Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Also note that Sugden writes on the same page you are quoting from: There were nine killings in the series.

But we know from his own words that he only definitely ascribes four killings to the Ripper, Nichols, Chapman, Edowes and Kelly. He then says that two more should probably be added, Stride and Tabram.

So what does he mean with that series of nine killings? Could it be that he is alluding to the Whitechapel murders? But the whitechapel murders were all murders made by the Whitechapel murderer, according to you...? So whatīs this series?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Certainly, Fisherman."

Thanks for this, Ben - saved me some time! Well, apparently, Sugden had no other reason than the one given before on this thread. And that is not sufficient as we all know by now. It only opens up for interpretations - two different ones at the least, and both viable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Is it really too much to ask that you don’t keep butting into every discussion I have with other posters?"

I donīt butt into every discussion you have with other posters. And these are public boards, I believe, where we are ALL having a discussion about the Tabram murder?

If You have a discussion of a more private nature with somebody, I will respect that as best as I can.

"If Tabram suffered a blow to the head and it necessarily impacted upon her cause of death, then yes, it was incumbent upon Kileen to mention it at the inquest, which is presumably why his considerably more experienced colleagues outlined other injuries sustained by later victims at the various inquests. "

I think you are wrong. But letīs assume that you are not! Tyhen it STILL applies that Killeen left out things that he did not think were directly ties to the death cause, and it STILL applies that you need to be careful applying your wisdom as to what he should, would, could or must have mentioned. You donīt know, see, and anybody elseīs guess in this department carries at least the same weight as yours.

"You’re going to keep repeating yourself until – what?"

Well, for one thing, I am going to repeat that I have never used any facts at all from Dewīs book, and that it therefore applies that you need to stay away from accusing me of having done so. Apparently, this very simple fact has not sunk in?

"If you think there is any sense in proposing that Abberline thought it “unlikely” that Tabram was a ripper victim, then you simply ARE wrong."

When will you learn to pick up on the more subtle shades of a discussion, Be? When? You keep misrepresenting me, and it is getting tedious. What I say, and what I stand by is NOT - NOT!!! - that Abberline thought it unlikely tyhat Tabram was a Ripper victim.

I will take it once more. Listen carefully, Ben! Abberline MAY - MAY!!! - have thought so. Equally he MAY have thought that she WAS a Ripper victim. The discussion we are having is VERY onesided when it comes to you, but let me assure you that I do not step into traps like the one you are stuck in - having sold out totally on options in a case with more than one such.

THAT is what we are discussing! Do you realize this ort not? Please let me know. The discussion is about whether MORE options than you favoured one - that Abberline MUST have thought that Tabram was a Ripper victim - may apply. And obviously, both Bridewell and Bolo were quick to realize that this is the case. After that, one may have preferences, but it is vital that we realize that other views than our own ones may have something going for them!

" if a lot of the Dew Spew is ludicrously wrong, and “riddled with mistakes” there is a very large potential risk that other parts of it are equally spewy"

And to what extent may you criticize somebody for NOT using any of the parts? Correct - to no extent at all. Please pick up on this and behave accordingly.

" “some” and “one” can easily be confused as the detail is relayed from once source to another. There can be no realistic possibility of the same thing happening with a statement that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable”."

That would stilll leave us with ONE OF THE NARROW WOUNDS, but I guess "narrow" could have been confused for "almighty" or "large", yes? And unmistakable could of course NEVER be mistaken for "all mistakable". Your arguing here, though, could easily be mistaken for "rubbish".

"Such was your anxiety that Mike might have been agreeing with me that you went straight on the offensive."

You may have missed that I went "straight on the offensive" against ANYBODY that seemingly agreed with you? That was because I thought the suggestion you made was a very bad one. That remains.

"As for Sugden, he cannot possibly be certain that two weapons were responsible because he knew full well that Kileen harboured no such certainty. He could only have meant that two weapons were used according to Kileen, and that’s in the absence of any alternative explanation that doesn’t involve Sugden being made out a weirdo."

