nov 9th, he may have been posted overseas, but after inquiries at the Tower I find that the Grenadier's were not posted overseas, from August to the end of December, they were at the Tower, Chelsea or Dublin.
Enquiries are still ongoing, but without Killeen's all important testimony, we might be on a wild goose chase.
If the police did follow up on every lead as to the soldiers alibies, then that has not come down to us, unfortunatly.
With Tabram, I feel a good, circumstancial case for a soldier being responsible, but as for Jack being a soldier......hmm, non-comittal.
Good poste, Jill
All the best, Jon |
Author: Jill
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 02:37 pm | | Thanks Jon
I'm glad to hear you are searching on the soldier's path.
Well I wasn't implying that Jack was a soldier, actually the opposite. I don't think we can really consider Martha Tabram as a canonical victim as long as the possibility of a soldier being the murderer isn't zero (or almost). But I'm afraid there'll be little chance to it.
About the character of Dr. Killeen's statement I'm starting to be doubtful. First he seems to have performed not such a bad post-mortem, just because he indicates when he is certain of facts like the penknife and right-handed assaillant and when he is less certain he also states it as a probable sentence (the bayonet and the left-handedness). On that point I give him some credibility in his personality as to be trying careful and not overpompous.
But when reading his statement on the inquest he even begins to speak of his certainties in the post-mortem as if they are mere probabilities, as if he's beginning to doubt himself after hearing other testimonies; and as such leaving us with only guessing work.
I hope in time I can be of more help than just being an opinion giver, but I try already by reading everything very carefully (between the lines).
Cheers Jill |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 01:42 pm | | Hello Bob, All
At the moment I'm trying to figure out what happened between 1:45-2:45 AM. To do this I'm still with few questions left:
1)In the post-mortem Dr. Killeen declares that no recent intercourse had taken place. He does not repeat this on the inquest after the testimony of PC Barret who mentions that the lay about of the body suggested intercourse. Maybe he began doubting himself after hearing Tabram at least must have had intercourse around 12:00PM. How long does it takes for semen fluid to -how do you say it- have the appearance that "no recent intercourse has taken place"?
2)Dr. Killeen estimated the time of dead at about 2:30-2:45 AM. What should be the signs for being dead 3 hours (how would he have interprated these signs against what we know nowadays) when stabbed 1 time in the heart through the breast bone, 9 times in the throat, and 21 times in the trunk, inside a building when it had been 20°C outside on a cloudy day, and 8-10°C that night? Could there be a difference, say earlier or later?
3)How long would it have taken for Martha and her partner to enter George Yard alley, enter George yard Building and up to the first floor landing, without making too much noise and starting to get comfortable there? I estimate about 5 mins.
4)How long would it have taken to stab 39 times and pulling the knife(or knives) away? I estimated about half a minute for the stabs and half a minute for getting clear of the knife out of the breas bone. Does this sounds about right?
5)How long do you all think an intercourse with a prostitute would generally take? Half an hour?
6)What was the closing time for pubs, especially in Brixton?
I would be grateful for any anwser to this questions, because this could mean that the "chum" with the girl can go free or be the culprit or if there was any chance that when the "chum and his girl" walked off another couple entered the stage.
Bob-the police at that time did not undoubtfully cleared IMHO some of the identified soldiers. The investigation also showed some sloppiness as far as the line-ups go. I agree that the testimony given by Pearly Poll is inconsistent and only important on that point about one of the last moves Martha Tabram made 2-3h before her death. But Barrett's witness acount is very important indeed.
One soldier identified by Barrett, who could have switched jackets, wearing medals is released without even asking his name. This man can be discussed until eternity.
John Leary is released after his alibi is backed up by his compagnon Law, while they had more than 1 full day to make one up. They even had the luxury to personalise the story, because of the time (between the closing of the pubs and about 4 o'clock) they were seperated. Aren't we looking for a soldier and his "chum"? This story needed back-up by people in pubs in Brixton.
Corporal Benjamin risqued punishment for 2 days absence without leave to visit his father? His clothes were clean, but he had 2 days to clean them.
