|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 August 2, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Martha Tabram:
Archive through August 2, 1999
Author: Jon
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 08:26 am |        | Jill.
Ahm (puzzled)....you got me!
To which overseas postings do you refer?
I don't recall mentioning any overseas postings, except to say that the Grenadiers were not posted overseas, as in 'Empire' postings, the Guards on Tower duty were rotated from barracks in the British Isles. I specified which ones on another board, but this minute I don't recall, Chelsea, Dublin & the Tower, I think.
The Grenadiers duty in 1888, was the Tower, and not to fight in overseas conflict.
Did I mislead you somewhere?
All the best, Jon |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 02:11 pm | | Jon-Oops...I probably misinterpreted it, but in the post of July 26 you write:
"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. "
I interpreted that the Grenadiers weren't posted overseas from August till the end of December, but afterwards and before they were. But you probably meant they were not posted overseas period.
I learn these days not only to read something minute trice, but ten times more.
Do you have any ideas about my questions, I'm stuck with 2 scenario's at the moment that either implicate the soldier's chum or not and that either would mean Martha died more around 2:15 or about 2:45. It's really a close call here. And everyone can figure this out if they read the implicatations of the statements given by PC Barret and Elizabeth Mahoney. I just started out asking myself "How long could the soldier already have been standing there?"
Sorry about the mishap
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 06:50 pm | | Hello Jill
Your right I should have been clearer, the 'posting overseas' can be read two ways.
Your also right about what I had meant, that thru the critical period of August to December the Grenadiers were stationed at the Tower.
Ok, as to your questions, above on July 28.
1) I have no idea how you would determine the age of semen, assuming it was detected. If not actually recent then I can't imagine how 'old' is 'old'. when he say's recent does he mean 'old' traces of semen on the clothes, or no trace of semen in the 'normal' place.
(your nearly embarrasing me, here woman) :-)
2)The estimated time of death in Tabrams case is as much a problem as any similar estimation done by other Doctors, in other cases, ie: Chapman, Kelly. Ambient temperature, loss of blood, alchohol content, extent of injuries, extent of exposure. All lead to complicate the estimate, it was entirely guesswork, and quite questionable.
3) For Tabram & client to get to the location (from where?) & get down to business would not take too long, your estimate of 5 mins is acceptable or possibly a little longer, the 'act' was usually, in fact always performed stood up, so getting comfortable, if you meant laying down, was not necessary. I would say 15 mins from start to finish, only guessing you understand :-).
4) You can pretend by simply pounding the floor with your fist 38 times, I mean his state of mind is going to determine how long it took rather than counting how many times you can simulate it.
For instance, if he was angry and thinking in his mind that he was calling her names as each blow was struck, this would take longer. So give the stabbing sequence 3-5 mins, now the singular one in the breatbone may have stuck there and took him a few seconds too pull it back out.
5) Sex with a prostitute? - in those days, out in the cold and stood up, who knows, I mean a guy needs a little inspiration and those women dressed in mens boots, smelly clothes & a complexion you could strike a match on, well, It might have taken bloody hours :-)
(seriusly, no more than 15 mins, as a guess)
6) Pub closing times were not rigid, especially on holidays, midnight untill 2:00, possibly, depending on the establishment, the location, and whether it was a weekend, holiday or regular work day.
Lets talk about your other questions......
All the best, Jon |
Author: Jill
Friday, 30 July 1999 - 12:23 am | | Ok, here's the time scenario:
At 1:40 AM the Mahoneys return home and see nothing special.
At 1:45 AM Elizabeth Mahoney goes to Thrawl Str (through the north of the alley)
At 1:55 AM Mrs. Mahoney returns with supper; she sees noting unusual inside. If the soldier questioned by Barrett was already there, she would have met him entering the alley, since he's waiting at the north side of the alley, and would have seen the couple there. This is not the case.
