overkill

[Fisherman]

Dorian writes:

"As I previously noted, it is possible, based on Crow's testimony, that if the area was used regularly for sleep, the landing may have also been a convenient spot for prostitutes to take their clients.
I am not suggesting that the landing was used by prostitutes to have sex whilst lying down.
To that end, it is possible, though unlikely, Tabram was on her back when she was killed."

Agreed.

"A better class of prostitutes can always be found, but for a few pennies I doubt one could find a nice, clean Whitechaple prostitute wandering the streets at night. A brief survey of the unfortunates reveals that nice and clean wasn't on offer."

Also agreed - with the addition that there is always a span to things. And that is why I suggest that even in the East end, those prostitutes who managed to stay on the, shall we say, slightly nicer and cleaner end of that span, would also be the ones most likely to bag customers. I would caution very much agains a generalized wiew saying that no Eastender could care less about his/her appearance - I think instead that they generally and typically would avoid getting their clothes torn/filthy/dirty/stained. The fact that the circumstances and ways of life made it a harder task there than anywhere else is another thing.
I am not saying that you generalize in this matter, Dorian - just that there is an obvious risk that it occurs!

In consequence:

"I don't think the state of the landing mattered to Tabram at all."

... is something I cannot agree with. The possibility is there that she was so drunk that she could not have cared less, and under such circumstances you may be right. But on the whole, I do believe that Tabram and her fellow Eastenders would have reacted in exactly the same way as you and I would, if we were asked to lie down in a puddle of dog diarrhea in the street.

"My contention was never that the landing was clean and tidy, or shiny and polished (that would be absurd), but possibly not as filth-strewn as Garry had suggested. "

Agreed.

"Tabram either led her killer there, was taken there, or the landing was found by chance. Reading Crow's testimony, it is my opinion that the location was familiar to either Tabram or her killer, or both. "

Agreed.

And so, Dorian, it seems we are pretty much agreed on the whole thing. There is only a minor discrepancy left, and we can both lie down and contemplate each otheres wiews. Just mind where you lie down, though...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Dorian Gray]

Thank you again for your reply Fisherman. I will try and clarify my comments one more time.

Hi Dorian!

You write:

"For some, the landing was a refuge of necessity. It is also possible that the landing was a regular spot used by prostitutes."

It is. But of the former we have a confirmation, of the latter we have no such thing. Moreover, I have never seen any mentioning of any rough and hard surface like that of the George Yard landing having been used for paid-for sex LYING DOWN.
Of course, we should not expect to have these things chronicled in extenso, but before I take the suggestion on board, I would like to have some sort of substantiation.

As I previously noted, it is possible, based on Crow's testimony, that if the area was used regularly for sleep, the landing may have also been a convenient spot for prostitutes to take their clients.

I am not suggesting that the landing was used by prostitutes to have sex whilst lying down.

To that end, it is possible, though unlikely, Tabram was on her back when she was killed.

Those are all important parametres - but that goes for the state of the clothing too, Dorian. If a prostitute was to be given the choice of being able to keep her clothes nice and clean or having them stained and soiled by numerous more or less smelly substances, I think the choice is a given one. Aparition is an all-important factor for every prostitute. Of course, the timing and circumstances of the particular transaction we are dealing with may tell us that her final customer could not have cared less about Tabrams appearance - but universally and generally, most clients would prefer the nice and clean offer to the stained and filthy one.

A better class of prostitutes can always be found, but for a few pennies I doubt one could find a nice, clean Whitechaple prostitute wandering the streets at night. A brief survey of the unfortunates reveals that nice and clean wasn't on offer.

"my use of Crow's testimony was to demonstrate that this particular landing was, quite possibly, a regular haunt and not as filth-strewn as Garry had noted."

Do we necessarily have a contradiction here, Dorian?
I have somewhere read about the inhabitants of the George Yard building that they were the poorset of the poor, but nice, tidy people in spite of this, and that seems to speak in favour of your contention.
Since we know, though, that the landings were open to anybody who chose to use them as nightly quarters, it would seem they were left pretty much unattended throughout the East end nights, and that would speak for the other wiew.
Those who were totally pennyless and in need of a place to sleep could probably not be too picky - asking for a shiny, polished floor and the occasional whiff of washing detergents would not be very realistic in them parts. It could well have been a filth-strewn site - AND a regular haunt.

