A gang?

[caz]

No two attacks by the same man are going to be identical, and any violent offender has free will to experiment; chop and change what works and doesn't work for him; adapt to the situation and circumstances; change his mind about attacking anyone on a particular night; escalate or go back to something he tried before if the mood takes him. Why would we put our own arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of such an individual?

I don't know what to think about the attack on Emma Smith, so I rule nothing out and remain 50/50 on a connection with one or more of the other murders, most obviously that of Martha Tabram, ripper murder or not.

I do find it remarkable that both victims were defenceless street women, and both were attacked on a Bank Holiday. The closeness of the locations is staggering. If Emma had sustained any knife wounds along with her other injuries, and had not lived long enough to talk about her ordeal, I'd have been far more inclined to link her with one or more of the Whitechapel knife attacks.

One witness suggested Emma was reluctant to go to the hospital for treatment, which, if true, might support the theory that a lone man was responsible, but she was too embarrassed to admit it. It must have been just one man who caused the truly horrific injury which proved fatal. If two or three others were present, I have to wonder whether they stood around watching, or helped to hold her down.

I seriously doubt that JtR would have been part of a gang, so it all depends on whether Emma told the truth. If she did, how would the other gang members have known if the one using the blunt instrument did go on to commit the ripper murders? More to the point, how would they know he didn't? Either way, I can't see them grassing him up and risking their own necks, assuming they were aware that the attack on Emma Smith had ended in her murder. And what about Martha Tabram? If she was a victim of the same gang we'd never know it, would we?

Whoever did that to Emma was a depraved and extremely dangerous individual, as was the creature who brutally murdered Martha Tabram, and yet we have to consider that the killer in either case did nothing like this again and bowed out just as Jack was about to make his entrance.

Love,

Caz
X

[seanr]

Ok I am just now getting into reading about Emma Smith and the other non canonical victims, something I've only peeked at in the past, but how is Emma considered a victim of JtR when she herself said to the dr. that she was approached and assaulted by a group of men? I'll admit that I'm not done reading but wanted to put this out there

The problem is, if we ask the wrong questions then we are very likely to arrive at the wrong answers.

Emma Smith reported to Doctor Haslip she walked past Whitechapel church where her attackers followed her up Osborn Street. She said they attacked her at the top of that street, at the junction with Brick Lane. The coroner at her inquest, Wynne E Baxter, admitted that he has never heard of such a dastardly assault. No common robbery of a woman walking the streets this. An unusual cruel and brutal attack which deprived a woman of her life.

When just 4 months later, a woman who had also been drinking in the vicinity was murdered just two alleyways across from Osborn Street. Martha Tabram was a similar age, had been out on the streets late at night and was possibly a sex worker. Just like the previous murder, it had occurred in the early hours after a bank holiday.

The connection between the two crimes was considered plausible enough to create a file containing both of these murders. The Whitechapel Murders file was started and the police were looking for a multiple murderer or murderers. A murderous gang hanging out in the vicinity of Whitechapel church must have been one possibility. Another could be that Emma Smith had not been entirely truthful and her attacker had been a single man, perhaps out of bravado but arguably more likely because she knew her attacker. Hiding his identity out of fear or a misplaced loyalty.

At the end of August, the body of another woman was found in Whitechapel. 'Another woman found mutilated in Whitechapel' were the kinds of headlines, the press started to go wild. There had been three murders of women in Whitechapel in under six months. The last person to see the woman alive was Emily Holland, who met her at the bottom of Osborn Street. The woman walked down Whitechapel Road, her route must have taken her past Whitechapel church. The woman's body was found about one hour later, roughly fifteen minute walk from the spot. Her murder must have taken place shortly after that conversation with Emily Holland. That woman was Polly Nichols.

The link between these three crimes must have seemed extremely plausible. The geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

The world did not hear the name 'Jack the Ripper' until late September 1888. At the beginning of September in 1888, 'who is Jack the Ripper?' was not the case the police were trying to crack. The murders of Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols was the case. If the murders had stopped here, it is doubtful anyone would argue the three crimes were related and the history books might better remember Leather Apron as the name given to the perpetrator(s) of three unsolved murders in Whitechapel in 1888.

Emma Smith was not added to the Ripper's tally. The crime was later removed from consideration. So in my opinion more historically accurate questions to ask might be, why is Emma Smith no longer considered a victim? Why did some of the later police investigators consider only the later murders? Did the investigators really establish a 'canonical five'? And should we accept their conclusions?

[Aethelwulf]

No two attacks by the same man are going to be identical, and any violent offender has free will to experiment; chop and change what works and doesn't work for him; adapt to the situation and circumstances; change his mind about attacking anyone on a particular night; escalate or go back to something he tried before if the mood takes him. Why would we put our own arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of such an individual?

I don't know what to think about the attack on Emma Smith, so I rule nothing out and remain 50/50 on a connection with one or more of the other murders, most obviously that of Martha Tabram, ripper murder or not.

I do find it remarkable that both victims were defenceless street women, and both were attacked on a Bank Holiday. The closeness of the locations is staggering. If Emma had sustained any knife wounds along with her other injuries, and had not lived long enough to talk about her ordeal, I'd have been far more inclined to link her with one or more of the Whitechapel knife attacks.

