overkill

[Garry Wroe]

The problem, though, Sam, is that the landings of those tenement buildings were frequently more filthy and urine-soaked than the open streets or dank alleyways you mentioned.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn’t matter, Gareth. She apparently received one cut-like wound to the private part, while it seems that all the others were inflicted on the upper body. That in itself suggests the wound to the private part was inflicted deliberately, which is what counts.

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

If only we (or at least I) knew it was common for prostitutes to lie down on stone surfaces for the purpose of servicing clients, regardless of whether there was a roof over their heads or not, then you’d have a point.

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

[FrankO]

Tabram received no such wounds,...

It doesn’t matter, Gareth. She apparently received one cut-like wound to the private part, while it seems that all the others were inflicted on the upper body. That in itself suggests the wound to the private part was inflicted deliberately, which is what counts.

... and was found on an indoor landing after having earlier entered the same premises expressly to have sex with a client.

Minor point perhaps, but we don’t know she entered the same premises. Pearly Poll didn’t mention George Yard Buildings.

Taking all this into account, the sense that Tabram (or her client, for that matter) lifted her skirts in preparation for a sexual transaction is undoubtedly stronger than in the case of Nichols.

If only we (or at least I) knew it was common for prostitutes to lie down on stone surfaces for the purpose of servicing clients, regardless of whether there was a roof over their heads or not, then you’d have a point. As far as I'm concerned, of course.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Setting aside Killeens opinions on her state of disarray, George Reeves the man that finds her said.. "the deceased's clothes were disarranged, as though she had had a struggle with some one.". One of the investigative values a first witness offers is potentially the exact state of the victim while still in place at the crime scene. When its a policeman or a doctor, so much the better, but more often than not in these cases, it was the general public.

Now Killeen did say that he thought all 39 stabs occurred during "life"....which gives you the frenzied evidence, they must have been quickly executed stabs, the pool of blood may have occurred as she slumped to the ground....while being stabbed. Coupled with the disarranged clothing, a slumping motion of her body with her clothing riding up as she slumps is not only probable, its almost a forgone conclusion. If she was standing as she is being stabbed of course.

All the best Frank.

[FrankO]

Even if they both had exposed privates, its clearly within the realm of possibility that Marthas hemline was raised during a fracas, and also almost assured that Pollys was deliberately raised to expose skin he was about to cut into. These women didnt wear knickers, it wasnt hard to become exposed from a little tussle.

Hi Michael,

As to the tussle, it is interesting to see that the East London Advertiser and EL Observer of 11 August wrote that Dr. Killeen deposed that there were no signs of whatever struggle. How he came to say that we don’t know. We only know that it was mentioned by other witnesses that there was no hair or anything in Tabram’s hands, no bloody footprints were found on the landing, nobody had heard a thing and it certainly seems as if there were no defensive wounds on her hands. This may very well have led Killeen to his deposition.

Also, I can imagine the clothes being disarranged during a struggle and even that the skirts would move up somewhat, but it would seem rather unlikely to me that her skirts would be ‘thrown upwards as far as the centre of the body’ in a struggle.

Then, regardless of whatever else happened to Tabram or how, the fact remains that her skirts were found raised and that there was a cut-like wound to the private part. And with this occurring only 3 weeks before we know the Ripper became active in the same district, I just can’t sweep these aspects under the carpet. To me they would be just a little too much of a coincidence.

To me therefore, it’s quite possible that the Ripper did for Tabram in the spur of the moment, while he hadn’t planned on killing her (or anybody). Or he didn’t kill her but her murder triggered him into action.

... in Marthas, its strongly suggested by the presence of wounds made by 2 separate weapons.

The suggestion of the 2 weapons is the main reason why I doubt that Tabram fell at the hand of the Ripper, but not necessarily the stabs to her throat, chest and upper abdomen.

Best regards Michael,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

But what did he mean by stomach

That irks me too, Frank - although, in colloquial English, the "stomach" usually includes the belly.

If he meant belly, then it may have been lower, but would nevertheless leave Nichols private parts exposed. But the general idea would be the same: both Nichols' and Tabram's private parts were left uncovered.

But then Nichols suffered deep and lengthy lacerations to her lower abdomen - horizontal and vertical, it seems - which would have been made easier by lifting her skirts. In other words, the lifting of the skirts in Nichols' case seems not to have been done with sex in mind, but with the specific intent on the killer's behalf to inflict those wounds.

Tabram received no such wounds, and was found on an indoor landing after having earlier entered the same premises expressly to have sex with a client. Taking all this into account, the sense that Tabram (or her client, for that matter) lifted her skirts in preparation for a sexual transaction is undoubtedly stronger than in the case of Nichols.

[Ben]

Note: "the killer was less experienced when the attacks were frenzied" .... and where would he have gained experience between Martha and Polly's murder as there is a dramatic difference between the 2murders.

No there isn't, Lozle.

There's a negligible difference between the two murders.