At 2:00 AM (-2:25 AM) Barrett questions a soldier, who would not have been standing there longer than 5 mins. The soldier says he's waiting for a chum who went off with a girl into George Yard. The chum and girl couldn't be off longer than 5 mins. How long would it take for the whole meeting? I assume 0,5 h from the half hour it took for Pearly Poll. So the chum and girl would split up about 2:25 AM.
(2:30-2:45 AM)Time of death is estimated between 2:30 and 2:45. It would take min 3-5 min to stab Martha 39 times. About 5-7 minutes to come from the street in the alley and the building to the first floor without to much noise. This means that Martha and her killer entered the alley at the latest at 2:35 AM.
(2:05-2:20 AM)If the girl with the chum is Martha, then chum is the killer: the post mortem says she had NO recent intercourse!! (Is 2hs enough for a doctor to conlude no recent intercourse?) But then the chum wouldn't also have been with her for half an hour, so she would have died earlier than estimated (2:05-2:20AM). I prefer more to 2:20, because before that the Mahoneys are turning in after their supper and would have heard something(?), which they didn't.
(2:25-2:45AM)If the girl isn't Martha the 2 couples would have come accross just when the first one left and the others entered. Would Martha have accepted that another would use her spot of that night? I don't really think so, so there would have been a fighting of words at least, what others should have heard. Since this isn't the case, the first couple was already gone from the alley and Martha and her killer entered just 5 minutes or so later (2:30AM), resulting to her death around 2:45AM.
I know a lot of time assumptions are done here, so anyone who has ideas to precise things is very welcome to suggest them.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Friday, 30 July 1999 - 04:04 am | | Jill
Nothing wrong with your timescale, it is about the best we can do, given the lack of facts around the critical time period of 2:00-2:45am.
One consideration, the Mahoneys may have been able to refer to a clock or timepiece, so I think we can accept roughly their statement.
And if we give the Doctor any credit then we might accept the 2:30-2:45 estimate, though unfortunatly, we might need to allow 15 mins either way.
George Yard Buildings was the 3rd or 4th building down the right side of the street, when walking south from Wentworth St. (Stewart will correct me, if I'm wrong). I would not expect it to take more than a couple of minutes to walk past 3 doorways then enter the building, but they would have been in no rush, either.
Now the case of the soldiers's involvement rests entirely on the statement of P.C. Barrett, and it might be asked how did he know what time it was.
Did he wear a watch?, I know of no other beat P.C. ever claiming to wear a watch.
So, short of their actually being a public clock in the immediate area then we have to accept it was just a guess. In an inquest I would hope the P.C. would have been asked how he knew the time. But as we do not have the full inquest papers to refer to, we are left with two possibilities,
- he passed a local clock and refered to it as a guide, or
- the time given was due to his timing of his beat, and most, if not all beat P.C.'s know exactly how long it takes to cover their beat.
If the mahoneys took 15mins to finish their supper, then get down to sleep, then they were in a possition to hear something until 2:15-2:30am, or thereabouts.
I can't see an attack of this nature being done without a sound, so we might conclude that her attack took place anywhere around 2:30, give or take 5 mins either way.
But, was either of them in any rush that night?
The pubs had shut & a soldier, if that was her client, was likely in no rush.
So, we can't say with much certainty as to how long she may have spent with her client.
But your time frame is quite acceptable, given the lack of other testimony.
Well thought out Jill
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jill
Friday, 30 July 1999 - 11:50 am | | Hi, Jon
Since I followed the post-mortem report that no intercourse had taken place, I really had no idea why a soldier would spend more than half an hour with her. But since I still have my doubts about Dr. Killeen's conclusion, it could have been longer.