One witness suggested Emma was reluctant to go to the hospital for treatment, which, if true, might support the theory that a lone man was responsible, but she was too embarrassed to admit it. It must have been just one man who caused the truly horrific injury which proved fatal. If two or three others were present, I have to wonder whether they stood around watching, or helped to hold her down.

I seriously doubt that JtR would have been part of a gang, so it all depends on whether Emma told the truth. If she did, how would the other gang members have known if the one using the blunt instrument did go on to commit the ripper murders? More to the point, how would they know he didn't? Either way, I can't see them grassing him up and risking their own necks, assuming they were aware that the attack on Emma Smith had ended in her murder. And what about Martha Tabram? If she was a victim of the same gang we'd never know it, would we?

Whoever did that to Emma was a depraved and extremely dangerous individual, as was the creature who brutally murdered Martha Tabram, and yet we have to consider that the killer in either case did nothing like this again and bowed out just as Jack was about to make his entrance.

Love,

Caz
X

I think this post and the one below by Seanr (#17) are good and along the lines of what I think. Although it seems unlikely JtR was once in a gang, in Aprill 1888 Jtr the mutilator didn't exist and Tabram and Nicholls were still months away. Perhaps gang is not the right word either, as it implies a group going around regularly carrying out similar attacks, and as far as I know there aren't any of this nature. Perhaps she just came across a violent and maybe drunk Jtr with some friends on a night out. Smith suffered genital trauma as did Eddowes for example and Tabram was stabbed in the groin.

Putting on the suspect tinted spectacles, there are a couple of Bury references that are interesting. Those being Ellen Bury saying he had some unsavoury friends and Bury saying he wanted to go back to London and 'get a bar' with his pals. The man seen talking to Smith was described in one account as wearing a black suit and white silk necktie, which sounds rather smart. Smith was attacked on Bury's wedding night - perhaps he was out drinking with his pals. A wedding night might sound a good alibi, but Bury was punching his wife in the face two days after their marriage and kneeling on her chest and threatening her with a knife five days after their marriage. We also know Bury inflicted genital trauma on Ellen in a near identical manner to Eddowes, and stabbed her in each groin.

[MrBarnett]

There was an almost identical attack on a young Hungarian woman in a house in Back Church Lane in 1885. A group of men held her down and assaulted her with a walking stick.

[MrBarnett]

There was an almost identical attack on a young Hungarian woman in a house in Back Church Lane in 1885. A group of men held her down and assaulted her with a walking stick.

The young woman was seen by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane in whose practice it would seem Dr Timothy Killeen was working when he attended the Tabram crime scene.

Here’s Swyer giving evidence at the Old Bailey in 1878 in case involving a woman whose throat was cut by her husband.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18780114-name-255&div=t18780114-189#highlight

Although murder was rare, extreme violence against women was commonplace in the Victorian East End.

[Aethelwulf]

The young woman was seen by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane in whose practice it would seem Dr Timothy Killeen was working when he attended the Tabram crime scene.

Here’s Swyer giving evidence at the Old Bailey in 1878 in case involving a woman whose throat was cut by her husband.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-189#highlight

Although murder was rare, extreme violence against women was commonplace in the Victorian East End.

Interesting. Two occurrences in three years is still pretty rare, although I guess there might be others we don't know about. Also interesting as seanr says above the geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting. Two occurrences in three years is still pretty rare, although I guess there might be others we don't know about. Also interesting as seanr says above the geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

The attack I find most intriguing is the one carried out by the blind laces seller near Spitalfields Market on 8th September, 1889. He ‘felled’ his female guide with a blow and proceed to stab her several times. If the crowd hadn’t intervened, it might have ended up an almost carbon copy of the Tabram murder.

Annoyingly, the attacker’s name is proving elusive, although I have a candidate in mind. A vicious blind laces seller who went on to marry … Pearly Poll.

[MrBarnett]

Then there’s the attack on three women by Johannes Morgenstern in Limehouse: he stabbed one, kicked another and beat the third with a poker.

And the attack on Margaret Sullivan (the future Mrs Crossingham) by a ‘gang’ of three men. She was stabbed in the head and the side. That was in Dorset Street.

It might be interesting, if someone could be bothered, to compile a list of violent attacks against women in the East End in the last quarter of the 19thC. I suspect it would be a long list.

[MrBarnett]

We could start with the one-woman crime-wave known as Biddy the Chiver. Her violence crossed over into the early 1900s, but her nickname was earned in the 1890s. Chiver = knifer.

[Aethelwulf]

The attack I find most intriguing is the one carried out by the blind laces seller near Spitalfields Market on 8th September, 1889. He ‘felled’ his female guide with a blow and proceed to stab her several times. If the crowd hadn’t intervened, it might have ended up an almost carbon copy of the Tabram murder.

Annoyingly, the attacker’s name is proving elusive, although I have a candidate in mind. A vicious blind laces seller who went on to marry … Pearly Poll.

