Ripper Victim?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It's true that Killeen's surviving statement is from the inquest (and not an official report) and the one that can be found in Ultimate Companion comes from a Times article dated Tuesday 7 August 1888.

However, in my experience the newspaper's coverage and reporting from the inquests were in those days rather close to detail and can be considered fairly accurate and complete. I have learnt this from comparing inquests reports with the press coverage in connection with other cases. I would say when it comes to reportings from the inquests, the newspapers are fairly reliable as sources although the wording might differ slightly from newspaper to newspaper.

It's true, though, that Killeen never mentions any stab or attack against the groin or genital area in the Times report.

All the best

[robhouse]

I am not sure it is in the sources.

As far as I know, the primary sources of Tabram's wounds are the various newspaper accounts of Killeen's inquest testimony (Daily News Aug 10, Evening News Aug 10, Echo Aug 10, Times Aug 10, East London Advertiser Aug 11, East London Observer Aug 11.)

Of these the only one that mentions the wound in the lower portion of the body is the ELO. Which also adds "there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated."

The ELA said there were "wounds in 39 places in various parts of the body. "

The Evening News said there were "39 punctured wounds on the body and legs"

Most of these also mention the punctures in the organs "5 in the left lung, 2 in the right lung, 1 in the heart, 5 in the liver, 2 in the spleen, 6 in the stomach".

Both the DN and the EN mention "There were no less than nine in the throat and 17 in the breast. " And assuming the 17 in the "breast" dont include the puntures in the stomach, then perhaps, as Glenn suggests, there were several stabs that did not puncture any organs. The 17 in the chest or breast would be (7 in lungs, 1 in heart, 5 in liver, 2 in spleen, and 2 more?). That can still be added to the 9 in the throat (26), and the 6 in the stomach (32). Where are the rest?

The other sources I know of are Swanson who mentioned a stab (or stabs, it is unclear) in the "private part", and building superintendant Mr. Hewitt, who claimed there was "blood flowing from a great wound over her heart. There were many other stab wounds of a frightful character on her" (Morning Advertiser, Aug 8)

It is also perhaps relevant to note that the Coroner "thanked Dr. Keeling for the very careful way in which he had given his testimony."

All of this suggests to me that Killeen "carefully" gave his testimony, so as not to go into excessive graphic (obscene) detail. He may well have mentioned exactly where the wound was, or he may have implied it, but either way, the papers did not print it, instead using euphamisms ("legs", and "lower portion of the body").

My interpretation of the wounds is that the killer focused on the throat and the chest and upper abdomen, made one deep stab in the heart (either before or after the other 38 wounds I don't know - I assume before) and then made one somewhat different cut in the genital area. This cut was more like a slice than a stab It may have been a cut through the vagina for all I know (as later happened with Eddowes), which caused "a deal of blood between the legs".

RH

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

To be honest, I think the mentioning of "private parts" might be an error by Swanson since no other source supports this.
Killeen clearly states and singles out that the deeper wound went throygh the chestbone and that it probably was the cause of death.

In my personal view, an attack on the lower part of the body or "private parts" possibly never occurred.

All the best

[robhouse]

How then do you explain the following?

the Coroner "thanked Dr. Keeling for the very careful way in which he had given his testimony."

"there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated"

And also for the fact that no other papers mentioned this wound at all? Even though Killeen clearly mentioned both this wound, and the blood between the legs at the inquest?

RH

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Rob,

I don't know how that quote from the coroner proves or indicates anything. What he simply could have meant was that Killeen did a good job at describing his findings and did it detailed enough for the court (let's remember that Killeen wasn't a police surgeon and probably had little experience in inquests); that 'carefully' might have meant something esle - as in 'delicate' is of course your interpretation and I can't say I agree with it. but that is of course a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.

And the fact that no paper mentions anything about a wound to the lower part of the body indicates to me that it was a misquote and error rather than the opposite. If it was accurate, I would expect to find it in other sources.

I don't think a great deal of blood behind the legs indicates that that wound derived from a wound in that area. If tabram's legs were apart and there was numerous stabs over her torso and stomach I could very well picture a lot of that blood running down towards her groin and between the legs. Not strange at all.

As far as I am concerned, there is no compelling evidence whatsoever about a wound towards the genital area.

All the best

[Ben]

Regular as clockwork...

you do as best as you can, and when your arguments fail, you sometimes resort to such things

You telling me that my arguments are failing is tantamount to a huge reassurance that they're doing the precise opposite.

