Why NOT??

[robhouse]

Hello Fisherman,

I do not really disagree with your assessment, I am just saying that we do not know for sure. Of the 39 wounds, I believe there are about 30 accounted for (assuming 9 in the neck... but I am working from memory here, and can't remember where I got that number from). That leaves 9 other wounds.

As you say, 21 of these are in the upper part of the torso... I would actually say in the mid or upper part of the torso, since the stomach really is in the middle. There is only (as far as we know) one wound in the lower part of the body, and it is certainly possible that this one wound is the same one that is variously referred to as being in the "private part" (Swanson), the "legs," or the "lower portion of the body." These all may be describing the same, 3 inch cut wound. OR... there may actually be additional stabs in the "legs" or in the lower abdomen or in the genital area.

So your point is taken... but it is still unclear. The fact that the papers omitted certain aspects of Killeen's testimony is problematic here. The fact that the Advertiser wrote ""Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made" is interesting, since this part of his testimony apparently related to his description of the wound or wounds in the "lower portion of the body."... (ie. he had already detailed the location of the 21 wounds in the torso.)

RH

[Hunter]

The police certainly focused their investigation on soldiers because that was the only relative evidence they had at the time and they may well have been focused in the right direction. Nothing was known as to what was to follow.

If Tabram's murder happened after the C5, then, many would find it unlikely that a single killer of this type (if that was the case) would change his method. But happening before the C5 could make it more possible.

Certainly, all of these murders are individual unsolved cases and will remain as such. Anyone's opinion on how many were commited by one individual is just as valid as any other as long ( as Fish suggested) as it is kept within the evidence provided and a rational interpretation thereof. But we would be remiss if we did not recognize the commonalities that link some of them and why this series was considered extraordinary... even to the people who lived through them.

Something ususual was happening beyond just being a bad year.

[Fisherman]

Robhouse:

"The exact location of all 39 wounds is really unknown, and I would argue that Killeen specifically described the location of the 21 wounds that pierced the organs mainly because he noted these things in his autopsy. That does not necessarily mean that there were only 21 puncture wounds in the torso. Of course there were several wounds in the neck, and it is also quite possible that there was more than the one noted wound in the lower part of the body As I argued in the previous post, it is in my opinion likely that the one 3 inch wound was in the genitalia. Whether there were additional stab wounds in the legs or lower abdomen is unknown, but again I would think likely."

I am not sure of that, Rob, although it is of course a viable suggestion. Thing is, if we take a look at the stabs accounted for (and look away from the cut), they are ALL stabs inflicted to the upper torso. And that tells me that they could all have been inflicted from roughly the same position on behalf of the stabber. The position you work from will guide what parts of the body you are able to reach - if, for instance, we make the assumption that the killer straddled Tabram (I am not saying he did, just suggesting it to make my point), then from such a position, he could let the stabs rain down all over her upper torso - but he could not reach for the lower ditto. If this is what happened, then the stabs left unaccounted for would be situated in for example the shoulders and the arms, but not in the legs or the lower abdomen.
If he was kneeling beside her, both persons heads pointing in the same direction, it would of course be possible for him to reach both the upper and the lower torso - but the concentration of stabs to the upper torso tells us that this is where the hailstorm was concentrated, and we realize that it would take a rotation of the upper body on the killers behalf before he could get at the lower torso. And a frenzy will normally produce a series of stabs in the same general direction, sometimes even producing two stabs in the same hole more or less.
Therefore, I think that more points away from a distribution of stabs all over the body instead of a relatively limited target area, the boundaries being set by the position the stabber worked from. And for the same reason, I think that the wound to the lower torso does not belong to the "frenzied" flurry. Much speaks for it being a deliberately inflicted wound, with a clear focus on the exact area that the Ripper took an active interest in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank O:

"Actually we do, Fish (& Stewart). Or we do if we put stock in what Chief Inspector Swanson wrote in a September report on Tabram's case:
"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger.""

