Scavenger or predator?

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Her(Polly)clothing was completely disarranged,the bosom of her petticoat having been ripped away and her garments thrown upward as far as the waist.That Fish is the official description."

Polly, Harry? Are you not describing Polly Nichols here? I fail to find any such thing mentioned about Martha Tabram, where it is only said that her clothes were disarranged, as if a struggle had taken plave, and that her clothes were thrown up, suggesting that intercourse had taken place - to use PC Barrettīs wording.
Besides, I really donīt feel that the report would have held any information about the clothes being pierced. I think it would be hard to do what the killer did, and NOT pierce any clothing.

All the best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry!

On second thoughts, the ripped petticoat does of course not apply to Polly either, does it? What source are you using, Harry?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

What you did was to suggest that this would have been enough for me to rewrite my article for Ripperologist, grounded on the the obvious explanation that this man may very well have been Fleming, and it frankly does not amount to anything that even makes me feel it should have been included in the article.

In which case, all you're doing is wasting an opportunity to take advantage of newly uncovered research and bolster your argument in the process. The Wilson attack is precisely what one would expect from a serial killer's MO in its infancy. If you believe Fleming to be the ripper, it's probably a little churlish to dismiss this attack for that very crucial reason. The fact that the physical particulars of Wilson's man mesh up not only with those of Fleming, but of several other reliable witness sightings is also significant, as is the fact that Fleming committed an attempted break-in burglary in that very location, which was also where he lived.

Not that the Ada Wilson attacker was remotely likely to have been a robber (even a pretend one), as we learn from neighbour Rose Bierman's account.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Iīm sorry, Ben, but I will stay by my conviction that you have other problems to sort out at another thread until I discuss anything else with you.

Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Some huge leaps of faith have been made here without any foundation for them....most notably, attaching anyones name to Martha Tabrams murder, let alone Mary Kellys. I think there is reason to raise Flemings name in relation to the Millers Court murder, he and the victim knew each other very well and had been seen together in recent weeks or perhaps months, and based upon the crime scene and the evidence within there is some reason to suspect that Mary Kelly knew her killer....there is no such known connection between Martha and anyone connected to other Ripper assumed kills, other than Pearly Poll...and she is the one that is connected with a Canonical.

I have a suggestion for a low technology experiment for anyone curious about what 39 stabs might feel like to a killer, hold a carving knife horizontally and make a stabbing motion.....39 times. If this wasnt disorganized, and frantic.. it was 2 people. If you did what I suggested you will note that 39 stabs is almost tiring...and thats without the resistance of the victim, flesh and muscle and fat, or the nicking of bone. With 2 assailants, the total amount of wounds and the 2 weapons issue is not so odd, when between 2 soldiers there may be a bayonet and knife or short sword on each man. Two men could conceivably use the same style knife for example, with varying results in depth and other features.

Perhaps one of the two got tired of the stabbing and drew his bayonet to end the altercation once and for all. My guess would be that she somehow tried to stiff the drunk soldier...either refusing some activity, or refusing to return the money if he was unable to
close the deal, so to speak.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

Once more, and for the last time, I confess I will never understand why people still believe in the "two soldiers" and "one bayonet" trail.
It's so obvious that the bayonet unduly gives weight to the soldiers, and vice-versa.
Unfortunately, Killeen said something like "may be a dagger", or a "bayonet", while Inspector Reid, who tried his best to convict soldiers, lastly believed Martha to be a Ripper victim.
In any case, bigger weapons than a clasp knife were easily available, no need to be a soldier to get one.
As to Ada Wilson, I still consider her case as one of the most interesting amongst the pre-canonicals, especially if one makes Fleming a strong suspect.

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

Fisherman,
Of course I meant Martha Tabrum.A bit of a slip saying Polly.My information is from what was reported,and from the books I have read.Do you dispute the police,inquest and post-mortem reports.The wounds are as descibed by Kileen.Now can you inform me of any reports,official or otherwise that speak of stabs through the clothing.Would not the police have observed and reported such if it had happened.It is however a small point,and does not affect the evidence given by Kileen,or whether more than one person ,or more than one weapon was involved.Or whether two wounds were made after 37 others were inflicted.As to the latter,your contention,why would the Ripper follow the soldier and Martha.How could he guess or surmise an attack by the soldier was to take place?,and why add further mutilation?.Sure your account is possible if one is prepared to take possibilities to the extreme,but the one man one weapon,is the more feasible and sensible way to accept her murder,given the known information .
Regards,
Harry.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

"Do you dispute the police,inquest and post-mortem reports"

Not unless I find reason to do so, Harry. Trouble is, I have never read of Tabrams upper body having been fully exposed to the knife; clothes disarranged, as if from a fight and the skirts thrown up - thatīs what the inquest files offer, as do the newspaper articles. Which is why I asked for your particular source in this particular case, Harry.

On the three questions you ask, I offer three answers:
"why would the Ripper follow the soldier and Martha.How could he guess or surmise an attack by the soldier was to take place?,and why add further mutilation?"