And I also thought about something else. You wrote it would not be so logic for a soldier to stick a bayonet (or something alike) in a person's breastbone. Bob also mentioned that a soldier sprayed with blood on his clothes would look suspicious when coming. Now the stab through the breastbone, was the cause of the puncture of the heart, enough to kill her. If this was the first stab, she would have bled less afterwards, yes? Wouldn't the breastbone itself keep a lot of blood spraying also (I don't know the answer to this)? If this is so, wouldn't a soldier have learned this knowledge too?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Friday, 30 July 1999 - 03:36 pm | | Jill
Dr. Killeen stated that 'all the stab wounds had been inflicted during life' so if, as some would suggest, the protruding(?) tongue & clenched fist, is indication in this case of choking or strangulation, then she was only rendered unconscious at the time of the knife attack. He then stated 'death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood'
If you look back at 10:00pm Monday night, Martha & 'Poll' had been seen in the company of two soldiers in the Two Brewers Pub. Then another witness saw them with soldiers outside the White Swan Pub about 11:00pm. When Martha & 'client' separated from 'Poll' it was 11:45pm.
So, were these sightings all with the same soldiers? Did Martha spend 2 hours with the same soldier? Is it likely that after spending so much time & money on Martha the soldier in question didn't get anything for his trouble?
Or, if these were not all the same soldiers then did none of the soldiers she entertained that night get anything for their trouble?
'Poll' stated that her & Martha had been with two soldiers that Bank Holiday night, so if she meant 'only' two then Martha spent 2 or more hours with the same soldier.
Dr. Killeen stated 'Sexual intercourse had NOT recently taken place' so were these cases of Martha practicing 'protective intercourse'?.
Many old hands at the 'oldest profession' are able to entertain a man in such a way without the client actually penetrating. One amazing case many years ago was of a 'Madam' who died of old age and had been in that profession most of her adult life, yet it was reported, she died a virgin.
So, was there evidence of semen on Martha's clothes but not where it should be?
Is this what Killeen may have meant?
So, without us actually knowing some of the techniques of the trade, we are left wondering how could she entertain, and yet show no signs of that entertaining.
If it wasn't for the 2 hr difference then this could be Martha's last client. But we are stretching credability a bit if we think Martha spent a further 2 hrs with the same soldier.
She must have left this one & found another, and this other may have had a friend, Martha returned to her 'place of business' and was killed.
Poll talked about the first soldier having a white cap band, PC Barrett testified to speaking with a Grenadier, clearly not the same, in our eyes.
But whether a soldier was responsible, it is difficult to accept one soldier standing waiting for a friend who had gone with a 'girl' and yet at about the same time Martha was with a client and being killed in the same locale.
Possible, but hardly likely.
All the best, Jon |
Author: Bob HINTON
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 01:29 am | | Dear Jill,
Very interesting points, let me add a few things.
TIME
Today we live in a totally time oriented world. Everything we do is governed by time, we get up at a certain time, we go to work, we eat meals, we catch buses and trains, and when we get home we watch TV all functions ruled by time. The vast majority of us have a watch, there are several other timepieces in our homes and cars, and yet if you removed all these influences from our lives for only a few hours we would still have a problem guessing the time when asked.
In those days time was largely irrelevant, and this is indicated by the almost complete lack of any method to tell it. A lot of church's had clocks, so did a lot of business's (the Eagle Brewery for one)however the accuracy or otherwise of these timepieces was a problem. There was no unified time signal sent over the radio, so time was very much a local affair. The gentleman of the house set the timepieces according to his pocket watch, but there was no way of checking whether his watch was correct.
This is why I always shudder when someone tries to pinpoint to the minute a sequence of events - it is impossible. Someone wrote a long piece recently on the timings of the Berner St murder. This is nonsense, you cannot hope to do that with any sort of accuracy, what are the witnesses basing their times on?
One witness said he saw a clock in a shop window, but we have no way of judging how accurate that was. Even the doctor who made a precise note of the time when he arrived at the body of Liz Stride, doesn't help us much if we don't know how accurate his watch was, and accurate compared to what?
In the case of Tabram for instance someone might look at the church clock and see the time is 2.30, at precisely the same time someone may be passing the Eagle brewery and see the time is 2.45, now how can you tell which clock if any is showing the correct time?
