Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Sally]

Poll

Oh I See. We've already had a Poll.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2997

And it looks as though just over two thirds of respondents think Tabram was a Ripper Victim. That's a singular Ripper, I assume, not a multiplicity of Rippers with multiple weapons.

Ah well, no need for another poll then. Shame.

Fisherman - you didn't happen to vote in that poll did you?

I think I might.

[Cogidubnus]

Think the quality of this debate just improved tenfold!

[Sally]

Tabram was murdered by one soldier and a half with a pensword or a daggernet.

What's that? Penfold or Dangermouse? I can believe it...

[Sally]

If the poor woman had been forced to sit through this lot, she'd have probably considered suicide and, falling on the blade(s) thirty nine times, gone to a happier place...:-)

Dave

Funny you should mention that, Dave. Apparently Killeen did say that some of the wounds (but not all) could have been self-inflicted.

Maybe we've just had it wrong all this time?

[Cogidubnus]

Euthenasia

If the poor woman had been forced to sit through this lot, she'd have probably considered suicide and, falling on the blade(s) thirty nine times, gone to a happier place...:-)

Dave

[DVV]

motus vivaldi

Tabram was murdered by one soldier and a half with a pensword or a daggernet.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

You continue to misunderstand. If any of the wounds were still in contention for the Tabram murder, the Home Office document would have alluded to them. The annotation was concerned specifically with the weaponry allegedly involved in the Tabram murder. The thrust of the observation was that whichever wounds were initially suspected of being bayonet inflicted, they later weren’t. Obviously, it would have made little sense to address those wounds that were never suspected of being bayonet inflicted. Why refute a bayonet theory for wounds that never suspected as having been caused by a bayonet? If the bayonet was NOT ruled out “totally”, the Home Office document would have said so explicitly, unless those responsible for writing it were insane. They would have said, “but another wound DID reveal that unmistakably bayonetish wound”.

That none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been bayonet inflicted can be inferred from two things:

1) A refutation of the bayonet theory for “some” of the wounds.

2) The complete non-reference to any other wounds for which the bayonet might still be in contention.

As far as I know, every author who has ever addressed the Home Office document (book, article, it doesn’t matter) has concluded that they were discounting the bayonet theory in general. Now, you might conclude that they were in error to do so (and I look forward, if necessary, to another stamina war on that topic), but to challenge the essence of what they were saying is simply ludicrous. The only minor error in the annotation was the number of wounds suspected of having been caused by a bayonet. They said that some were thus suspected, and not one. It doesn’t matter. Macnaghten made the same error. They were clearly referring to the wound or wounds that WERE suspected of having been caused by a bayonet.

“The all-important possibility you leave out here is that Abberline may have been exactly where very many of us today are when it comes to Tabram - on the fence.”

He lacked the proof, as we all do, but he evidently considered it probable that Tabram was not only a ripper victim, but also the first of the ripper’s victims. He referred to the George Yard connection because he believed it lent weight to the proposal that Klosowski was the ripper. If he didn’t buy Tabram as a ripper victim, the George Yard connection would not have lent any such weight, and was thus a pointless thing to mention. This also holds true if Abberline considered it a remote out-side chance that Tabram was a ripper victim. His comments only make sense if he subscribed to the opinion that Tabram probable was one, and this is made abundantly clear from his reference to Tabram as the “first murder”.

“Make the assumption, if you will, Ben, that Abberline had had information proving that George Chapman had been drinking in Osborne Street the very night Emma Smith died. Make the further assumption that Abberline was of the meaning that Smith was not a Ripper killing - but could not rule out that the Ripper HAD been one in the gang that did for Smith.”

But in that instance, I would revise my stance and incorporate Emma Smith into the ripper’s likely tally, and I’m sure Abberline would have done too. Think about it. Imagine I’m confronted with a suspect – let’s say Klosowski – who ticks all the boxes, and was seen drinking (as per your idea) on Osbourne Street on the night of Emma Smith’s death. That “coincidence” would be more than sufficient to revise me view about Smith not being a ripper victim. Such a revelation would convert a potential ripper victim into a likely one.

“The first murder in the series regarded as being the potential work of one and the same man, Ben.”

