overkill

[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

[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

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman, Dorian..

Interesting posts - I think we must be a bit careful not to impose our own 21st Century perceptions of cleanliness - and the desire for it - on to a late 19th Century situation.

I doubt that some of the women - who couldn't even find the money for accommodation - had more than one set of clothes. Probably, they wore them until they fell off. But yes, they would have wanted and needed to preserve them imo - because if they didn't, where was the next set going to come from?

Clothing for them was about protection first and foremost - from the weather, mostly. They may have dreamed of having a nice dress - who knows? But I don't think fashion was really an option for them. It's a stark contrast with the affluent societies most of us in the West inhabit today - where clothing is embued with a set of choices which display and confirm our social identity in a conscious way.

But, less of the sociology, and back to the topic under discussion! No, I don't think women such as Martha would have laid themselves down on the floor for sex - and in fact this must be self-evident from the term 'knee-trembler' - the exact origins of which are not certain, but which is thought currently to date from the mid-19th Century at least.

I think there was probably more than one reason for this being the preferred mode of conducting business if one was engaged in prostitution - cleaner, yes, but also less vulnerable.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

...and this time I have no objections at all. A thoroughly good post there, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Fisherman!

...and this time I have no objections at all. A thoroughly good post there, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

You Approve!

I must be doing something right!

Have a good day - and thanks!

Jane x

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Thanks for some interesting posts. Just thought I would add that we do have some indication that appearance was important at least to some of the victims.

We have Poly Nichols saying “ see what a jolly bonnet I have, I will son get the doss money” (may not be exact wording off top of head) and of course there are tails of Mary Jane Kelly parading the neighborhood with her clean Apron. I’ve always wondered if the tin bathtub beneath the bed was a small laundry/washing business?

And as someone pointed out care and pride in clothes was to some extent more important then. Kate had a sewing kit on her, and I always remember my old Nanna carrying one saying “a stitch in time saves nine” and doing repairs as they happened.

I agree that we cannot compare modern thinking with those of the time. One of my main mantras, but we should be careful of making any assumption that appearance and keeping clean would not have been important. The standards would have been different, yes, imagine the smell. But I think the victims would have been in a market where it did matter how they looked. Look it Liz the night she was murdered, if she was doing business (which I believe) she had gone to some trouble to look good and of respectable appearance.

All the best

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"You Approve!

I must be doing something right!"

Actually, Jane, it HAS been known to happen....!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"Just thought I would add that we do have some indication that appearance was important at least to some of the victims.
We have Poly Nichols saying “ see what a jolly bonnet I have, I will son get the doss money” (may not be exact wording off top of head) and of course there are tails of Mary Jane Kelly parading the neighborhood with her clean Apron."

Exactly, Jeff - good points well presented!

(there Jane - see what I mean?)

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I don't know about "frequently more filthy", Garry. Model Dwellings usually had strict rules and rotas for keeping the communal passageways in good order.