Thanks for this, Frank! 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 ...

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. Even if we accept the description "private parts", we are still dealing with an area that would involve numerous square inches, allowing quite well for EITHER it being a description of the lowest abdomen or the vagina.

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

"But we DO know that we have no other wounds accounted for in the lower part of the torso than just the one cut, whereas we have dozens of them situated in the upper part."

The exact location of all 39 wounds is really unknown, and I would argue that Killeen specifically described the location of the 21 wounds that pierced the organs mainly because he noted these things in his autopsy. That does not necessarily mean that there were only 21 puncture wounds in the torso. Of course there were several wounds in the neck, and it is also quite possible that there was more than the one noted wound in the lower part of the body As I argued in the previous post, it is in my opinion likely that the one 3 inch wound was in the genitalia. Whether there were additional stab wounds in the legs or lower abdomen is unknown, but again I would think likely.
Rob

[robhouse]

I think a comparison between these two reports of Killeen's testimony is very interesting.

The Observer wording:

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.

The Advertiser wording:

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.

This is relevant because both reports are worded almost identically and Keeling was very specific in describing the specific location of the wounds that punctured the organs. The Advertiser chose the phrase "Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made" whereas the Observer wrote "The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth." So the obvious question is, why would the Advertiser choose to specifically omit reporting the location where the wounds had been made in this one instance, where they were very specific in reporting the rest of Keeling's testimony. The answer, in my opinion, is that the "location of the wounds" was the genitalia. And the Observer used the euphemism "lower portion of the body" to describe this, whereas the Evening News reported wounds in the "legs."

Stewart,

I am assuming you are referring to me when you suggest that some people "want" Tabram to be a Ripper victim. I do not particularly want Tabram to be a ripper victim, it is just that I personally believe that there is a good chance she was, and I am trying to present an argument for why I believe that. Of course, it seem that all the points I am bringing up have already been suggested 40 years ago, so I am not quite sure why I bother posting here at all.

Rob

[Chava]

The Tabram killing will always be a 'possible' in my mind. I dismissed her as a Ripper victim for years but now I'm not so sure. The main argument against, I assume, would be the weapon and the scatter-gun approach to the wound pattern. That's pretty convincing evidence. However against that would be the location, hour of night, condition and profession of the victim, all of which resemble the Ripper killings.

I believe the Met initially thought that Nicholls was part of a series that started with Smith, then went to Tabram. So at some point someone thought Tabram and Nicholls were linked.

[FrankO]

"...we do not know that the wound to the 'lower portion of the body' in the case of Tabram was to the 'private parts' or merely the lower part of the body as opposed to the other wounds in the upper part."

No we donīt.

Actually we do, Fish (& Stewart). Or we do if we put stock in what Chief Inspector Swanson wrote in a September report on Tabram's case:
"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

As to the rest of your post, it reflects my take on the issue at hand, Fish.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"...looking at it retrospectively it is easy to include it in the Ripper's tally which leads to a certain mindset."

That could well be the case on many hands, yes. The origin of such problems would party lie in the fact that we have created a killer and gifted him with a name,whereas we only know that a number of East end women were killed in roughly similar fashions back in the late 1800:s. Technically, we can not be sure of very much at all, and still, weīwe got the Ripper sitting in our laps.
And why? I think that the main reason is that people want explanations and sense, and rationally speaking, it would be odd in the extreme if Tabram & the canonical five (gee - that sounds like a rock band...!) were killed by six different men. And so we are - at least most of us - agreed on the suggestion that an eviscerating knife killer walked the East end streets.

In that sense, I think that it is just as "legal" to count Tabram into the tally as it is to do so with Chapman, long as you think that the evidence speaks for it. Equally, it is fine by me if someone feels like adding MacKenzie and Coles, or the Thames torsos - but I will challenge any notion that the evidence is there in them cases.