As being the likely work of one and the same man, Fisherman, according to Abberline at least. However implausible Smith might have seemed as a ripper victim, she was still a potential one, and yet Abberline omitted her entirely and referred to Martha Tabram as the “first murder”. This would only make sense if he meant the first likely murder of Jack the Ripper, and not the first possible murder of Jack the Ripper, because the second description does NOT fit Tabram.

The “widespread belief” that a soldier may have been responsible for the Tabram murder only existed in the immediate aftermath of the event. Once the bayonet theory had been dispensed with and Pearly Poll proved a useless witness, the evidence against the soldiery was weak at best, and with the police seniority all supporting Tabram as a ripper victim, that widespread belief evidently faded rather quickly.

I really wouldn’t have wasted time pointing out the errors in the Home Office document. We’re all perfectly aware that they exist, just as we’re all perfectly aware that some glaring errors crept into the Abberline interview currently under discussion, but you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater in that case any more than you should in this one. We don’t need your commentary on what those errors are either. The document was reproduced in full on another thread, and anyone with any knowledge of the crimes will be able to spot those errors. The revision of the bayonet theory was wholly unrelated to any of the errors they made regarding Nicholls’ wounds.

The Home Office did not reply on press reports for their documents. There was no press report asserting that bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable. This was evidently a realization on the part of the police, presumably after seeking expert advice, which was passed on to the Home Office. It wasn’t dreamt up by the boy who makes the tea. The fact that errors were present does not mean that they were ill-informed. It simply meant that there was a miscommunication somewhere.

And once again, you must show some consistency in applying your dogma. If you think the entire document must be discarded because of a few errors, then what on earth does that say for the Dew Spew that was, to your estimation, “riddled with mistakes”? If you don’t hurl that to the wolves because of those errors, then why apply such transparent double-standards with the Home Office document?

It is trustworthy source, as I’m prepared to reiterate for longer than you can ever hope to keep reiterating that it isn’t. There is nothing to indicate that the revision of the bayonet theory was anything other than wholly accurate.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David:

"So let's say, with much tact and diplomacy, that you are not exactly right."

Tact? Not really. Diplomacy? None at all. Eloquence? Absolutely, full points for that!

The trouble is, however, that it would be very hard for either of us to say to what extent I am correct - and even harder to try and merge our views together, I fear.

But why not discuss the details instead of making witty jokes about them? More fun, if you ask me.

"Never meant to hurt you, my dear. My apologies if I did."

None called for, David. It takes a lot more to hurt me. I rather enjoy your jokes most of the time. But, as I said, I would prefer a little less fun and a little more serious arguments.

Anyway, David ...

Fisherman

[DVV]

Always the jester, eh, David?
Fisherman

Never meant to hurt you, my dear. My apologies if I did.

[DVV]

1. I never said exactly that.
2. I never said exactly that.
3. I never said exactly that.
4. I never said exactly that.
5. I never said exactly that.

Fisherman

Exactly, Fish.
So let's say, with much tact and diplomacy, that you are not exactly right.

[Fisherman]

Since we have an attempt at hand to try and rule a bayonet out as a possible weapon in the Tabram murder, and since the party promoting this idea leans against the so called Home Office annotations, we may as well take a closer look at these annotations and try to establish of what value they may be to us.

This is how they describe the Nichols murder:

"Mary Ann Nichols (45)31.8.88. between 2.30 and 3.45 on footway in Buck’s Row, Whitechapel
throat cut, nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged: the coating of the stomach was cut in several places: Two small stabs on private parts: may have been done by a strong bladed knife? By a left handed man.
money: and nothing left behind.
parts removed
The description of the cut is not quite clear? clerical error pelvis = pubes.
If so, the cut would be a circular sweep starting from centre of waist"

Now, how correct is this? To begin with, the time space given does not include the fact that Neil told at the inquest that Nichols was NOT dead at 3.15: "I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then." Moreover, it was established that Nichols was still warm when found, meaning that she had not been dead for more than a few minutes. Therefore it is rubbish to set the death time to "between 2.30 and 3.45".