Interesting again. Sounds a bit different in nature though - crowd in a market. One thing that surprises me about Tabram is that given all that was done to her, no one heard a sound. Wasn't there a woman in a building nearby who said she must have been sleeping very close to the murder spot and heard nothing. Could a blind person have done all that in total silence? I mean, make a mistake because he couldn't see and allow her to scream? Wasn't there a feeling Tabram had been strangled as well?

[MrBarnett]

Interesting again. Sounds a bit different in nature though - crowd in a market. One thing that surprises me about Tabram is that given all that was done to her, no one heard a sound. Wasn't there a woman in a building nearby who said she must have been sleeping very close to the murder spot and heard nothing. Could a blind person have done all that in total silence? I mean, make a mistake because he couldn't see and allow her to scream? Wasn't there a feeling Tabram had been strangled as well?

Bearing in mind it was dark on the landing, I’m not sure how much of a handicap blindness would have been. The contusion on her head may have been the result of a blow that stunned her. As for the possibility of strangulation, Dr Killeen didn’t mention that, I think it’s a conclusion drawn from the fact that her tongue appears swollen in the photo of her. But I think there are other causes of post mortem swelling of the tongue.

These other examples don’t have to be identical to Tabram and Smith, say, they are just examples of extreme violence against women that could have led to death.

I seem to remember some time back compiling a list of knife attacks on women in London in the LVP. There were quite a few cases on there.

Obviously prostitutes were particularly vulnerable to this kind of violence and since their occupation was selling sex we shouldn’t be too surprised that there might be a sexual aspect to attacks on them. That said, I struggle with idea that the attack on Tabram had a sexual focus.

[Aethelwulf]

Obviously prostitutes were particularly vulnerable to this kind of violence and since their occupation was selling sex we shouldn’t be too surprised that there might be a sexual aspect to attacks on them. That said, I struggle with idea that the attack on Tabram had a sexual focus.

Sutcliffe's attacks sound similar to Tabram and they don't look sexual (apart from one where i think he used a beer bottle). However, a few years ago now the police released a photo of the clothes he was wearing when arrested - an inverted jumper with his legs through the arms and his crotch exposed through the neck, suggesting his one and only motivation was sexual. On one level, you could argue a man attacking a woman in the way Tabram was might hint at an underlying sexual motive expressed as a hatred of women , even if not assaulted.

[Ms Diddles]

Bearing in mind it was dark on the landing, I’m not sure how much of a handicap blindness would have been. The contusion on her head may have been the result of a blow that stunned her. As for the possibility of strangulation, Dr Killeen didn’t mention that, I think it’s a conclusion drawn from the fact that her tongue appears swollen in the photo of her. But I think there are other causes of post mortem swelling of the tongue.

These other examples don’t have to be identical to Tabram and Smith, say, they are just examples of extreme violence against women that could have led to death.

I seem to remember some time back compiling a list of knife attacks on women in London in the LVP. There were quite a few cases on there.

Obviously prostitutes were particularly vulnerable to this kind of violence and since their occupation was selling sex we shouldn’t be too surprised that there might be a sexual aspect to attacks on them. That said, I struggle with idea that the attack on Tabram had a sexual focus.

Hi Mr B,

Didn't Dr Killeen state that the focus of the stab wounds was the breasts, stomach and groin area?

That sounds like a sexual thing to me (although I suppose it could just mean that the whole torso area minus the head and limbs was the target).

[Ms Diddles]

Sutcliffe's attacks sound similar to Tabram and they don't look sexual (apart from one where i think he used a beer bottle). However, a few years ago now the police released a photo of the clothes he was wearing when arrested - an inverted jumper with his legs through the arms and his crotch exposed through the neck, suggesting his one and only motivation was sexual. On one level, you could argue a man attacking a woman in the way Tabram was might hint at an underlying sexual motive expressed as a hatred of women , even if not assaulted.

I'd never heard that about Sutcliffe, Wulf.

That's a really disturbing image.

[Aethelwulf]

I'd never heard that about Sutcliffe, Wulf.

That's a really disturbing image.

Really chilling. If you search for 'clothes sutcliffe was wearing when caught' you'll find plenty of stories about it. This from Wiki:

When Sutcliffe was stripped at the police station he was wearing an inverted V-necked jumper under his trousers. The sleeves had been pulled over his legs and the V-neck exposed his genital area. The fronts of the elbows were padded to protect his knees as, presumably, he knelt over his victims' corpses. The sexual implications of this outfit were considered obvious but it was not known to the public until published in 2003.<sup>[29]

[29]</sup> Bilton, Michael (2012) [2003]. Wicked Beyond Belief: The hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper. London: Harper Press / Harper Collins. ISBN 9780007169634.

I don't think it's a done deal that Smith and Tabram were not ripper victims. I would say Tabram very likely, Smith I'm 50/50 just because it is relatively close in time to the others and clearly very perverted. Although not a gang, I think Sutcliffe's first recorded attack was when he was in car with a friend, he ran off and bashed a woman over the head with a rock filled sock. In a similar way, Smith's attacker could have been with friends but apart/nearby if that makes sense. They may also not have cared.