Why NOT??

[Monty]

If you were PC Barrett Abbey, and had just been told by a Soldier that his oppo was down George Yard with a woman, what would you suspect the two were doing down there?

Monty

[Abby Normal]

I must say, PC Barrett was a bit slow on the up take.

Monty

Meaning what?

[Monty]

I must say, PC Barrett was a bit slow on the up take.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

A couple of posters have put forward the point that the no-one appears to have heard Martha's death, and therefore the killing must have been close to silent, thus coming down more in favour of it being a Ripper killing, rather than a soldier.

According to the papers, John Reeves, and his wife who lived on the top floor of George Yard Buildings had heard a considerable amount of noise that night from street fights and fracas and they were heartily sick of it by the time the noise died down.

The first fracas had been just before midnight, the second one just after and that one had been accompanied by terrible screaming and desperate pleas of ‘Help, Police.’

Then there was another disturbance just after one o clock; with more terrible screams, coming from the same neighbourhood. The Reeves had said that they looked across from the back balcony of the building to see where the noise was coming from and found that there was not one, but two separate fights going on, near one of the doss houses. There were quite a few crowds gathering around them to all accounts and running between the two to make sure they didn’t miss anything.

If that wasn’t enough at 2 o clock there were more screams and this time very piercing ones. The Reeves went out to have a look again and found it was just a some roughs moving towards George Yard. That died down in the end and the Reeves finally went to bed for the night. Nothing quite like a good night out in Whitechapel.

This being the case, it's quite possible that they either fell into a heavy sleep, knackered by all the hullabaloo, or just shut out any noise they might have heard in the building.

Mrs Hewitt, who was on the floor below the Reeves said that she only heard a faint disturbance at some time in the night, but didn't think it was coming from the flats. If she didn't hear the terrible ruckus that the Reeves heard and complained about, then it's hardly likely that she would have heard the murder anyway.

I've got to say, I think that the evidence does fall down on the side of it being a soldier for all the same reasons that Stewart's put forward really.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxxx

ps Please don't ask me which newspaper report that came from because I can't remember and I'll be up all night trying to find it. Lol.

Hi Jane
As I stated earlier-why not the soldier being JtR, with a slightly different MO due to early experimenting/perfecting MO taking place? Why does it need to be either/or?

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

A couple of posters have put forward the point that the no-one appears to have heard Martha's death, and therefore the killing must have been close to silent, thus coming down more in favour of it being a Ripper killing, rather than a soldier.

According to the papers, John Reeves, and his wife who lived on the top floor of George Yard Buildings had heard a considerable amount of noise that night from street fights and fracas and they were heartily sick of it by the time the noise died down.

The first fracas had been just before midnight, the second one just after and that one had been accompanied by terrible screaming and desperate pleas of ‘Help, Police.’

Then there was another disturbance just after one o clock; with more terrible screams, coming from the same neighbourhood. The Reeves had said that they looked across from the back balcony of the building to see where the noise was coming from and found that there was not one, but two separate fights going on, near one of the doss houses. There were quite a few crowds gathering around them to all accounts and running between the two to make sure they didn’t miss anything.

If that wasn’t enough at 2 o clock there were more screams and this time very piercing ones. The Reeves went out to have a look again and found it was just a some roughs moving towards George Yard. That died down in the end and the Reeves finally went to bed for the night. Nothing quite like a good night out in Whitechapel.

This being the case, it's quite possible that they either fell into a heavy sleep, knackered by all the hullabaloo, or just shut out any noise they might have heard in the building.

Mrs Hewitt, who was on the floor below the Reeves said that she only heard a faint disturbance at some time in the night, but didn't think it was coming from the flats. If she didn't hear the terrible ruckus that the Reeves heard and complained about, then it's hardly likely that she would have heard the murder anyway.