Ultimately, as long as we refrain from trying to inflate our own hunches, theories and guesswork by blowing any unsound air into them, I honestly believe that it is in the cutting point between those who speak for suggestion A and the ones who put suggestion B forward that the case is pushed ever so slowly forward. It inspires to hold different opinions, and it makes you go that extra mile to find support for your thoughts, and that is a good thing. I only wish that those who find no such support would admit it to themselves, instead of supporting lost causes - but that is another thing altogether.

"I don't believe that I suggested that you wanted the killing to be in the Ripper's tally."

Good - for that would have been a bad suggestion. I may have jumped to that conclusion because your post elaborating on those who want too much followed on my post suggesting that Tabram was a very reasonable bid for the Rippers tally. My mistake - but my unwillingness to take on such a role goes to prove that we seemingly share the same convictions in this issue! Judging by what I wrote above, that should be unproductive - but in this case, Iīm prepared to ditch that theory!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Enhance

Stewart Evans:
...
And if that has something - anything - to do with "wanting" Tabram to be a Ripper killing instead of a simple weighing together of the facts involved, Iīd be interested to know in what way.
The best,
Fisherman

I don't believe that I suggested that you wanted the killing to be in the Ripper's tally. However there are those who do - either from personal theorising or a wish to enhance the Ripper's tally and provide more material upon which to analyse or 'profile' the killer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Impasse

Stewart Evans:
...
"...we do not know that the wound to the 'lower portion of the body' in the case of Tabram was to the 'private parts' or merely the lower part of the body as opposed to the other wounds in the upper part."
No we donīt. But we DO know that we have no other wounds accounted for in the lower part of the torso than just the one cut, whereas we have dozens of them situated in the upper part. And that, inevitably, leaves us with a prostituted woman killed in the late hours of the night on an August day back in 1888, merely weeks away from Nichols in time, and in the same general vicinity as the "canonical" victims, displaying a cut to her lower torso.
...
The best,
Fisherman

Well I wouldn't disagree with that. However, looking at it retrospectively it is easy to include it in the Ripper's tally which leads to a certain mindset. Philip Sugden, I believe, felt the balance was for it being a Ripper killing whereas I keep an open mind but feel that the known evidence, as it stands, tends towards it being a non-Ripper killing - the open mind being the important point, and I think that exists on both sides here. But I'm afraid that it is an impasse which will never be resolved.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"There are those who want the Tabram murder to be the first Ripper killing, whilst some don't."

You may well be right there. As for me, I "want" nothing but to explore the different possibilities. And when that leads me to a different conclusiion than yours, it does so because I make my own interpretation of the evidence, not because I specifically wish to have things one way or the other.

"...we do not know that the wound to the 'lower portion of the body' in the case of Tabram was to the 'private parts' or merely the lower part of the body as opposed to the other wounds in the upper part."

No we donīt. But we DO know that we have no other wounds accounted for in the lower part of the torso than just the one cut, whereas we have dozens of them situated in the upper part. And that, inevitably, leaves us with a prostituted woman killed in the late hours of the night on an August day back in 1888, merely weeks away from Nichols in time, and in the same general vicinity as the "canonical" victims, displaying a cut to her lower torso.

Just like you, I remain unconvinced - and unwishful - about it all, Ripper, punter or soldier. No other stance is reasonable as things stand. But I will say that if I was to go looking for potential Ripper victims, I would look for them in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888, I would search among poor women and prostitutes living on and of the streets, and I would most certainly prioritize any victim displaying a cut to the lower abdomen. And if the deed happened on a holiday and was reported as a silent deed, then so much the more interesting.

And if that has something - anything - to do with "wanting" Tabram to be a Ripper killing instead of a simple weighing together of the facts involved, Iīd be interested to know in what way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Want

Let's just clarify things here a little. There are those who want the Tabram murder to be the first Ripper killing, whilst some don't.