I am in no way sure that he DID follow the soldier (if there was a soldier involved) and Martha. I am speculating that he was inside the block for some reason - work, burglary, visiting; whatever - and simply became an undetected witness to what happened on the landing. Therefore he would of course not have surmised any attack. My guess is that the Rippers contact with Tabram may have been purely coincidental and totally unplanned.
As to the question why he would add furter mutilation, that answers itself, more or less - because he was handed down an oportunity that met his inner desires.

All the best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
As to the soldier,go back to the very first paragraph of this thread."probably a soldier' is what you wrote.As to my sources,I have told you what they are.There is not one report that states wounds were made through the clothing,there is no report of Kileen stating the Sternum was pierced.It is not I but yourself who is refuting evidence and adding detail.
There is only one wound that Kileen has doubts of what made the injury.That doubt is not indicative of another person having made it.The doubt,as expressed, does not even rule out the weapon as being the same one.The slash wound is not questioned by Kileen as being from another weapon.The wounds are described by him as of three distinct groupings,the throat,the breast area and the lower abdomen.They were not random,indiscriminate thrusts made by a frenzied person.(before you jump in and say Kileen did not state that,I know he didn't,I did).The evidence strongly points to one person only,but as I said,if you want to take possibilities to the extreme,you are free to do so.
Perhaps the next victim,Nicholls,was strangled by one person and mutilated by another?It's possible,but who would think so.
Regards,
Harry.

[Fisherman]

Harry!

You write:

”As to the soldier,go back to the very first paragraph of this thread."probably a soldier' is what you wrote.”

Yes, Harry, that is how I see things. I favour a soldier as the one who stabbed Tabram. I can not, however, say that it MUST have been. No certainty can be reached on the point.

”As to my sources,I have told you what they are.”

Books and articles are what you mention, Harry. But I fail to see that you have specified WHAT books and WHAT articles that state that her clothing was torn open over the chest, for example. That does not mean that they do not exist, only that I do not recognize it and it makes me curious.

”There is not one report that states wounds were made through the clothing”

This, Harry, is how Llewelyn assesed Nichols:

”On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female of about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the first or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing one inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.”

No mentioning of any cuts going through her clothing, thus. But does that mean that they did not?

In Tabrams case, the upper body was obviously pierced dozens of times, and I think that what we need is not a report saying that the clothes were pierced, but instead a report telling us that her clothing was actually opened and the skin laid bare at all the places she was stabbed.

”there is no report of Kileen stating the Sternum was pierced.It is not I but yourself who is refuting evidence and adding detail.”

Remember, Harry, that ”the heart was rather fatty, and was penetrated in one place”.
Where would the blade that penetrated the heart have entered? We know that there was a stab to the sternum that, according to Killeen, would not have been made by the knife that made the other stabs, since that blade would probably have broken against the bone. What makes him say that it was not the same blade that was employed here? The fact, Harry, that this blade DID have the power to break the sternum. And there you are – the conclusion is inevitable.

”There is only one wound that Kileen has doubts of what made the injury.That doubt is not indicative of another person having made it.”

Correct. Not does it preclude that so could have been the case. And when two blades are used, the probability that two people were involved rises dramatically.

”The doubt,as expressed, does not even rule out the weapon as being the same one.”

Hereīs how it was expressed in the East London Observer:
The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone.

...and that goes directly against that statement of yours – the wound through the sternum would not have been made by the same weapon – an ordinary knife – as the others. Killeen also adds that ”there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body”, and that means that the shape of the sternum wound gave away the shape of the blade that had caused it in so clear a manner so as to enable Killeen to make the comparison that ruled the ordinary knife out. The two types of holes left by the two types of weapons simply did not correspond. They were incomparable.

”The slash wound is not questioned by Kileen as being from another weapon”

It is not. But it would be interesting to know how you think that Killeen could possibly be able to ascribe a cut-wound to the same blade that made the 37 stabs. I say it is impossible to do so. And indeed, just as he did not say that the slash would have had another origin than the 37 stabs, he did not say the opposite either. All the other wounds but the sternum wound COULD have been made by the same blade was what he said, not that they must have been. Logic dictates, though, that the 37 wounds came about using the same blade, since it would be possible to compare the entrance holes at the body – but how do you measure the size of a blade from a cut wound, Harry? Neither thickness nor width are revealed by such a wound.

”The evidence strongly points to one person only”

Would you not say, Harry, that a case where all the stabs can seemingly be ascribed to the same weapon is a type of case where your assertion would apply much, much better? Once a second blade is drawn into the investigation of what appears to be a case of frenzy, I would say that there is every reason to ask yourself what possible explanations there could be for such a thing. One such explanation is that the killer could have changed weapons, and another is that there were more than one perpetrator. And actually, my guess is that any police force in the world would be very reluctant to throw the latter suggestion out. In fact, I also believe that the very same police forces would favour that suggestion over the one of somebody swopping weapons.

All the best, Harry!
Fisherman