Ripper Victim?

[Jon Guy]

Thankyou, for this post, i will have a good read in other sections on casebook

Tabram was in a pool of blood though & Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes were not and a different mind is at work in frenzied stabbing, to that of time spared from a killer bent on ripping a corpse up.

No problem.

I find lots of interesting bits of info in the "Press Reports" menu.

The others were found in a pool of blood too, Shelley. Nichols blood had soaked into the back of her clothes. Chapman and Eddowes both had a pool of blood by the neck, and Kelly`s blood seemed to be under the bed

[Malcolm X]

ok neck wounds are mentioned on page 28......that's ok...it's time to move off this thread, before i go totally crazy

[Roy Corduroy]

I also thank you Jon for the info you shared.

Asylum escapee James Kelly, who killed his wife in 1883 by throwing her to the floor and stabbing her throat, is a suspect in this murder. His whereabouts are unknown after he jumped the Broadmoor fence in January 88. He may have been in the East End, staying with a pal.

Roy

[jmenges]

Hi all,



JM

[Admin]

All Posters will return to topic. Do not post any further off-topic posts.

[Shelley]

So, How do clothes stay arranged and unripped when they have been on someone stabbed through the clothes 39 times? There has never been an issue whether Martha looked as if she had been in a scrap. That is not the case with the first and next 3 attributed Ripper victims.

Its a non starter for proposing anything other than the knife attack disheveled her and ruined her clothes.

And stabbed throats on a woman struggling upright, and slit throats on women who were not struggling and lying down, are not alike.

Best regards

Good points Perrymason,

The fact is with so much frenzied stabbing going on, torn bits and dissarray is envitable. Even the mention of skirts up in the air doesn't amount to anything much with such frenzy and reflexes. And women engaged in prostitution could get into scraps as Chapman had a scuffle before she was killed. And apparently part of the MO that brought Tabram back into the ripper disscusion is that she was in the right place as the other canocials, solciting and this weak stance of her clothing????

[jmenges]

And another.

The first part applies to Tabram, Nichols is next, then Chapman etc.



JM

Edit: I'm posting these in response to this, btw:

Is with all this talk on this thread in posts, posters have stated that Tabram had several stab wounds to her neck, yet when i ask where the Source of information stating for such wounding on Tabram's neck, no one comes up with an answer to that question. Is it possible then that some people have made up this story of Tabram recieving stabs to her neck?

[Shelley]

And another.

The first part applies to Tabram, Nichols is next, then Chapman etc.



JM

Edit: I'm posting these in response to this, btw:

Thankyou Jmenges,

The actual photocopies from credible sources of Tabram having wounding to her neck. With the the Home Office ! When i first came on casebook everyone wanted to educate me, so here it is Offical, and i'm in the club of btw's?

[Ally]

Props Jonathon for posting that. That should put to bed any argument that there were no contemporary sourced info on neck wounds.

[Fisherman]

Shelley asks:

"pardon me please Fisherman, but where did Dr Killeen say that?"

The perhaps best source of Killeens wordings was given in teh East London Observer of August the 12:th. It covers more ground than the other sources, although all is not included even here - the effusion of blood found on Tabrams skull is not mentioned, for instance; this was included in the Manchester Guardian if I remember correctly. However, here is the report from the Observer:

"Dr. T. R. Keeling gave his evidence as follows:- I am a fully qualified doctor practicing at Brick-lane, and was called to the deceased on the morning of the 7th of August at about half-past five. I found her dead. On examining the body externally I found no less than thirty-nine punctured wounds. From my examination of the body it seemed to be that of a woman about 36 years of age, and was well nourished. I have since made a post mortem examination of the body. The brain was healthy; the left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung in two places, but the lungs were otherwise perfectly healthy. The heart was rather fatty, and was penetrated in one place, but there was otherwise nothing in the heart to cause death, although there was some blood in the pericardium. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places; the spleen was perfectly healthy, and was penetrated in two places; both the kidneys were perfectly healthy; the stomach was also perfectly healthy, but was penetrated in six places; the intestines were healthy, and so were all the other organs. The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place. I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger. I am of opinion that the wounds were inflicted during life, and from the direction which they took, it is my opinion that although some of them could have been self-inflicted, yet, there were others which could not have been so inflicted. The wounds generally would have been inflicted by a right-handed person. There was no sign whatever of any struggle having taken place; and there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated. Death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood. -"

The best,
Fisherman

[Shelley]

Shelley asks:

"pardon me please Fisherman, but where did Dr Killeen say that?"