Personally I fall into a third category in that I do not really mind whether or not it was the Ripper's first murder. The fact is we have no proof either way and to include or exclude it seems to be a matter of personal preference supported by personal interpretation of different aspects of the case. Thus a single wound 'three inches in length and one in depth' on the 'lower portion of the body' assumes huge significance for those wishing to add the murder to the Ripper's [unknown] tally. The obvious comparison is made with the 'two small stabs on private parts' mentioned in the Nichols case, despite the fact that we do not know that the wound to the 'lower portion of the body' in the case of Tabram was to the 'private parts' or merely the lower part of the body as opposed to the other wounds in the upper part.

So, I remain unconvinced that there is any reason to believe that Tabram's murder was committed by the Ripper as opposed to an unknown 'punter'. Of course it's possibly a 'Ripper deed'.

[Fisherman]

Stewart Evans:

"Indeed the idea of the 'one cut', i.e. it was a 'cut' and not a stab was first found, seriously proposed, and argued by Jon Ogan back in the mid-1990s, a while before you came on the scene. But the obvious counter to that is that it wasn't a deliberate cut, merely a dragging of the knife in the stab wound when it was extracted, thus lengthening the wound slightly."

Of course, we do not know how the other wounds, the stabbings, looked. But we have no other wound reported as anything like the cut, so it would seem it differed substantially to the others.

That does not mean that the explanation with a dragging knife would be wrong. There is also Don Soudenīs suggestion of a knife that skidded against (the pelvic) bone, causing the appearance of a cut.

But there are questions to ask: Why did the stabber manage to retract his knife in a fashion that left a stab wound in thirty-eight cases, whereas the only time he failed to do so was when he used his knife at the lower abdomen, an area that it would seem was not targetted otherwise?
Coincidence? Could be - but when we are looking for a killer with an interest in this exact area, we may be wise to think twice about this.

The same thing applies to Donīs (excellent) suggestion. Yes, the knife could have skidded off bone structure - but there are hundreds of bones in the human body, so why would only the stab to the lower abdomen hit bone and skid? Coincidence? Once again, perhaps. But the same advice applies.

Moreover, I think that the changing of weapons does point to something out of the ordinary. Frenzied stabbers are irrational people - if the cause for their frenzy is anger and frustration, they will distribute their stabs in a more or less hap-hazard manner, just as we see in the Tabram case.
If the frenzy is led on by lust, then the parts that have a sexual significance to the stabber may be more exclusively targetted. In Tabramīs case, this does not seem to be the case.
Whichever way, before we can put the larger weapon on the stage, I think it is reasonable to suggest that at least the blinding part of the frenzy would have given way to a more rational approach, resulting in the coup de grace to the heart.
Problem is, if we are dealing with a soldier trained in combat, then that soldier would have been very much aware that a cut throat would kill effectively, and since the blade of the smaller weapon would have been a couple of inches long, that would easily have sufficed to kill.
It would also have saved some time to opt for this, and a man who sobers up after a frenzy to realize that he has killed, would reasonably be a man very much interested in leaving the spot as quickly as possible.

No certainties, of course, but I think that the circumstances involved points to a very possible Ripper deed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Investigation

Just one other thing I would like to add.Naturally it was a police investigation,but the commanding officer was under no obligation to muster the troops for an identification.That he did ,I think,shows a high level of cooperation between police and military in that instance.
Any grilling by the military,would not neccessarily be on the basis of seeking evidence of murder,but on establishing which soldiers might have been in that vicinity.If such were found they ,I am sure,would have been been made available for a police interogation.

Indeed the military did co-operate with the police in this investigation. The police conducted attempted identifications at bot the Tower and Wellington Barracks. When Inspector Reid went to the Tower on the 7th he was assisted by the duty Sergeant Major. Reid summed up after his visits to the Tower, "I thanked the authorities for the assistance rendered to the police and they expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which I had conducted the inquiry, and promised to give any further assistance should it be required." After the visit to Wellington Barracks on the 15th Reid stated, "The authorities at Wellington Barracks rendered every assistance for which I thanked them. They also expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which the identification had been arranged."