I would concentrate instead on the characters of the people involved.
Whoever killed Martha Tabram meant to kill her, it wasn't a case of a sudden explosion of anger, such as a customer being ridiculed by a prostitute and exploding. Why do I say that? Because of the weapon that was probably used and the absence of sound. The weapon was in all liklihood a clasp or folding knife, which meant the knife had to be withdrawn and opened. Why didn't Tabram scream when she saw the knife being taken out?
The killer accosted Tabram knowing he was going to kill her. He took her to a dark, lonely place and strangled her, possibly to death, almost certainly to unconciousness. When she collapsed on the floor he took out his knife and began to stab at her, for some reason he either switched weapons or opened another blade.
I have great difficulty in accepting a soldier as the killer. A soldier who planned the killing would have made a better job of it, a stab to the stomach or throat. A soldier who suddenly exploded wouldn't have used that type of weapon.
Soldiers were notorious brawlers, and they were well equipped for it. The favourite weapons being their heavy studded ammunition boots and their buffalo hide, heavy buckled belts. If Tabram had been beaten or kicked to death I would definitely look for a soldier.
You mention that a soldier would have knowledge as to where to stick a weapon, true but in the heat of battle you would be surprised how fast that knowledge goes out the window. In a really fierce hand to hand you would be amazed how many times a soldier would reverse his rifle and use it as a club instead of using the bayonet.
First thing to determine is Was Tabram deliberatly killed, ie did someone go with her with the sole intention of killing her, or was she killed by someone who just exploded. Sort that out first.
all the best.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 02:02 am | | Hi Jon, Bob
I haven't come accross a statement of Dr. Killeen saying that all stabs were given while she still was alive, so I couldn't take into account. Thanks Jon for telling me.
I have also been pondering about safe intercourse, and while I was on search for the invention of the vulcanisation process (see Victims General board when we have talked about Jack wearing gloves) I came accross the history of condoms, and they were already produced for a good half century.
So besides the timing there are a lot if things to consider. I try to look at this case every way I can think of without preference for either Jack or soldier, taking it in every angle.
In response about timing, I myself take it in a high reserve. I myself am not so convinced about the timescale, because there are many assumptions
and gaps. But I know from experience by being lazy to buy a new watch or get it repaired, that after a while (it takes 2 months not to look automatically at your wrist) you can predict time very accurate even while you're not in routine, as close to 5 mins. Time sense and routinous live around you helps you a lot.
I will be away for two days, so I'll take your advice and search for other angles too.
Have a great weekend,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 03:36 pm | | Jill
Dr Killeen's reference to the wounds 'that all of them had been caused during life' was taken from The London Times, Aug 10th, 1888.
This of course could be an error, Dr Killeen also stated that the condition of the body indicated that there had been NO struggle. But the first witness to discover the body, Reeves stated the condition of her clothes indicated she HAD been in a struggle.....and so it goes...
Bob
nice to know that someone else see's the drawback's to clinging firmly to the stated times. I have had many discussion's on these boards about the same issue. The Long / Cadoche issue in the Chapman case. The Watkins / Lawende issue in the Eddowes case. These are issues of time and because of the narrow time window some people get the impression Jack had more ability than he realy did. As if he looks at his watch and knows the beat of every cop, then decides he's got a 5-10 minute window to carve this woman up - Rubbish.
The stated times are in error, they have to be, the public clocks were obviously wrong, no-one could guarantee what time it was at any given moment. I would say that the only times we might rely on are those given by the medical men on arrival at the crime scene, or those stated by police officials & detectives. The beat cop & citizens had only a rough idea what the time was.
How does Mrs Smith know what time she went to the market, because Mr Jones just set off for work, so it must be about 5:00, because Mr Jones leaves for work when the furrier across the road opens up for delivery, and how does the furrier know what time it is?, because it always takes him half an hour to get their from the supplier.....etc...etc.
