Ripper Victim?

[paul emmett]

Great discussion!

I have a problem/question about "targeting." If the groin is a targeted area here, how can Sugden say that "the lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth"? While I've always considered that wound the start of ripping, it certianly can't make the groin a targeted area.

[Blackkat]

oh mah' gosh what a good question Paul, glad I read through all of the posts I was going to ask the same thing. My curiosity is peaked.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:
"my main reason for most likely excluding Tabram has to be based on the evidence of PC Barrett and his encounter of a soldier at the right place at the right time, just a few minuted before the murder is supposed to have occurred (according to Killeen). Especially since we know that Tabram as well as Pearly Poll appear to have served such clients earlier that night and most probably had on previous occasions, although that particular one doesn't necessarily need to be one of those that Pearly Poll described.
To me this is far more significant to the context and from an investigative point of view than any medical/psychological arguments"

But Glenn, even if Tabram was killed by a soldier - from where do we gain the certainty that proving that a soldier did it will disprove that it was Jacks work?

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Surely the key point with respect to where Martha's wounds were has little or nothing to do with whether it could have been an Early Jack or not. She has wounds where we might expect them if killed by the Ripper...to the abdomen and the neck.

What is the most relevant element when assessing Martha inclusion I think is the number of stabs. Its clear that Jack the Ripper could kill with just one cut, and since it was by cutting their throats when they were made compliant by cutting off air first, 9 frenzied stabs to the neck seems too amateur, to then kill Mary Ann in the manner he does. Which is also on a street sidewalk, not discreetly on a dark staircase in the back of a house. Only the Rippers Hanbury location, and Marys Kellys room could be considered as having comparable privacy.

It would seem many feel his bravado isn't an important element of this killer...some even think he'd be happier killing with less exposure to risk.

My best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:
"9 frenzied stabs to the neck seems too amateur, to then kill Mary Ann in the manner he does."

Well, Michael, if you are to act like an amateur, I think that doing so in the beginning makes far more sense than the other way around ...

Also, it is only if we accept that his true aim was to cut Tabrams neck to the bone that nine stabs look amateurish. If his goal was to deliver nine stabs to her neck, and then to move on to other areas, we are dealing with a pro, wouldnīt you say?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Returning to Glenns earlier post, where he writes:

"I would expect some occasional, superficial cuts as well, just penetrating the fat.
That being said, I tend to attribute that either to coincidence (stranger things have happened) or that Killeen simply didn't record any minor, superficial cuts."

...i think that the time has come to delve deeper into Tabram, so to speak

The problem with Tabram is that it is hard to make any conclusive sense from Killeens counting of the wounds on her body.
Letīs walk through it just the same, and see where we end up!

39 wounds; that was the total tally, according to Killeen. And we have a fair number of them accounted for:

Nine to the neck.
One to the heart.
Five to the left lung.
Two to the right lung.
Two to the spleen.
Five to the liver.
Six to the stomach.
One cut to the lower abdomen.

...and that adds up to 31 wounds, presuming that the stabs that pierced her liver were not the self same stabs that punctured the spleen. But since she was found flat on her back, the logical way to go about it, would be to assume that there were no stabs that pierced two organs. So letīs keep it there, for simplicityīs sake.

Obviously, we have eight wounds unaccounted for. Where did they go?

A simple explanation would be to listen to Killeen as he tells us that the areas that seemed targetted, were the breasts, the abdomen, the stomach and the vagina. Tabram was found with her clothing lifted, allowing access to the groin area. And since we have so far not counted a single stab to the vagina, whereas Killeen asserts us that the vagina WAS one of the four main targets for the stabber, it is obvious that we have to place a number of stabs there. How many is impossible to say, but there is of course the possibility that the lacking eight stabs all were stabs to this region.

Or is there? Letīs have another look at what was said about the wounds. It appears that there was ”at least 22 stab wounds to the trunk; 17 in the breast, including 5 stabs wounds to the left lung, 2 stabs to the right lung - albeit healthy, and the heart was stabbed once, which was rather fatty”.

Where does this leave us? The 22 wounds to the trunk that were there – at least – would have been the seven lung piercings, the heart stab, the spleen punctures, the holes in her liver, the cut to the lower abdomen and the six stabs through her stomach. That makes 22.

But it is stated that there were 17 stabs to the breast! And there is no reason to count the six stomach stabs as breast damages. Nor should the cut to the lower abdomen be added to this tally.
Thatīs deducting seven stabs from the total tally of 22 trunk wounds, leaving only fifteen. Meaning that we suddenly fall two stabs short of the promised seventeen breast wounds.

So, is this where we pick up two of the unaccounted eight stabs? It would seem so.
But there is more to consider here: what about the five stabs to the liver, and the two stabs to the spleen? Are THEY breast wounds? If they are not, we have found seven more of the wounds unaccounted for in Killeens report. But that is not good news, since we have already bagged two such wounds. And as there were only eight unaccounted-for wounds, we cannot afford seven more, can we?