I've got to say, I think that the evidence does fall down on the side of it being a soldier for all the same reasons that Stewart's put forward really.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxxx

ps Please don't ask me which newspaper report that came from because I can't remember and I'll be up all night trying to find it. Lol.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"You don't agree, fine, so be it."

I would not say that I don´t agree, to be honest. I think that there is a perfectly possible "inbetween" scenario, and that owes to the fact that there were two blades used. That leads me to think that there is a decent possibility that there were also two men involved.

Moving on, the only wound we KNOW was inflicted by the larger blade, is the one to the sternum. And that differs from the flurry of stabs mostly on one count - it looks very focused and very intentional. Very unfrenzied, if you like. But - and I think this is very important - there is actually one more wound that MAY have been inflicted by the larger blade, and that is the cut! It is impossible to say if the cut was inflicted by the smaller or the larger weapon. Cuts don´t give away the size of the blade that made them.
And guess where that leads me? It leads me to reflect on two things - to begin with, it may well be that the cut was the one and only wound to the lower torso. If so, that means that it seems NOT to belong to the flurry of more or less unfocused stabs. To move on, IF the Ripper was the one who cut, then we have a SECOND focused wound to ponder over.

In conclusion, the only two wounds that may have been made by the larger blade, could well both be extremely focused wounds, and focused wounds are not inflicted by drunken sailors flying off in rages and a frenzies. And, also in conclusion, when you write: "A frenzied attack involving nearly forty stabs rained all over the torso, neck to pubis, to my mind is quite different to the wounds inflicted in the cases assumed to be Ripper killings", I agree that as long as we count the 38 unfocused wounds in, it all seems very "unripperish", but if we extract the only wounds that could have been inflicted by a second blade/man, then we are left with one focused killing stroke - comparable, perhaps, to the cut necks of the traditionally accepted victims, and one possibly exploratory cut to the lower abdomen (or private part), which was the Ripper´s favoured area of cutting into.

If this is what happened, you can have the frenzied stabber in place on the landing of George Yard buildings - and I can have the Ripper there.

There is no certainty at all that just the one man was involved in the Tabram slaying - in fact, the occurence of two weapons speaks much in favour of two men with blades.

And yes, I am aware that I spoke against believing too much in coincidences in my last post ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I think that all the arguments have been presented in this case - a long time ago. A frenzied attack involving nearly forty stabs rained all over the torso, neck to pubis, to my mind is quite different to the wounds inflicted in the cases assumed to be Ripper killings.

I have already stated that I appreciate the arguments for this possibly being a Ripper killing, indeed when Jon Ogan first found the press report mentioning the three inch wound back in the early 1990s, I was initially persuaded in favour of that interpretation. So, yes, it is of course possible that it was a Ripper killing (as I keep saying). I am also aware that coincidences do, not even rarely, happen. But I repeat that it is PC Barrett's evidence of speaking with a soldier within yards of the murder site and within thirty minutes of the doctor's estimated time of death that just tilts the balance, for me, in favour of a soldier being the perpetrator.

You don't agree, fine, so be it.

Hi Stewart
Why not said soldier also being JtR who went on to kill the C5?

[Stewart P Evans]

Arguments

Stewart Evans:
"I have always thought this to be a stab (the lowest) to the lower abdomen that rode over and skidded off the pubic bone."
It is and remains a very useful suggestion. But likewise, it is and remains a very odd coincidence, to say the least, if this is true.
For when we have all the other comparison points on social standing, general area and time and so forth, and when we have a murder within a month of the "canonical" period, then it stretches the limits of probability VERY much if 1/39:th of the wounds inflicted just happened to skid, and if this very wound was the only wound of the 39 inflicted - as far as we can tell - that just so happens was situated at the exact area of the Ripper´s focused interest. That tips the scales for me. But you already know that!
The best,
Fisherman

I think that all the arguments have been presented in this case - a long time ago. A frenzied attack involving nearly forty stabs rained all over the torso, neck to pubis, to my mind is quite different to the wounds inflicted in the cases assumed to be Ripper killings.