If the two murders were committed today, any modern investigator would consider them very simililar in contrast to the differences most serial killers have shown themselves capable of. He wouldn't have required any outside learning to get from one to the other beyond what he discovered on the job itself, e.g. that stabbing was enjoyable, but let's try ripping abdomens next time around. He most emphatically would not have required weeks of "fantasy" to dream up such a proposed alteration.

I've already provided you with examples of serial killers whose first murders were haphazard in contrast to their later crimes. Nichols didn't require a genius, incidentally. It generated no more or less noise that the Tabram attack and it included stabbing. No studying in the classroom required for that one, methinks, and nor were weeks and weeks of studied fantasising remotely necessary.

If the murderer was in fact JTR, why would they have survived? JTR always finsihed his work

Well, no.

We can't say that without knowing how many victims he attacked. He may well have started on an inexperienced scale, and botched a few of his earliest attempts accordingly. The attacks on Mmes. Millwood and Wilson immediately spring to mind in this regard.

Best regards,
Ben

If he meant belly, then it may have been lower, but would nevertheless leave Nichols private parts exposed. But the general idea would be the same: both Nichols' and Tabram's private parts were left uncovered.

All the best,
Frank

Hi again Frank,

Even if they both had exposed privates, its clearly within the realm of possibility that Marthas hemline was raised during a fracas, and also almost assured that Pollys was deliberately raised to expose skin he was about to cut into. These women didnt wear knickers, it wasnt hard to become exposed from a little tussle.

In Pollys case, to do what he did, he had to lift her skirt or cut it open. To do what was done to Martha, which was to simply kill her with an extraordinarily enthusiastic knife hand, she neednt have any skin exposed...any that was, was likely a byproduct of the physicality of her murder.

A physicality that is glaringly absent in the clothing and demeanor of the body in the cases of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Liz Stride. Mary fought with her attacker also. The three I mentioned though, by their appearance in death, did not.

A stabber that fights his victims vs a slicer and cutter that eviscerates his victims while they are compliant and not resisting.......to me the differences are as clear as Emma Smith from the Canonicals.. in Emmas case, multiple attackers is a given by her own story, in Marthas, its strongly suggested by the presence of wounds made by 2 separate weapons.

Best regards as always Frank.

[FrankO]

Thanks, Frank. I note the words "almost up to her stomach".

But what did he mean by stomach, Gareth? If he meant the actual stomach, then, to me, that comes quite close to Barrett's deposition as presented in the East London Observer of 11 August, which reads: "The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed;"

If he meant belly, then it may have been lower, but would nevertheless leave Nichols private parts exposed. But the general idea would be the same: both Nichols' and Tabram's private parts were left uncovered.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Frank, i did mention that Robert Paul was the one who admitted to ' pulling down ' Nicholls skirts in a post on this thread, a couple or perhaps 3 pages back.

Thanks, Shelley. I guess I must have missed it in all the posts that were coming and that I was writing myself. Anyway, my mentioning it was a reaction to Gareth's remark that he didn't get the impression that it was thrown up over her chest.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

And again, so the talk about where Marthas killers focus was is accurate, in Killeens opinion, it was her body from breasts to groin....cause that where the 39 stabs were. All up and down above the waist and below the jaw.

Hi Michael and all,

It is interesting to see that at least 3 newspapers mention "39 punctured wounds on the body and legs."

Now I'm off to bed, so goodnight.

Frank

[Shelley]

I just looked it up, Gareth, and it was Paul. He deposed: "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

Frank

Frank, i did mention that Robert Paul was the one who admitted to ' pulling down ' Nicholls skirts in a post on this thread, a couple or perhaps 3 pages back.

And again, so the talk about where Marthas killers focus was is accurate, in Killeens opinion, it was her body from breasts to groin....cause that where the 39 stabs were. All up and down above the waist and below the jaw.

There is no evidence that Marthas killer had any preferred area to stab in.....and there is ample evidence that Jack the Ripper definitely preferred the female abdomen to cut into.

She was stabbed multiply in regions, not a region.

This stabbing is external, from full arms or forearm length....The Ripper handled internal organs,.... thats not external.

And despite the protestations, I submit that the bulk of Marthas stabs were committed while she was standing and perhaps restrained, choked ... try and move up and down a body while stabbing from over it while its laying down.

Best regards all

[Sam Flynn]

I just looked it up, Gareth, and it was Paul. He deposed: "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

Thanks, Frank. I note the words "almost up to her stomach".

[Sam Flynn]

It seems more to have been a case of 'underroofs', Gareth. Not really indoors with a comfy bed and all.

I originally put "indoors" in quotes, Frank That said, what can't a prostitute do outdoors that she can easily do "underroofs"? One answer is: "she can lie down".

I've always thought the usual way that prostitutes serviced their clients out in the streets was standing up.

Quite probably - which is why I can't see that they'd be too bothered about going inside unless it was chucking it down with rain and/or they fancied a "fourpenny horizontal"... as opposed to the "twopenny upright" against a slimy al fresco wall.