overkill

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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