I have already stated that I appreciate the arguments for this possibly being a Ripper killing, indeed when Jon Ogan first found the press report mentioning the three inch wound back in the early 1990s, I was initially persuaded in favour of that interpretation. So, yes, it is of course possible that it was a Ripper killing (as I keep saying). I am also aware that coincidences do, not even rarely, happen. But I repeat that it is PC Barrett's evidence of speaking with a soldier within yards of the murder site and within thirty minutes of the doctor's estimated time of death that just tilts the balance, for me, in favour of a soldier being the perpetrator.

You don't agree, fine, so be it.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

" ... the only official reference to where that cut-like wound was, other than on ‘the lower portion of the body’, comes from Swanson, who had all the necessary official documents at his disposal, and he mentions the location as ‘the private part’."

True enough, Frank - but we are still left with the problem that there were wounds unaccounted for. Technically, I guess there may have been stabs to the vagina AND the cut to "the lower portion of the body", and Swanson does not pinpoint the damage to the "private part" as being the cut.

That is not to say that I think you are wrong - I don´t. I think you are spot on, but I can´t see that it is proven.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robhouse:

"So your point is taken... but it is still unclear."

Of course it is, Rob! No quibble there! I just wanted to point to why I pesonally think it less likely that the unaccounted wounds were to be found lower down on the body.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"I have always thought this to be a stab (the lowest) to the lower abdomen that rode over and skidded off the pubic bone."

It is and remains a very useful suggestion. But likewise, it is and remains a very odd coincidence, to say the least, if this is true.
For when we have all the other comparison points on social standing, general area and time and so forth, and when we have a murder within a month of the "canonical" period, then it stretches the limits of probability VERY much if 1/39:th of the wounds inflicted just happened to skid, and if this very wound was the only wound of the 39 inflicted - as far as we can tell - that just so happens was situated at the exact area of the Ripper´s focused interest. That tips the scales for me. But you already know that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Lloyd's Weekly News

Lloyd's Weekly News, August 12, 1888 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Wounds

For those interested I have attached the part of Swanson's report referring to the wounds and the part of the report from the East London Observer of August 11, 1888 that refers to the three inch wound. I have always thought this to be a stab (the lowest) to the lower abdomen that rode over and skidded off the pubic bone.

[Abby Normal]

Hello

IMHO, it seems that it is more probable that Tabram was a ripper murder.


1. seems unlikely JtR MO springs fully formed with murder of Polly Nichols.
2. Time is consistant with C5-at night, bank Holiday
3. Place-geographically very near other murders-in public place
4. The silence of the murder is consistant with other murders-and along with this...
5. Evidence of strangulation
6. Throat tageted with knife-although it is stabs and not a cut/slash.
7. Possible abdominal cut, not stab.
8. Body position when found, very similar.


Also, the idea of 2 knives being used as well as different types of cuts, is consistant in my mind of a serial killer experimenting or perfecting their MO.

[FrankO]

I have seen it before, but the problem that arises when discussion Tabram is that there are a number of notions distributed that we cannot easily confirm or refute, as we have no complete listing of the 39 wounds. It has been suggested that the vagina was stabbed and that the inside of the thighs were, and so forth, and it is really hard to say for sure what carries weight. A year or two back, I discussed this with SAm - bless him! - and he meant that "the lower portion of the body" could point to the buttocks, for all we know ...

That's true, Fish, but the only official reference to where that cut-like wound was, other than on ‘the lower portion of the body’, comes from Swanson, who had all the necessary official documents at his disposal, and he mentions the location as ‘the private part’. I bless Sam too (I do), but in this case I put much more stock in Swanson’s report than in his opinion, or in any of the newspaper reports on the subject.

Anyways, I think that the overall importance lies in the cut being A/an isolated one, and B/that it at any rate would have been inflicted in an area that could well point to an interest in the reproductive organs, be that the vagina or the uterus.

No argument there!

The best,
Frank