You, Ben, prefer Tabram over Smith since Tabram was knifed. But the knife, Ben, is and remains secondary to the interest in the reproductive areas - for the knife is not per se the interest

Too bad you've no evidence that he was interested in the "reproductive areas" from the outset of his crimes. For all we know, he could have been chiefly interested in generalised murder and mutilation of prostitutes with with a knife, and that he simply honed in on the particulars as he progressed and explored. In that respect, Tabram is a far more logical predecessor to Nichols than Emma Smith, and once again, we find that the legitimate experts agree with me, not you. You seem to include Kelly as a ripper victim, but there was no primary interest in the reproductive organs there either. Your insistence to the contrary is completely worthless. There's no value whatsoever in your opinion, since you lack the knowledge and the background to trump the people with actual knowledge. Have an opinion, fine, but don't keep using inappropriately strong language as though you're the replacement authority on the subject.

It may be right and it may be wrong in Jack´s case. But the fact of the matter is that we only have a handful of deeds that are commonly acknowledged as Ripper deeds, and these all have those robotic traits.

Yes, and so we attribute them to the same killer on logical grounds. What we don't do is claim that the ripper was only responsible for those and no others. We don't do that because, firstly, it would make the ripper a rare and implausible robotic creature, and secondly, we know full well that otherwise consistent serial killers are perfectly capable of deviating from their methods on a far greater scale than Tabram-to-Nichols.

And that does not mean that we are first and foremost looking for men with knives. Nor does it mean that we are first and foremost looking for violent men.

No, it means we're looking for people who murder and mutilate prostitutes with a knife, preferably in the small hours of the morning and in the same concentrated locality where the other murders and mutilations occured. Fine tune a serial killer's MO much beyond that and we're making a typically gauche hobbyist error, and one that acknowledged authorities on serial killers have learned to avoid at all costs.

Your "priority" list is risible in the extreme, since it espouses precisely the sort of ludicrously crass and limited criteria that have resulted on occasions in very serious miscarriages of justice. I don't take it seriously, and nor would any expert in the field, since it demands that the killer is only capable of mirror images of his other crimes. We know that to be nonsense, and you laying down the law down with "That´s how it goes and that´s how it stays" reveals a brand of overconfident dogma that belies your obvious inexperience and lack of knowledge.

And that is why people keep telling you that Tabram is a lousy match.

People can keep telling me whatever they want. If I know it to be false, what I supposed to do - care?

Besides, you think Tabram was a ripper victim, remember?

[Dave O]

Don't forget your Annie Chapman!

Hi Glenn and Rob House,

While newspaper accounts of inquests can be detailed and accurate because reporters were able to be present in court to hear testimony directly, as opposed to reporting second hand, I would hesitate to describe them as complete, simply because they were subject to editing. The Daily Telegraph's description of Annie Chapman's postmortem is a good example:

Dr. Phillips: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination. Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him.

As Kileen was commissioned by the coroner to hold the autopsy in the first place, I don't see him withholding details at the inquest unless it was something the jury agreed to. I agree with Rob that Killeen probably included this particular wound in his testimony. More likely Swanson was more accurate than the press--after all, he is writing a summary of the case, and doing so internally. For him to make such a factual error--in effect an invented detail--in a report to superiors . . . I doubt it. The press, on the other hand, wrote for public consumption, and I don't think it's a stretch to imagine them withholding that particular detail as being too delicate for the average Victorian reader's sensibilities. I suspect that if we had Killeen's official inquest deposition, it would back Swanson up.

My two cents,
Dave

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dave,

I see what you mean and you are of course correct in many ways, but I have to say that press reports from the inquests generally are quite true to the actual transcripts in the official police reports. At least that is what I've seen in other cases.

As far as newspapers are concerned, I always finds them doubtful as sources - especially when it comes to articles (specially if the paper is a tabloid or a paper with a certain political agenda, like The Star) - but inquests reports are another matter and they are often quite detailed.
They can, however, as I did say, differ in occasional wording (journalists are not machines) but generally they appear to be fairly accurate as a whole.

It is true that papers like The Times didn't want to publish the gory details from the Chapman inquest but then again this was especially requested by Phillips - some papers, like The Times, chose to accept and appreciate it, some didn't.

Although I have the greatest respect for Swanson as probably the most competent man in the whole police force at the time (besides Edmund Reid), I will not rule out the mentioning of "private parts" as an error, simply because the police reports are littered with errors in other respects.
I am sorry, but I stand by my statement that I won't accept a detail if it's omitted in several sources and only is mentioned in one. The police files are full of factual errors and I can't accept the mentioning of "private parts" as an accurate account unelss it is supported by some other sources.
Again - there are no evidence whatsoever of an attack against the genital area and Killeen never mentions anything of a kind.

