The increasing acceptance of Martha Tabram...

[robhouse]

To me one of the main factors in favor of Tabram's being a Ripper victim is the rarely discussed cut (not stab) in the "lower portion" of the body. A careful reading of many different versions of the inquest reports has led me to conclude that this wound was almost certainly a deliberate cut in the area of the genitals.

RH

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Rob

There are also of course a number of the 39 wounds which don't appear to be separately itemised...which might be regarded as a little coy, as so many others are actually listed...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

In many of the articles and books I have recently read, along with screen adaptations such as 'From Hell' and 'Whitechapel', there seems to be more and more of a feeling abroad that Martha Tabram is a very strong candidate for a ripper victim.

Do you think we might soon be referring to the canonical 6?

I have studied here for about 8 years off and on fodsak, and studied on my own for about 15 years prior to that, and I have yet to see any reasonable explanation for inclusion of Martha Tabram, and I believe most of the truly knowledgeable folks on the subject would likely agree.

There are 2 murders within this "6" that you mention that could be called virtually identical, the rest are a mishmash of contrary Victimology, Methodology and Focus when compared with those 2 very specific type of murders.

You will always hear people backing one idea or another on how many women were killed by one man, but the evidence isnt as flexible as the ideas seem to be....or the proposed madman.

For the record, a killer who demonstrates that he commits murder so that he can mutilate the abdomen of the deceased afterward will most probably, in any subsequent actions, repeat many elements.

This Stabbing to death began and ended with Martha....and 2 weapons were used. So....different killers likely, not just a killer.

Best regards

[Mr Lucky]

This Stabbing to death began and ended with Martha

Nope. Smith was stabbed, Nichols was stabbed, the stabbing didn't begin and end with Tabram at all.

[Phil H]

Nope. Smith was stabbed, Nichols was stabbed, the stabbing didn't begin and end with Tabram at all.

I think I am going to need something more than a bald, unsupported, statement to accept that.

As far as I am aware, Smith was penetrated by a piece of wood or something similar. Are you suggesting a knife was used?

The attack seems very dissimilar to ANY of the others.

Which specific wound on Nichols are you saying represents a stab wound?

Phil

[robhouse]

Nope. Smith was stabbed, Nichols was stabbed, the stabbing didn't begin and end with Tabram at all.

I think I am going to need something more than a bald, unsupported, statement to accept that.

As far as I am aware, Smith was penetrated by a piece of wood or something similar. Are you suggesting a knife was used?

The attack seems very dissimilar to ANY of the others.

Which specific wound on Nichols are you saying represents a stab wound?

Phil

Inspector John Spratling wrote a report based on notes he took while Llewellyn examined Nichols' body, indicating “tw[o] small stabs on private parts.” Also, the nature of the cuts, with a knife “which had been used violently and been used downwards” seems to suggest stabbing.

In the case of Tabram, Donald Swanson, in his summary report of the murder, noted that there were “39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part.” Any mention of wounds to the "private part" is omitted from newspaper accounts of the inquest, although a couple papers mentioned wounds in "the legs," which is almost certainly a euphemism for "private part" mentioned by Swanson. Only one newspaper, the East London Observer, noted the existence of an additional wound: “The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth.” The Observer also noted that “there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated.”

A comparison of different newspaper accounts clearly reveals that the mention of this wound was deliberately suppressed in most newspaper accounts. For example:

The Observer wrote:

The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place.

Whereas, the Advertiser wrote (describing the same part of the inquest clearly):

Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion.


The coroner also “thanked Dr. Keeling for the very careful way in which he had given his testimony.”

Annie Millwood was attacked "by a man who she did not know, and who stabbed her with a clasp knife which he took from his pocket.” She was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary with numerous stab wounds in the “legs and lower part of the body.” Lower part of the body could very well be a euphemism for genitalia, as I suspect it was in the case of Tabram also.

RH

[Phil H]

Thanks Rob, that's very detailed and very clear.

I simply had not picked that up about Tabram before.

Most helpful.

Phil

[Observer]

Nope. Smith was stabbed, Nichols was stabbed, the stabbing didn't begin and end with Tabram at all.

Quite correct, Nichols was certainly stabbed Mr Lucky as was Eddowes

Dr Brown

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin."

Regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

I think I am going to need something more than a bald, unsupported, statement to accept that.

I have been quoting Dr Llewellyn, who performed the pm

As far as I am aware, Smith was penetrated by a piece of wood or something similar. Are you suggesting a knife was used?

No, obviously not, I'm suggesting she had been stabbed with the blunt object

Which specific wound on Nichols are you saying represents a stab wound?

Along with the ones actually described as 'stabs' ,the wounds described as 'incisions' which either start from 'a point' or end at a 'point', like the two wounds in her neck.

'On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. ' - The Times 3rd Sept (Llewellyn Inquest, Saturday)

'There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebrae, which is also slightly injured.' - Daily News 1 Sept (Llewellyn on Friday)

Journalist who saw the body -

'Apparently in the first instance the knife had been thrust into her neck behind the left ear, and a horrible wound inflicted. Then, thrust in, in a similar position behind the right ear, it was wrenched round with such force as to approach as to decapitation as was possible.' - The People 2 Sept 1888

The 'wrenched round' movement is what caused the wound Llewellyn describes as the 'circular incision'.

[Mr Lucky]

Quite correct, Nichols was certainly stabbed Mr Lucky as was Eddowes

Dr Brown

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin."

Regards

Observer

Hi Observer

Thanks, I had forgot about that one!

The list grows longer.

[Wickerman]

Although I'm quite familiar with Kileen's description of the wound to the lower part of the body, ie:..
"The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth."

I fail to see how a wound which is longer (wider?) than it is deep being described as a stab wound, which is generally deeper than it is wide.

One is a slicing wound, the other is a penetrating wound, a doctor should be able to determine the difference.

A wound which is 3" wide and 1" deep is a slicing wound, now if the wound was 3" deep and 1" wide, then certainly that would be a stab wound.

[robhouse]

Although I'm quite familiar with Kileen's description of the wound to the lower part of the body, ie:..
"The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth."

I fail to see how a wound which is longer (wider?) than it is deep being described as a stab wound, which is generally deeper than it is wide.

One is a slicing wound, the other is a penetrating wound, a doctor should be able to determine the difference.

A wound which is 3" wide and 1" deep is a slicing wound, now if the wound was 3" deep and 1" wide, then certainly that would be a stab wound.

I agree... it is a slicing wound.

RH

[Observer]

Hi Wickerman

Then why did Dr Brown describe the wound as a stab? Dr Brown also described a stab to the liver. Killeen also used the word penetrated, does this suggest a slice? In your post you differntiate between slicing and penertrating, Killeen actually used the penertrated in his description.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

That should read, Killeen actually used the word penertrated in his description.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Then why did Dr Brown describe the wound as a stab? Dr Brown also described a stab to the liver. Killeen also used the word penetrated, does this suggest a slice? In your post you differntiate between slicing and penertrating, Killeen actually used the penertrated in his description.

Regards

Observer

Hi Observer.
Do you believe my interpretation is wrong?

Thanks, Jon S.