My contention was never that the landing was clean and tidy, or shiny and polished (that would be absurd), but possibly not as filth-strewn as Garry had suggested.

Any which way, regardless if we are dealing with a relatively clean surface or a soiled one, how would Tabram be able to tell - in total darkness? Surely the normal thing to do would be to engage in the well-known and documented knee-trembler?

I don't think the state of the landing mattered to Tabram at all. Indeed, what makes Crow's testimony interesting is the regular use of the landing.

Tabram either led her killer there, was taken there, or the landing was found by chance. Reading Crow's testimony, it is my opinion that the location was familiar to either Tabram or her killer, or both.

Regards,

Dorian

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"Maybe the heart stopped well after her killer had left the scene. There's no reason to think it didn't. I the cases of Stride and Nichols blood was still flowing from the wounds at least some 5 minutes after the wounds had been inflicted."

In the Stride and Nichols cases, though, we are not dealing with pierced hearts, Frank! So in their cases, logically, the blood would be pumped through their vessels for a longer time than what would have been the case with Tabram. In her case, an effective stop to the pumping action was introduced when the heart was pierced.
Apparently, even a pierced heart CAN go on pumping for a short time, and so some blood could have been pumped through the wounds. I don´t know, however, how common this is.

Michael writes:

"One man pocketing his bloody pen knife and then pulling out a bayonet or dagger doesnt ring true."

Nicely put, Michael - and fully agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

At least Fishermans suggestions adhere to the most vital piece of the evidence in the case of Martha Tabram IMHO.....2 weapons. Thats most probably 2 men, or women, or one man who leaves and another who brings a big blade by just after him. One man pocketing his bloody pen knife and then pulling out a bayonet or dagger doesnt ring true.

For that last one Id like to know if the launderer at any military installation that was nearby that had men out that night noticed anyones trousers with bloody wipes on the thighs the next morning .....but I think 2 weapons suggests 2 attackers in this case.

Together...maybe to rob her....she had done at least one trick we know of and had time for a few more.....or with one coming onto the landing after the pen knife attack.

All the best.

[FrankO]

And that radically increases the chances of someone seeing or hearing what was going on, someone, perhaps, with a suppressed dream of opening up a woman and getting at her inner organs.

Well, 'radically' would be way too much for my taste, Fish! He still would have needed to walk by at the very minute that Tabram was done for. Not only that, he needed to hear and/or see something too, although it seems to have been a rather silent affair, which - it being dark - would have been difficult to notice from street level.

Vi ses!
Frank

[FrankO]

But once we take a look at such a scenario, it offers explanations to all them points that have formerly been very hard to explain in Tabrams case.

I can’t argue with you there, Fish.

Of course, even if the blow to the heart was of a fatal character, the heart could still go on pumping blood for a shortish time, and maybe that would be enough to produce the image of all wounds having been dealt during life - but if we buy the scenario with a scavenging Jack, we would provide Killeen with much firmer ground, I feel.

It would indeed provide Killeen with much firmer ground, but (as a medical layman) I don’t see any particular reason to think that substantial time needed to have passed without any stabbing taking place. Maybe the heart stopped well after her killer had left the scene. There's no reason to think it didn't. I the cases of Stride and Nichols blood was still flowing from the wounds at least some 5 minutes after the wounds had been inflicted.

Plus it would rid us of the image of one man with two differing mindsets, of course!

You knew I would react, so I'm gonna: I don't think there's anything impossible or even improbable about a man acting on impulse as a first reaction, but thereafter regaining control of himself.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Oh, and as for:
"it seems rather unlikely to me that the Ripper would accidentally stumble upon Tabram’s dying body with her lying on that first floor landing, probably out of sight from the street"

...I fully agree with you that she would have been out of sight from the street...