All the best

[robhouse]

Glenn,

The article does not say "behind" the legs it says "there was a deal of blood between the legs". Do you think the newspaper would have bothered to print this detail (which as Dave points out was "delicate for the average Victorian reader's sensibilities") if the blood from the wounds in the torso and neck had simply managed to seep down into a general pool of blood under the body? Would the paper have printed that there was blood "between the legs"? I dont think so. Besides, it does not say the blood was "on the ground between the legs", it simply says "between the legs".

I think the exact nature and location of this wound is potentially very important in determining if Tabram was a Ripper victim. Ask yourself this... say the wound had been a cut through the vagina, and continuing upwards for three inches. How do you think this would have been reported in the papers? What exact wording would they have used?

RH

[robhouse]

Additionally, I think it is important to note that the newspaper accounts of Killeen's testimony are clearly incomplete, since (as Dave points out), the stories left out various details. These may have been left out either because they were "delicate" or because they were considered irrelevant. As one case in point, the East London Advertiser noted that Killeen "made a post mortem examination, and on opening the head found there was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone. " This was not noted in any other paper, but it was ommitted (in all likelihood) because the other papers deemed it was irrelevant to the overall gist of the story. I do not think you would argue that this was another error, since it was only printed in one source?

RH

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Rob,

I would say it's fairly safe to say that the blood was on the gorund since one of the witnesses passing the body said he almost stepped into it.
Ellisdon's police report as well as John S Reeves' witness statement clearly says that 'the victim was lying in a pool of blood', which in itself doesn't point at a certain area of the body. It also indicates a crime scene totally different from the Ripper victims where little blood was detected.

In any case, it is perfectly clear that there was a large amount of blood on the gound and this is supported by different sources.

"I think the exact nature and location of this wound is potentially very important in determining if Tabram was a Ripper victim."

I don't, because as we know Tabram was pretty much stabbed all over the torso, neck and stomach and if there would occur a wound to the genital area as well, so what? It would just be another wound, one of many.
And as Killeen clearly describes, the deeper wound was made through the chest bone and this was probably the case of death, in his opinion.

The location of any wound in this case of multiple stabbing is of minor importance to me, because the crime as such still indicates a perpetrator with another psyhological disposition than the Ripper. It's a typical work of frenzy, not a methodological mutilation murder aimed at the genital area.
Then add to the equation that Tabram was a prostitute, with those risks involved of coming in contact with all types of abnormal characters, then I'd prefer to take it for what it most likely was: a frenzied murder perpetrated by a client, not a serial killer or the Ripper.

Rob, you and I both know that the day we both actually agree on something, that is the day hell is freezing over. If you believe Tabram to be a Ripper victim, be my guest, but I am afraid you are deluding yourself since there are no compelling evidence pointing in that direction.

All the best

[robhouse]

In the East London Advertiser (which does not specifically mention the wound in the lower portion of the body), Killeen first details the specific wounds in the organs (lungs, heart, spleen, liver etc).

After this it says:

"Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion. "

In other words, the article does not specifically state where the wounds were, it only says that Killen described where they were. Why did the ELA choose to omit this?

RH

[adrian]

Before I forget. The Whitechapel Society Journal is doing a series of special issues on each Ripper victim across the rest of the year starting, obviously - but, provocatively - with martha Tabram.

Other issue will feature:

April:Mary Ann Nichols.

June: Annie Chapman.

August: Elizabeth Stride.

October: Catherine Eddowes.

December: Mary Jane Kelly.

We will have all manner of interesting articles and new information. You can not hope to miss it.

Food for thought, soul for the mind. The latest edition of The Journal is a Martha Tabram special edition with new and exclusive pictures and articles. A MUST GET edition.

More info: www.whitechapelsociety.com

ADRIAN.
(Editor: Whitechapel Society Journal).

[robhouse]

Glen,

I agree with you that we will never agree on anything...

But whereas you say (in your typically denigrating and superior manner) "you are deluding yourself since there are no compelling evidence pointing in that direction"...

This is a rather odd statement, since I am specifically citing and quoting "evidence pointing in that direction", if you will actually read my last few posts. You are simply not responding to any of the actual points I am making.

RH

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As one case in point, the East London Advertiser noted that Killeen "made a post mortem examination, and on opening the head found there was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone. " This was not noted in any other paper, but it was ommitted (in all likelihood) because the other papers deemed it was irrelevant to the overall gist of the story. I do not think you would argue that this was another error, since it was only printed in one source?

Rob,

I am well aware of that report. In fact, it was Fisherman who once pointed me in its direction.
No, I don't think it's an error, because of the fact that the description is rather detailed from a medical point of view (I doubt that they would make up a thing like "on opening the head found there was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone") while Swanson's mentioning of "private parts" is more general and vague.

All the best