The perhaps best source of Killeens wordings was given in teh East London Observer of August the 12:th. It covers more ground than the other sources, although all is not included even here - the effusion of blood found on Tabrams skull is not mentioned, for instance; this was included in the Manchester Guardian if I remember correctly. However, here is the report from the Observer:

"Dr. T. R. Keeling gave his evidence as follows:- I am a fully qualified doctor practicing at Brick-lane, and was called to the deceased on the morning of the 7th of August at about half-past five. I found her dead. On examining the body externally I found no less than thirty-nine punctured wounds. From my examination of the body it seemed to be that of a woman about 36 years of age, and was well nourished. I have since made a post mortem examination of the body. The brain was healthy; the left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung in two places, but the lungs were otherwise perfectly healthy. The heart was rather fatty, and was penetrated in one place, but there was otherwise nothing in the heart to cause death, although there was some blood in the pericardium. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places; the spleen was perfectly healthy, and was penetrated in two places; both the kidneys were perfectly healthy; the stomach was also perfectly healthy, but was penetrated in six places; the intestines were healthy, and so were all the other organs. The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place. I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger. I am of opinion that the wounds were inflicted during life, and from the direction which they took, it is my opinion that although some of them could have been self-inflicted, yet, there were others which could not have been so inflicted. The wounds generally would have been inflicted by a right-handed person. There was no sign whatever of any struggle having taken place; and there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated. Death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood. -"

The best,
Fisherman

Thankyou Fisherman,

And with a short post: I already know that anyway. and the credible source for Tabram's wounding to the neck was indeed from the Inquest,
for all the posters that wanted to educate me, not one actually said Inquest. And thankyou for the other newspaper articles on Tabram's corpse Fisherman. I know that already anyway. I still say it's a difference in MO, again i repeat Stabbing to cutting/slashing from Tabram to Nicholls. Still, very good effort on the information.

Cheers
Shelley

[Fisherman]

Hi Shelley!

It is indeed a different MO, and I think few would dispute that. Some, though, will call it a difference that can be overcome, and some will say it is too broad a bridge to gap in too short a time.
...and then thereīs me, who will persist in telling you that maybe all the Ripper did was to cut (at the lower body), and stab to kill when he was spooked!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

not one actually said Inquest.

I did mention it a couple of times, but it is easily missed.

[Shelley]

Hi Shelley!

It is indeed a different MO, and I think few would dispute that. Some, though, will call it a difference that can be overcome, and some will say it is too broad a bridge to gap in too short a time.
...and then thereīs me, who will persist in telling you that maybe all the Ripper did was to cut (at the lower body), and stab to kill when he was spooked!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Don't forget same MO as with weapon! Also Signature mixed in with throat-cut on Nicholls. Some would maybe even take the word trademark.

Regards
Shelley

[Fisherman]

Shelley writes:

"Don't forget same MO as with weapon! Also Signature mixed in with throat-cut on Nicholls. Some would maybe even take the word trademark."

The cutting of the neck HAS become a trademark, of course. But I donīt think that we need to accept that it was something the Ripper felt compelled to do. That compulsion was restricted to the abdominal area only, if I am correct.
I believe that the abdominal eviscerations were carried out because he felt that this was something he needed to do, so much, in fact, that he was ready to put his life on the line for it.
The cutting of the neck, though, would have been something he found out that he would benefit from doing - it would maximally diminish the risks involved in killing out in the open. And my suggestion is that was something he found out as he went along; before Tabram, he had only felt that wish to open up and eviscerate, and the practicalities involved would have been unpriorited. After Tabram, he knew that not silencing and killing would involve huge risks, risks that in all probability would get him hanged if he did not come up with a solution to the problem. And that solution was one of the things that came about as a result from his experience with Tabram.

Well, if I am correct, that is...!

The best,
Fisherman