...but quite possibly not from inside the block, as suggested by John Bennett´s pic of the back of the building! Of course, it raises the question of what our man was doing inside that block, and that would be anybodys answer - work as a night watchman or as a burglar perhaps - but the fact remains that we need not see the Tabram deed as something that went down in the seclusion of the inside of a house. Instead it may well have happened more or less outside, on the gallery; at least parts of it may. And that radically increases the chances of someone seeing or hearing what was going on, someone, perhaps, with a suppressed dream of opening up a woman and getting at her inner organs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"it seems rather unlikely to me that the Ripper would accidentally stumble upon Tabram’s dying body with her lying on that first floor landing, probably out of sight from the street."

It IS unlikely, Frank, no doubt about that. But once we take a look at such a scenario, it offers explanations to all them points that have formerly been very hard to explain in Tabrams case. And so I entertain it as a very real possibility.
One of the points I find very interesting here is the fact that Killeen was quite adamant stating that all the wounds had been dealt during life. That would be something that he established looking at the amounts of blood that had seeped from the holes in her trunk. And those amounts would be quite substantial if some substantial time passed inbetween "my" knife-wielders, thereby facilitating Killeens verdict on that score.
If we instead imagine that all 39 wounds were inflicted in a fast sequence, then some of the 37 wounds would have come about very close in time to the one that pierced the heart, and therefore, it would possibly have been harder to tell on Killeens behalf that they were dealt during life.
Of course, even if the blow to the heart was of a fatal character, the heart could still go on pumping blood for a shortish time, and maybe that would be enough to produce the image of all wounds having been dealt during life - but if we buy the scenario with a scavenging Jack, we would provide Killeen with much firmer ground, I feel. Plus it would rid us of the image of one man with two differing mindsets, of course!
Doesn´t make my suggestion less unlikely, though - but it offers very useful explanations at many levels...!

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Those who slept rough on the landings in the East end did not do so out of choice - they did it because there were no other options open to them.

Good point, Christer.

But since Killeen asserts us that he could see no physical results on the body bearing witness of Tabram having received or dealt the kind of violence involved in such a struggle, could it be that we are dealing with a case where not only the skirts were lifted, but also the clothes at the bosom disarranged AFTER she was totally subdued, and not in some sort of tussle?

That thought crossed my mind a couple of times these last few days. Did he first try to force the bosom of her dress open so that he had access to her breasts, and then lifted her skirts because that was easier and offered access to something even more interesting?

My own suggestion is that we are dealing with two men, with some space in time inbetween them, and since I would suggest that the first man was the frenzied stabber, then why would he be interested in tearing the clothes away at her bosom? Maybe the second man, the man interested in cutting the private parts/lower abdomen, was the one who both lifted the skirts and tore at her clothing over the chest? To me, that would make sense.

I agree with you in the sense that the whole of the attack on Tabram seems to have roughly consisted of 2 parts: a frenzied part focussing on her upper body and a short but more controlled one focussing on the lower part of the body and taking place after the frenzied stabbing.

The notion of 2 knives supports your suggestion of 2 men separately attacking her. However, it seems rather unlikely to me that the Ripper would accidentally stumble upon Tabram’s dying body with her lying on that first floor landing, probably out of sight from the street.

All the best, Fish!
Frank

[FrankO]

The wound to the "private part" accounts for less than 3% of the indisputably deliberate wounds, though, Frank - and all the others were stabs.

By ‘deliberate’ I meant ‘with a mind clear enough to consciously make the choice to inflict that wound, in that area’, or, in other words, a more controlled action. I don’t see that kind of deliberation in the stabs to the upper body. Gareth.

As I’ve tried to explain, the part of the attack were there was no control may well have been a result of the killer, if the Ripper, not going out with murder in mind and therefore being unprepared for what was going to happen with Tabram.

Only when the worst anger subsided, he was able to think and come up with the idea to lift her skirt (if they hadn’t been lifted by her already) and focus his attention to her private part. If only briefly, he only then managed to act on his fantasies rather than uncontrolled anger.

So, that would be the part that counts, because what happened to Nichols e.a. at the very least suggests control and was undoubtedly involved the acting out of fantasies. The interesting and important thing, in my view, is what he would have done if he were reasonably in control of himself and in Tabram’s case that may have been the lifting of her skirts and use his knife on the private parts.

As I said yesterday, if there's one thing you can easily do on a landing that you can't do in the open street or a dank alleyway, it's to lie down.