Ok, so thats an exageration, but this is how these people lived, that is by associating their habits with reference to some other event.
Now, how reasonable is it that the public clocks were all telling the same time?
Even today with automation these town clocks are never right, private & public clocks never agree. So how can we be sure about the Mrs Long / Mr Cadoche scenario, both events are believed to have taken place at 5:30 give or take a minute, and yet there had to be several minutes, possibly 10 minutes between the events described by both witnesses.
So, how did P.C. Barrett know it was 2:00am when he spoke to the Grenadier?
How do we know if Mrs Mahoney passed thru the stairway before or after 2:00?
We can't easily stray from the stated times because it goes against the grain to do so, but we know that certain events could not have taken place within the stated times, also.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 03:08 pm | | There is a tendency to think of late Victorian times as more primitive than they actually were. Timekeeping was not as bad as many people seem to think. I can't speak for the average Whitechapel resident but here is a relevant comment from a book review in Victorian Studies; Murray, David; 06-22-1997:
Richard Good demonstrates in his book on Victorian clocks how clocks in their many Victorian manifestations insinuated themselves into every aspect of Victorian life. Victorians even carried their clocks with them on their journeys. Travelling clocks, complete with their carrying boxes which tended to grow larger over the century, reflected a key Victorian trait, a "mania for punctuality" (17) whether in appointments, travel, business, or in the daily round of domestic activities. As the industrial revolution proceeded, clocks regulated the working day for employer and employee alike. The author reminds us that punctuality was viewed as a defining attribute of a Victorian gentleman. Punctuality was insisted upon night watchman. Victorians designed special "detector" or "tell-tale" clocks designed to record the night watchman's rounds and nab any delinquent ones.
Clocks quickly became objects of great public importance from Big Ben to the ubiquitous railway and town clocks which regulated public time in cities and towns across Britain and then in the empire beyond. Good tells us that the Victorian era was "the best possible time for the manufacture of public clocks" (164). The turret clocks symbolized Victorian imperial preeminence. Westminster Clock, better known as Big Ben, was the largest made in the Victorian era. |
Author: Rotter
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 03:27 pm | | | I'm not sure about this, but could East End clocks (at least the important ones) have been synchronized by the time-ball at Greenwich,which I assume was visible from the river (I don't recall the geography exactly). Of course just because something was possible doesn't mean that anyone bothered. But there would have been at least a few places that needed accurate time. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 04:28 pm | | Good point Rotter.
But we are dealing with Spitalfields & Whitechapel, not Hyde Park & The Strand.
Jon |
Author: Caz
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 05:02 am | | Hi All,
Just to add a bit of colour to this discussion on how people found different ways of working out the time of day through their social activities, can I quote a passage from 'Mayhew's London' written circa 1861 regarding the Sunday morning markets in the East End:
'Presently the tolling of the neighbouring church bells breaks forth. Then the bustle doubles itself, the cries grow louder, the confusion greater. Women run about and push their way through the throng, scolding the saunterers, for in half an hour the market will close. In a little time the butcher puts up his shutters, and leaves the door still open; the policemen in their clean gloves come round and drive the street-sellers before them, and as the clock strikes eleven the market finishes, and the Sunday's rest begins.'
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 05:28 am | | Dear Rotter,
A very interesting passage (mind you anyone who thinks Big Ben is a clock might not be viewed as an authority on timepieces) but it tends to confirm my point.
I'm not saying the times were primative or the time pieces were inaccurate, what I am saying is that without a method of synchronising the clocks and watches accuracy was irrelevant. There is no point in have a watch that is accurate to the second if its twenty minutes slow.
I'm not sure when it was changed over but there was a time when every town kept its own time, regardless of what the actual time was. As can be imagined this caused chaos when attempting to run a railroad etc.
The point is that even today with all our many and varied methods of telling time I bet there are few people who could accurately tell you how long ten minutes is, try it for yourself.