Next: "By a left handed man." This was Llewellyn´s initial stance, but he did not hang on to it for very long. Certainly, long before Eddowes died - and these annotations were compiled AFTER that - the "left-handed" business had been abandoned by the doctor. But apparently, the Home Office official/s that compiled the annotations were unaware of this. The information in this instance is thus uniformed. And just HOW uniformed is gleaned by the next passage:

"The description of the cut is not quite clear? clerical error pelvis = pubes.
If so, the cut would be a circular sweep starting from centre of waist"

Not quite clear? Obviously, the Home Office has not got a clue here. If this Home Office report was to have gained any trust at all, it would need to be informed. Here we have another good example of how UNINFORMED it was. No questions asked in relation to Llewellyn, who could easily have explained what the wounds were really like. Spratling could have done the same - had he been asked. But none of them were. The Home Office were quite content reading the press reports, it would seem, instead of the relevant reports compiled by the ones who knew. As a consequence, they stayed happily uninformed - or outright misinformed - about the vital details attaching to the Nichols murder.

Also, of course: "parts removed". Really?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the almighty source we are asked to believe in, when deciding if a bayonet had been used in George Yard or not. And bear in mind that the annotations do not even voice any certainty, informed OR uniformed, about this when it comes to the total amount of wounds on Tabram. All that is commented upon is an unidentified number of the narrow wounds.

Anybody who thinks this is a reliable and useful source, well informed and up to standards? Someone? Anyone, who wants to defend the report and it´s inherent qualities?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Always the jester, eh, David?

Well, the things I have learnt are not less amazing, let me tell you that!

And now I will adapt Sally´s technique, and answer you, point by point:

1. I never said exactly that.
2. I never said exactly that.
3. I never said exactly that.
4. I never said exactly that.
5. I never said exactly that.

"Stop quibbling, accept defeat and be thankful"

Now, THERE´S a useful idea ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

So yes, Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim, as accepted by Sugden (who therefore “faults your version” as I do), and when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder. He clearly didn’t mean the first murder in general because that would have described Emma Smith, and not Tabram.

Ben, we've already learnt so much from this thread :

1- Martha was stabbed repeatedly with a penknife (whose blade couldn't be confused with another type of knives, of course)
2- But she was stabbed once with a dagger
3- All daggers have two cutting edges, and everybody knew this in 1888
4- The young Killeen, with no particular forensic knowledge nor experience, was perfectly fit for the job
4- According to Reid, Martha wasn't a Ripper victim
5- And Abberline didn't consider her a Ripper victim either, he was merely joking in 1903

Stop quibbling, accept defeat and be thankful.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, this wasn’t my point at all. The central bullet point that you need to take away from the Home Office document is that whichever wounds were initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted – one, some, all of them, it doesn’t matter – they were ultimately considered not to have been bayonet-inflicted."

And this is noted exactly where in the annotations? In the copy I got, it says that some of the narrow wounds were first suspected to be bayonet-inflicted. I take it that would mean that some (more than one, but certainly not all) of the narrow wounds were at some initial stage believed by somebody to have been bayonet-made. I fail to see what else it could mean. Perhaps you have a lead here?
Oh, and then it goes on to say that this initial suspicion that some (more than one but not all) of the narrow wounds were bayonet-caused, was subsequently abandoned, since "bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable".

Now WHAT can this mean? I have a suggestion. It means that the portion of smaller wounds (more than one but not all) that were mentioned in the Home Office annotations that were initially suggested as perhaps having been bayonet-inflicted, were at a later stage ruled NOT to be bayonet-inflicted. And this was due to the fact that IF they had been so, then the wounds would have displayed typical characteristics, corresponding to those brought about by bayonets.

So what do we have? We have an assertion that it was initially thought that some (more than one but not all) of the narrow wounds were perhaps bayonet-made. This suggestion was however apparently discarded later, since the wounds (more than one but not all) did not look the way bayonet-inflicted wounds do

So tell me, Ben, where do we have the assertion that a bayonet was ruled out totally in Tabram´s case? I fail to find it.
And from where did you get the very strange and awkward idea that it does not matter whether the Home Office said "some" or "all"? Since when have such information been useless?
In my book, it is very vital information. The fact that the Home Office says nothing at all about the LARGE wound, the ONLY wound stated by Killeen to have been potentially bayonet-inflicted, surely must count very much here!

"Of course Abberline did not consider the connection “proven”, for the simple reason that he could no more prove Klosowski the ripper than he could prove Tabram a ripper victim."

Ah - finally we are getting somewhere! Now let´s see how you proceed...

"Abberline's central observation behind the Klosowski-related content of his 1903 interview was that he was the most likely suspect for the Whitechapel murders."

Good, good. This is correct.

"He listed various details that he felt pointed towards that conclusion, and the American and George Yard connection were two such examples."