I haven’t forgotten, Gareth. However, my point is that I don’t see why it would be easier to lie down on a stone landing under a roof than it would be on a stone pavement under the sky. Sure, a landing may have been a bit cleaner and it would certainly be dry, but it would be just as uncomfortable lying on any other hard surface. To service a punter standing up would be far more comfortable for the women.

Otherwise, you might as well prop yourself against an exterior wall - as we know many unfortunates did.

I don’t think that Tabram and her killer going up the stairs and ‘underroofs’ indicates or even suggests that they did that for the purpose of having sex lying down. Like Mitre Square, the backyard of Hanbury Street and other places, it may very well just have been the first and most private spot they found when entering the street.

All the best,
Frank

[Shelley]

Fisherman,

Lying down on a cold floor wouldn't be a problem if you had been drinking, as it would keep out the cold anyway. However, i am inclined to consider that prostitutes ' did it ' standing up and probably would most of the time. However, they would ultimatley please the customer as that was thier living provision sometimes, i thought Tabram's living put down as ' a hawker ', so maybe she was just a ' part-time ' prostitute?. With Tabram lying down, i think it's likely that she slid down, after the first strikes of the attack on her.

[Fisherman]

Hi Dorian!

You write:

"For some, the landing was a refuge of necessity. It is also possible that the landing was a regular spot used by prostitutes."

It is. But of the former we have a confirmation, of the latter we have no such thing. Moreover, I have never seen any mentioning of any rough and hard surface like that of the George Yard landing having been used for paid-for sex LYING DOWN.
Of course, we should not expect to have these things chronicled in extenso, but before I take the suggestion on board, I would like to have some sort of substantiation.

"These woman were called unfortunates for a reason, and to that end their appearance is not something I would consider overly important. Rather one should consider availability, the willingness and need of both the client and prostitute, and the timing and circumstances of the transaction."

Those are all important parametres - but that goes for the state of the clothing too, Dorian. If a prostitute was to be given the choice of being able to keep her clothes nice and clean or having them stained and soiled by numerous more or less smelly substances, I think the choice is a given one. Aparition is an all-important factor for every prostitute. Of course, the timing and circumstances of the particular transaction we are dealing with may tell us that her final customer could not have cared less about Tabrams appearance - but universally and generally, most clients would prefer the nice and clean offer to the stained and filthy one.

"Then I take it stabbing someone 39 times in the dark is easier than sex on a filthy floor?"

Couldn´t say, Dorian, as I have never been able to compare them! But differing degrees of determination may have played an important role here.

"my use of Crow's testimony was to demonstrate that this particular landing was, quite possibly, a regular haunt and not as filth-strewn as Garry had noted."

Do we necessarily have a contradiction here, Dorian?
I have somewhere read about the inhabitants of the George Yard building that they were the poorset of the poor, but nice, tidy people in spite of this, and that seems to speak in favour of your contention.
Since we know, though, that the landings were open to anybody who chose to use them as nightly quarters, it would seem they were left pretty much unattended throughout the East end nights, and that would speak for the other wiew.
Those who were totally pennyless and in need of a place to sleep could probably not be too picky - asking for a shiny, polished floor and the occasional whiff of washing detergents would not be very realistic in them parts. It could well have been a filth-strewn site - AND a regular haunt.

Any which way, regardless if we are dealing with a relatively clean surface or a soiled one, how would Tabram be able to tell - in total darkness? Surely the normal thing to do would be to engage in the well-known and documented knee-trembler?

The best,
Fisherman

[Dorian Gray]

Fisherman, thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should clarify my post.

I think, Dorian, that we need to weigh in the differing necessities involved. Those who slept rough on the landings in the East end did not do so out of choice - they did it because there were no other options open to them.

Exactly. If Crow's testimony is to be believed, the landing was used frequently, and that is why he, "took no notice" of her. For some, the landing was a refuge of necessity. It is also possible that the landing was a regular spot used by prostitutes.

Whether the landing was a good place to turn a trick, sleep, or both, the location was suitable--filth or not.

