overkill

[FrankO]

I'm not so sure on that latter point, Jon, for two reasons. One scenario is that it's possible that she had raised her own skirts, but Jack himself pulled them back down again (e.g. in panic/disgust/whatever).

What are you saying here, Gareth? That Nichols was found with her skirts down?

Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, Polly was attacked whilst not preparing for intercourse - in which Jack would have lifted the skirts without her help.

It seems that the Ripper attacked his victims while they were standing up. It's perfectly feasible that he did that while they didn't focus on him but on putting away his money (in Nichols' case, that may have been her bonnet, in Chapman's and Eddowes' cases that may have been the pockets that were found cut) or on lifting their skirts, as has been suggested.

But I can't imagine that the victims would be holding on to their skirts all through the initial attack until they were lying down with their skirts raised. Therefore, it seems far more likely that the Ripper raised their skirts.

That being the case, it's easier to justify the idea that it was Tabram herself who lifted her skirts.

I think the above would apply to Tabram's situation as well in that she was very likely standing up, but wouldn't have been holding on to her skirts all through the stabbing until she was down and on her back with her skirts still raised. So, to me at least, it seems more likely that her killer did that.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

What are you saying here, Gareth? That Nichols was found with her skirts down?

Whilst Cross (or was it Paul?) hitched her skirt back down again, the extent to which it was lifted up when the body was found isn't clear. I don't get the impression that it was thrown up over her chest, say.

I think the above would apply to Tabram's situation as well in that she was very likely standing up

I don't see that as especially likely, Frank - certainly not any more likely than the possibility that she was lying down, with her skirts lifted up, waiting for her customer to get on with it. She was indoors, after all. Why should she necessarily have stood?

[FrankO]

... but with Tabram her wounding was administered through the clothing.

Hi Shelley,

I've got one remark here. Perhaps a minor point, but we don't know whether that wound to the private part was administered through the clothing. The others quite probably were, although there's one newspaper that mentions that the "bosom of the dress being torn away", leaving room for some of the stabs to the upper chest having not been made through the clothes. But there's no actual mention of this anywhere in the surviving information.

Frank

[FrankO]

She was indoors, after all. Why should she necessarily have stood?

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

I don't pretend to know what was normal for a prostitute and her client to do back in the East End in those days, but it wasn't particularly comfortable lying on a stone landing, unless you desperately needed a place to sleep. I've always thought the usual way in which prostitutes serviced their clients out in the streets was standing up, which would have been more comfortable than lying down on a street or whatever, and it wouldn't make your clothes unnecessarily dirty and/or wet.

But I could be wrong, of course.

Frank

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley,

I've got one remark here. Perhaps a minor point, but we don't know whether that wound to the private part was administered through the clothing. The others quite probably were, although there's one newspaper that mentions that the "bosom of the dress being torn away", leaving room for some of the stabs to the upper chest having not been made through the clothes. But there's no actual mention of this anywhere in the surviving information.

Frank

Hi Frank, well it is possible that the upper part of the dress on Tabram could have been torn in the stabbings, however that was what i meant with most of the stabbings done through Tabram's clothes, as for the private part bit on Tabram, i have no idea whether this had happened through the skirt or not, but with this stab wound injury to Tabram's ' private part ' with only 3 inches in length & 1 inch approx in depth, it does strike me, to be a good possibility of an ' accidental ' cut & perhaps caused when the blade hit her ' sternum bone ' in deflection of the blade hitting the bone, this is also a very likely senario considering the attacker ( Well, at least 1 if you regard 2 men as a possibility) of Tabram using an ' overhand ' style of weilding the blade.

[perrymason]

I'm not quite sure what this means... I was just pointing out that the version of Killeen's testimony you quoted left out some stuff. And because in my opinion, this particular wound is relevant. Not sure what you mean about winning friends and influencing people... are you talking about me?

Sam, I realize of course that this wound does not compare with the later wounds. But I do think it is significant if indeed it was a cut to the genitals.

RH

Hi Rob,

I was saying you were right stating that not all reports suggested that there was ANY cut on her abdomen, and that a cut made while stabbing in a frenzied manner isnt unusual. The skirts being lifted could have been part of the obvious struggle she had with him.

I was complimenting you on starting a point with data that doesnt support your point, ie....that there was just one report that a "cut" wound occurred in....out of the many that were written.

Best regards Robhouse

[perrymason]

Mmmm, and of course all of this predisposes that both Nichols and Tabram had agreed to having sex lying down on their backs, one in the street and the other on a landing, both venues being more or less pitch dark.

I am having serious trouble with that suggestion - as usual.

The best, all
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

When Nichols and Chapman and Eddowes are on their backs they were most probably unconscious....so not much chance that position with them tied in any way to "connection".

All the best mate.

[FrankO]

Whilst Cross (or was it Paul?) hitched her skirt back down again, the extent to which it was lifted up when the body was found isn't clear. I don't get the impression that it was thrown up over her chest, say.

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

Frank

[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.

[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".

[perrymason]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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