And since one soldier, who was at the barracks at the time of the murder, could end up in a line up of soldiers who were absent or on leave during the night of the murder, I can also conclude there is as much chance that a soldier who WAS on leave or absent did not stand up in one of the line ups.
I don't rely on the soldiers'path because of the mentioning of a bayonet, since the type of bayonet used at that time wasn't daggerlike and because Dr. Killeen does not mention a bayonet as a certainty but only as a probability. I rely on the account of PC Barrett. Since I'm no weapon expert, I have no problem awing at yours. Thanks for the usefull knowledge.
Cheers Jill
PS. If some of the questions can be answered I maybe agree with your point of view Bob. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 02:17 pm | | Dear All,
This is the first time I've been on this board and I've just been reading some of the postings re bayonets.
I'm afraid the information given is not quite correct. The triangular socket bayonet referred to is the Pattern 1876 socket bayonet used in the Zulu wars and the Sudan. However the Pattern 1887 MK 1 was a sword (knife) type weapon as was the Mk III and the Mk IV both pattern of 1887.
However I would hesitate to suggest that either of these weapons could be the one used on Tabram. Sticking an unmounted bayonet of this type into someone is quite an undertaking, a bayonet is a very poor weapon dismounted. Not until the Swedish Mauser 1896 patt did you have a really efficient bayonet and combat knife.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 04:04 am | | Bob.
Back on the 'wrong board again' you went into the Tabram murder,....
You said,
'There are some who believe that the wound to her chest was caused by a bayonet. This is not so, Dr Killeen is reported to have said the wound was caused by some sort of dagger or possibly a sword bayonet, but this was distinguish the type of blade ie a fairly long, sharp pointed, rigid blade as opposed to the type of blade which could of caused the other wounds which in his opinion was an ordinary clasp knife'.
As we have no extant inquest testimony from the Tabram case, and we have to rely on 2nd hand news reports, we are left with a couple of descriptions proportedly given by Dr. Killeen.
That the chest-bone wound was made by a different instrument. That it was possibly a dagger or sword bayonet, that it was a 'strong instrument'.
Nothing here is definitive, but because Dr Killeen conducted the autopsy we might be allowed to conclude that one of his considerations for his statement was the depth of the wound. Another consideration could well be the cross-section shape of the hole that will have been left in the chest-bone, if the hole had been round then he would hardly have suggested a dagger style instrument. The hole may well have given a clue to the blade shape, so these two considerations are quite within the bounds of reasonable possibility.
So, we are left with the possibility that one weapon was a long strong dagger style blade, and that a dagger style bayonet certainly cannot be ruled out. Knife style bayonets had short handles so were not designed for efficient close contact use, and any bayonet with a blade length of more than say, 12" would be certainly unwieldy in a struggle at close quarters.
But there were bayonets available of dagger design with blade lengths of 12" or less, many on the continent.
However, this is pure speculation but it goes to illustrate that a bayonet certainly cannot be ruled out.
Also, it is not Pearly Polls statement that we are to consider, but that of P.C. Barrett who spoke with a soldier, who had a companion, in the very area and within 30 minutes of the supposed time of the murder.
Police working in the area of the Tower will have become well versed in the distinction between Her Majesty's forces, we don't know why Barrett said it was a Grenadier, but the Flaming Bomb insignia certainly gives them away.
Also we know from other sources already quoted that soldiers often were in the habit of 'sticking' a prostitute with their bayonet when they were too drunk and got violent, interviews & news reports testify to that fact.
A soldier returning to Barracks with blood stains (not covered in blood) may well explain it as a fight, and we can believe many a soldier would return to Barracks with cuts, bruises & blood stains, especially having been on the town in Whitechapel.
In conclusion then, there is nothing to argue against a soldier being the culprit, in fact there is apparent circumstantial evidence to warrent a soldier as a likely candidate.
So, as always in this case, we are left with more than one option, ....insufficient evidence, case dismissed!
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 05:07 am | | Jon- were these overseas posting of soldiers after or before 29 December (It's in a weekend)?
Cheers
Jill |
|
|
|
|