Also, if we apply all the unaccounted wounds to the breast area, then we are left with no stabs at all to justify Killeens assertion that the vagina was a main target in the killers efforts.

Solution? The only obvious one seems to be to offer a compromize for liver and spleen. They are situated at the very top of the abdominal cavity, and thus allow for a scenario where the knife enters the body at the chest area, only to travel obliquely downwards in it, hitting liver and spleen. If we imagine the killer sitting on Tabrams belly while stabbing her in the chest area, it is not hard to accept that the angle of the blade could have produced punctures in liver and spleen.

And so, if this holds any water, it may offer an explanation to where the stabs ended up. And it would leave us with the total tally of 39 stabs looking as follows:

Neck (9):
Nine stabs

Chest area (17):
One stab to the heart
Five to the left lung
Two to the right lung
Two to the spleen
Five to the liver
Two stabs unaccounted for by Killeen, in all probability not piercing any of the internal organs

Abdominal area (7):
Six to the stomach
One to the lower abdomen

Vaginal area (6)
Six stabs to groin and vagina, unnaccounted for by Killeen

A reflection that can be made here, is that Killeen spoke of the abdomen as being a specifically targetted area, along with stomach, breasts and vagina. Did he reach that conclusion with the only cut to the abdomen to back it up? It would seem so. An alternative explanation was that the six stabs I suggest we ascribe to the vaginal area, in fact were scattered between the vagina and the cut to the abdomen.
If this was the case, however, it swears against the assertion that there were only 22 stabs to the trunk! And thus, we shall perhaps have to settle for the cut to the abdomen being so severe and large, that it alone prompted Killeen to assert that the killer took a specific interest in that region.

Right, guys and gals; dig in!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just to add to the overall picture:

If my estimation from the post above is correct, then we have nine wounds to the neck and six to the vaginal area.
I googled up a picture of a big woman - not very fat, but obviously overweight. I then measured the target area of the neck and compared it to the trunk, both seen from the front. The result was that the trunk area offered more than a staggering twenty times as big a target as did the neck.
Now, the vaginal area would not represent a larger area than the neck.

Nine stabs to the neck and six to the vaginal area, that totals fifteen stabs. This represents a percentage of more than 38 per cent of the stabs. Now, if more than 38 percent of the stabs really ended up in two areas that, taken on their own, represented less that 5 percent of the total target area (and I am generous enough to leave out head, legs and arms here..!), then I say that is a pretty good reason to dispell much of the notion that they were dealt in blind rage!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

If my estimation from the post above is correct, then we have nine wounds to the neck and six to the vaginal area.

Hello, Fisherman. Earlier I had said that Sugden says, "the lower portion of the body was penetrated in only one place." Noone seemed to concur, so I went back to check his source. It was THE EAST LONDON OBSERVER, which gave the same tally you have been using, but then went on to say,"The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth." The TIMES did not include this, but it does seem to be an issue with respect to both Killeen and JTR.

Paul

[Chava]

Glenn, those 'model dwellings' like George Yard did not have wide staircase landings. I visited a similar building in the area in the 70s and I was struck by how small the staircases were. Those buildings were put up with an eye to the bottom line and economies were made wherever possible. I very much doubt there would have been room on a landing for more than two people and that would include the victim.

As to whether Tabram could be a first victim, it seems to me that Kelly differs in just as many ways as she does and is widely considered the final victim. I know I am going to have that 'signature' throat cut mentioned very shortly along with a bunch of signature mutilations. But Kelly is also different from the others in many ways. I can see Tabram being a first disorganized kill after which he refines his technique.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

"The problem with Tabram is that it is hard to make any conclusive sense from Killeens counting of the wounds on her body."

Exactly, and that is what I meant by not Killeen's account not being totally reliable.

"Obviously, we have eight wounds unaccounted for. Where did they go?"

Well apart from possible hits against the vagina they could of course be just what we talked about earlier - cuts that DIDN'T penetrate any organs at all and thus has to be regarded as random hacks. The possibility can't be disregarded and is just as likely as if they should have been penetrating an organ that is not accounted for.

"A reflection that can be made here, is that Killeen spoke of the abdomen as being a specifically targetted area, along with stomach, breasts and vagina. Did he reach that conclusion with the only cut to the abdomen to back it up? It would seem so."

I think that's a reasonable viewpoint.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Chava,

As far as I recall, George Yard Buildings had once been a weaver's factory, and was not originally built as a model dwelling. Doesn't mean that the landing couldn't have been small, of course, but just something to consider.

P.S.
Don't get me started on Kelly!

All the best

[Fisherman]

Chava writes:
"those 'model dwellings' like George Yard did not have wide staircase landings. I visited a similar building in the area in the 70s and I was struck by how small the staircases were. Those buildings were put up with an eye to the bottom line and economies were made wherever possible. I very much doubt there would have been room on a landing for more than two people and that would include the victim."