Invariably so, yes. But here we may need a slight distinction and a more useful wording. Abberline listed various details that he felt MAY have pointed to the conclusion you speak of. A small but vital difference, Ben! Just like you say, Abberline could not prove things, and so it´s just "may" here.

"If he didn’t consider Tabram a ripper victim, he completely undermined – and made a stupid, laughable nonsense of – his reference to the George Yard/Klosowski connection."

Yes, this is in some sense true, although you exaggerate things. If Abberline thought that Tabram could not have been a Ripper victim, then he would perhaps just have left George Yard out of the discussion.

But the question we have at hand is not a question with just two answers, Ben. It is not as if Abberline either believed Tabram was a Ripper victim, or he disbelieved it. The all-important possibility you leave out here is that Abberline may have been exactly where very many of us today are when it comes to Tabram - on the fence. Undecided, simply.

And THIS is where I need you to take a closer look! For IF he was undecided whether Tabram was Jacks or not, but felt certain that Chapman was the killer, then how would he treat the knowledge that George Chapman stayed in George Yard for some time back in those days? Would he just look away from it, or would he use it as something that POTENTIALLY pointed a finger at Chapman, the man he wanted to condemn as the Ripper himself? Do not forget that Abberline had no other potential link whatsoever between Chapman and any of the other so called Ripper victims. He could not link him to Nichols, Annie Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, could he? But he COULD produce a potential link inbetween Tabram and George Chapman.

Make the assumption, if you will, Ben, that Abberline had had information proving that George Chapman had been drinking in Osborne Street the very night Emma Smith died. Make the further assumption that Abberline was of the meaning that Smith was not a Ripper killing - but could not rule out that the Ripper HAD been one in the gang that did for Smith.
Do you for a split second believe that he would have left this potential clue out in the Gazette interview? Or would he have said that it was an almighty coincidence that Chapman actually was present at the spot where Smith died on that very night? Since his aim in the interview was - just like you acknowledge - was to finger Chapman for the Ripper killings, why would he leave out any potentially incriminating evidence against the man, especially the one clue he had that COULD connect Chapman and a potential Ripper victim?

So yes, he spoke of the "coincidence" to point his finger at Chapman - but no, that does not mean that he himself was decided in any way about Tabram. Now do you see what I am talking about?

"when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder."

The first murder in the series regarded as being the potential work of one and the same man, Ben. Please remember that there were even suspicions that Eddowes was not Jack´s. And Stride was questioned very clearly too.

Any which way we cut it, I think we would agree that if the police were to list the six victims Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly in probability order - and probabilities was all they could speak of since the killer/s were never captured - the two murders that would end up last on the list would have been Stride and Tabram. In both cases, the lack of mutilations and evisceration would be the cause. Agreed?

Furthermore, since Stride did at least have her neck cut, that would arguably put her ahead of Tabram in the race. Tabram, I feel pretty certain, would have ended up at the bottom of the list.

This was what the police would have had - a series of six killings that MAY have been carried out by the same man. There was no "canon" in them days. And of all of these killings, Tabram would arguably have been the killing that had the least supporters as being a true Ripper deed. Also because there was a widespread belief that she had fallen prey to a military man (or men).

In consequence, it would have been in no way odd for the police and it´s officials to opt for a stance where Tabram was clearly much doubted as a Ripper victim, but not discarded as one, due to the timing, the geographical connection and the victimology. To feel certain that she WAS a Ripper victim would however be a strange thing to do for a police professional. There could be no certainty at all here, and even the police officers that DID count her into the Ripper´s tally, did so by means of choice, not proof.

As for Abberline, we don´t know. He never went on record saying "I believe the Ripper killed Tabram". All he did was to point out that whichever way, it was a coincidence that Chapman and Tabram had been in place in George Yard at the approximate same stage of time. And since he tried to finger George Chapman as the Ripper, it stands to reason that he would mention it. It was the only potential - POTENTIAL - link he had to any of the potential - POTENTIAL - victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I'm not sure, Harry - that was Fisherman's guess. To me it seems quite sensible to suggest that Killeen made no definitive statements - as you say, ifs and buts. Therefore, how can anybody claim his opinion for definitely ascertained fact?

I suggested to Fisherman that we have a poll so that we could see what people thought, but he hasn't taken me up on that suggestion so far.

I can't think why.