In Tabram´s case, I think it is important to keep in mind that she made her living from prostitution, and in that game the best-looking girl will bag the most customers, whereas the worst-looking lady will have a hard time providing for herself. Appearances are important, simple as that.
And the attire worn by the prostitutes must have played a role in this game. Anybody who could dress up in something even remotely fancy would have stood a better chance than somebody who had dragged her clothing through pools of piss and dog-poop.

These woman were called unfortunates for a reason, and to that end their appearance is not something I would consider overly important. Rather one should consider availability, the willingness and need of both the client and prostitute, and the timing and circumstances of the transaction.

Of course, if you could make sure that the landing you contemplated lying down on was nice and clean, then maybe some girls would have a go at it - but on the landing we are speaking of, it was pitch dark and impossible to see anything, more or less.

Then I take it stabbing someone 39 times in the dark is easier than sex on a filthy floor?

To this we must add that concrete landings are considerably uncomfy places to lie down in, for prostitutes and customers alike. And - of course - Tabram would resonably have had a choice, at least as long as it came to selling sex, whether she would go down on her back or not.

The possible presence of filth, or cold, hard stone does not dissuade me from speculating that people used the landing regularly for sleep, or sex.

Though Tabram could have been killed while lying down, asleep, having one of her fits, or passed-out, my use of Crow's testimony was to demonstrate that this particular landing was, quite possibly, a regular haunt and not as filth-strewn as Garry had noted.

Regards,

Dorian

[Fisherman]

Dorian Gray writes:

"I agree with your assessment of the state of those landings, yet Crow's testimony (The Times, August 10, 1888) indicates it may have been common practice"

I think, Dorian, that we need to weigh in the differing necessities involved. Those who slept rough on the landings in the East end did not do so out of choice - they did it because there were no other options open to them.
In Tabram´s case, I think it is important to keep in mind that she made her living from prostitution, and in that game the best-looking girl will bag the most customers, whereas the worst-looking lady will have a hard time providing for herself. Appearances are important, simple as that.
And the attire worn by the prostitutes must have played a role in this game. Anybody who could dress up in something even remotely fancy would have stood a better chance than somebody who had dragged her clothing through pools of piss and dog-poop.
Of course, if you could make sure that the landing you contemplated lying down on was nice and clean, then maybe some girls would have a go at it - but on the landing we are speaking of, it was pitch dark and impossible to see anything, more or less.
To this we must add that concrete landings are considerably uncomfy places to lie down in, for prostitutes and customers alike. And - of course - Tabram would resonably have had a choice, at least as long as it came to selling sex, whether she would go down on her back or not.

My hunch is that Garry is right here - Tabram lying down for sex seems a not very feasible suggestion to me. I also concur with Frank - the raised skirts were in all probability raised not for sex but for giving access to the knife.
The suggestion that the skirts would have ended up on her belly as a result of her slumping down does not appeal to me in the least - these skirts were sewn using heavy cloth and gravity would ensure that they were striving downwards, not upwards, unless tampered with.
The fact that it would seem that her clothes were disarranged to a significant extent could of course suggest a struggle, just as Reeves suggested.
But since Killeen asserts us that he could see no physical results on the body bearing witness of Tabram having received or dealt the kind of violence involved in such a struggle, could it be that we are dealing with a case where not only the skirts were lifted, but also the clothes at the bosom disarranged AFTER she was totally subdued, and not in some sort of tussle?

My own suggestion is that we are dealing with two men, with some space in time inbetween them, and since I would suggest that the first man was the frenzied stabber, then why would he be interested in tearing the clothes away at her bosom? Maybe the second man, the man interested in cutting the private parts/lower abdomen, was the one who both lifted the skirts and tore at her clothing over the chest? To me, that would make sense.

The best,
Fisherman

[Dorian Gray]

Gary,

I agree with your assessment of the state of those landings, yet Crow's testimony (The Times, August 10, 1888) indicates it may have been common practice:

"Alfred George Crow, cabdriver, 35, George-yard-buildings, deposed that he got home at half-past 3 on Tuesday morning. As he was passing the first-floor landing he saw a body lying on the ground. He took no notice, as he was accustomed to seeing people lying about there."

Having lived in some awful areas, and presently in the core of a major city, the notion of Tabram taking a client to a filthy landing for sex, or sleep, is not unreasonable.

Regards,

Dorian