There are two things that I feel speak against the landing being a very small one, Chava:
First off, Alfred Crowe, who saw that there was something lying on the landing as he passed it at 3.30 AM. Now, if it was as small a landing as you describe, he would have almost trodden on the body of Tabram - which would have been what he saw. And from a distance, it stands to reason that you may fail to make out the shape of a human body in darkness. But if you almost stumble over it, my feeling is that he would have seen that it was a woman lying there.
Moreover, that landing was often used as a place to sleep rough, as described by for example Wolf Vanderlinden in his excellent piece on Tabram in "Ripper Notes" some numbers back. And if you are going to sleep rough, then surely you donīt choose a landing where people are more or less bound to give you the odd kick passing by, do you?

Havenīt got any exact measures (though I do remember that a measure was taken on the distance between the caretakers door and where she lay; was it six feet...?), but I think that we must probably open up for the possibility that the landing was a fair bit larger than you describe.

The best, Chava!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn!

You are of course right about Killeen - not the exactest of sources, not by any means.
But when you start counting, it is not really that hard to come up with a picture that is hard to question in more than some detail, and that picture is what I describe in my post.

Pauls pointing out of the cut to the lower abdomen being the sole wound to that region pretty much strengthens the picture (something you second, I see), I think.

39 wounds. Killeen will not have been wrong on that point, Iīm sure. And seventeen of them to the chest. That means that the ones accounted for fill fifteen of the places, leaving only two open to wounds that did not penetrate any of the inner organs. Of these two wounds we know nothing, characterwise, apart from the fact that they seemed to have been inflicted by the same weapon as the other thirtysix, excluding the heart stab. They may have been deep, penetrating wounds, that did nor puncture anything vital, and they may have been more shallow. Given the fact that the rest of the seventeen chest wounds ALL went deep, the most reasonable thing to do is to opt for deep stabs in these cases too. But that is a mere guess.

Now, as this fills the measure allowed for the chest area, and as there would have been only the cut in the lower abdomen area, we are left with only two regions to place the rest of the cuts - the stomach and the vagina. And here we run into some trouble, for we are to keep in mind the strange wording that there were "at least 22 stab wounds to the trunk", somewhat implicating that Killeen could not count.
This would not have been the case. Of course he could.
And that leaves us with two possible explanations to why he used the wording "at least" 22 stab wounds, as far as I can see.
He either had problems telling if one ore more of the stabs belonged to the trunk or the extremities, a problem that may well arise if you stab at the vagina. Or he was not sure if one or more of the wounds were actually stabs.

My guess is that we are looking at the second opportunity here. A doctor would probably not wawer as to whether a stab was a trunk stab or not - he would take a close look and make up his mind. But when it comes to telling a cut from a stab, there may of course be more of a reason to feel uncertain.
Thus my guess is that the 22 CERTAIN stab wounds to the trunk were the six ones to the stomach and the sixteen ones dealt with the same weapon t the chest area. The two wounds that he may have deducted would have been the cut to the lower abdomen and the thrust through the sternum. Of the others, he would have felt pretty sure that they were all of the same kind, but the heart wound and the abdomen cut differed.

And if this is correct, then we have a total tally of 24 wounds - but not stabs! - to the trunk, that we can not surpass without running into major problems trying to understand Killeen. Therefore, the rest of the wounds would have been dealt to the vaginal area.

Meaning what? Meaning that there are only two wounds, both to the chest area, that we may - and that is only may - have been anything that could be described as "random hacks". But it of course stands to at least equal reason to argue that they may have been dealt to puncture sought out internal organs, missing them by a whisker.

No, Glen, I cannot for the life of me see this as anything random at all. As far as I am concerned, Killeens report makes for a very chilling reading indeed.

The best, buddy!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

On the topic of that George Yard building landing, there is actually a German internet site that has a picture of it!!! I have never seen this photo before, and I thought I would take the chance of checking it out with the rest of you guys; Does anybody here know anything of this picture? It is purportedly taken in 1972, and the George Yard buildings were demolished in the early seventies, as far as I know.
The picture does not show us how big the landing was, although it lends itself to some crude estimating as for the width of it. How deep it was, well that is something that the picture cannot help us with.
If the darn thing is genuine, that is... Anybody who knows?

You find it at:

http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jacktheripper.de/images/opfer/tabram/treppen_tabram.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jacktheripper.de/opfer/tabram/&h=205&w=143&sz=8&hl=sv&start=116&um=1&tbnid=vmxZiWcLiJ4JcM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=73&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522George%2BYard%2BBuildings%2522%26start%3D105%26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

According to Philip Hutchinson, who recently gained some more information about this picture, that is NOT from the inside of George Yard Buildings, although it was assumed as such for a long time.

I admit it was a disappointment to me as well.

All the best