Of course some people will say that in those days people developed a more highly developed sense of time because of the lack of clocks, but that is not so. In those days life was not time oriented. You went to market when the market opened, the actual time was irrelevant, you finished drinking when the pub closed, you stopped shopping when the shop closed.
Look at Packers story, because things were slack he shut up early, Imagine Marks & Spencers shutting up before closing time just because things were slow.
Caz,
Mayhew is a wonderful source of contemporary knowledge, he was one of sources I used to verify my remarks about the rat population and what they got up to - not pleasant reading!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 06:44 am | | Bob-we have a time scense; first of all we have our own biological clock (which turns in 25h instead of 24). And I experienced and realised it myself 2 times when I didn't wore a watch for a whole year: after 2 months you lose the habit of looking at a naked wrist; a month later you check the time about 2 times per hour; when half a year has passed you can go as accurate as 5 mins off when checking time once per 2 hours. I will again take a look in my Ergonomics book, there's a whole chapter about it.
Time had less relevance than ours today, you write. I admit this is true but not in such a way they didn't care. 1888 is already in the midst of Industrial age and people had to go to work on very strange hours, sometimes totally different from each other; there were cerfues in working houses; as a prostitute you were dependent at times there was chance for more customers,... High class people were very punctual, and maybe East London people were less, but as living in Victorian ages they would have a high opinion of it also.
GMT dates from 1884, voted for in a conference with 25 nations in Washington DC, USA.
So I think IMHO we can be assured that the main city clocks would deter not more than 5 mins. in 1888 to modern GMT. Find out at following site:
http://greenwich2000.com/meridian/
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 06:59 am | | A sidebar on the subject of biological time clocks...
A number of studies have been performed which suggest that human "biological time clocks" may not actually exist. One in particular involved a professor who voluntarily had himself locked up in a room without any windows, television, radio or other worldly influences. He was allowed to excercise, read, sleep and eat whenever he wanted to. He also wore various sensors to determine his heart rate, blood pressure and temperature at various times in the day.
A band of graduate students observed him throughout a week, through a one-way mirror, and would periodically ask him what time he thought it was through an intercom system. As the days wore on, his "biological" time became more and more inaccurate, to the point where his final estimation was off by more than a day and a half, after only a week in seclusion.
Now, this is all really just academic, since people are rarely confined in such a manner. But the idea of a "biological clock" has been shown to be more of a natural response to outside stimuli... in the presence of which, as Jill said, people can be remarkably accurate time-tellers.
Apologies for the tangent! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 07:16 am | | Stephen
All clocks are regulated, could it be that a human biological clock must be regulated by outside influence.
Are animals creatures of habit, soley relying on some internal mechanism. Or do they rely on certain outside influences?
Jon |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 07:35 am | | Hi Jon,
I'd have to say that the human clock is regulated more by outside influences than by any internal mechanism, as per the study mentioned above. I.E. a cat knows that his owner is coming home soon, not because he has an internal clock which tells him so, but because the shadows on the floor or the sounds from outside are similar to those he experienced the last time his owner returned from work.
Being sentient creatures, we are constantly bombarded with external stimuli which give clues as to the time and date... sunlight, temperature, television shows, traffic patterns, etc. Some of us are obviously better at picking up on these stimuli than others, of course! |
Author: Jill
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 09:23 am | | Stephen- We DO have a biological clock. I know of th experiment, I learned about it, and a lot like them have been done. The conclusion you mentioned isn't a finished one: our clock turns with about 25hrs against the earth clock of 24 hrs. The outside stimuli helps us to override this hour discrepance, without us having any physical problems with it. When there are no outside stimuli we automatically let our internal one take over.
24 x 7days = 168hrs;
25x 5,25days=131,25hrs
->almost 37hrs difference, more than 1,5 day discrepance.
Greetings,
Jill |
|
|
|
|