But Ben, Sugden can disagree with you without being a weirdo. Many people can, will, and have.
And no matter how many times we read it, it remains that Sugden did NOT write "Tabram was killed by two weapons according tio Killeen". He wrote that Tabram was killed by two weapons, a penknife and a dagger. He therefore acceopted that this was the case. Thatīs what you have done when you word yourself like this.

It is strange how you always reserve yourself the right to step in and alter whatever information goes against you. You interpret, you add, you change until you can hope for a better nightīs sleep. But this is not how sourcework is done.

Therefore, I will add the sentence in itīs context, showing how Sugden reasons. It is involved in a discussion whether the same killer murdered Emma Smith and Tabram:

"Yet it is most unlikely that the same hand slew both women. As far as we know Tabram was murdered by a lone killer. Smith was the victim of a gang of bullies. Tabramīs murdered used two weapons, a pen-knife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or a bayonet. The injuries on Emma Smith were inflicted, not with a knife but with some blunt instrument, possibly a stick".

As you can see, there are no reservations made, whatsoever. Sugden compares the two killings and writes off much of the grounds for believing in the same killer. And one of the main reasons is that Emma Smiths killer used a blunt stick or something like that, while Tabramīs ditto used two weapons.

A true weirdo, Sugden, donīt you think? He actually works from the acceptance that two weapons WERE used!

" I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to change your mind."

No? I could have sworn you did. But Iīm glad that we have reached an agreement on it now.

"Well, of course they did. They were duty-bound to follow up the leads provided by Pearly Poll and PC Barrett that initially appeared to implicate a soldier or soldiers as the possible assailant(s). That doesn’t mean they adhered to that theory for any appreciable length of time, and the evidence is that they did not."

Wait a second here! The Home Office report is the "evidence" you are alluding to here, right? But this very report is what is being criticized for being riddled with faults! You cannot use it as evidence that the hunt for bayonte killers was called off, Ben - you need corroboration for it. The whole point here is that I say that we cannot rely on the report, since we KNOW that the very sentence you opted for is incorrect. And there is no other sign that the hunt for bayonets was called off!

"I somehow doubt that it was accurately recorded that he considered it “proven”"

You somehow doubt a lot that displeases you. But you DON`T doubt that the bayonet hunt was called off. This you trust blindly, in spite of the faults in that very sentence...? Anyhow, doubt it as much as you will, it does not change matters at all. Maybe you think it was misheard, just like "one" or "some"? Letīs see now, what can we offer...? Hmmmm...? Ah, got it! He of course consider the wound "goof", not proof!

"It’s a colossal waste of your time to both request and expect the entire contents of this thread to repeated."

Not at all. No evidence takes no place.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David!

Any luck on the Anderson thing yet..?

Fisherman

Hi Fish. Wait, Paul Begg will pm me soon.

[Ben]

What Abberline & Anderson wrote 15-20 yrs? after the fact has no bearing on what they thought in the fall of 1888.

Well, it does,..really..in the complete absence of any indication that they attributed more or less victims to the Whitechapel murder in 1903, for instance, than they did in 1888. As for "bundling in" Tabram on the grounds that she was one the unsolved murders, you perhaps forget that neither Anderson nor Abberline "bundled in" prostitute Emma Smith, whose murder was also committed in Whitechapel, and which was equally unsolved.

You really are fond of these 10th November press reports, aren't you? Unfortunately, they don't quote any official source and were guilty, in that instance, of "weasel words"; stating that something was "believed" to be the case without citing a source. Fortunately, sources are precisely what we have in terms of strong indications that Tabram was considered a ripper victim, and they were respected police sources to boot. The evidence for Tabram as ripper victim is all there in the timing, location, victimology, type of weapon used, and a century's worth of insight into serial killers. I realise that a few people aren't too clued up on the last mentioned.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Could you post the relevant wording from Sugdens book, Ben?

Certainly, Fisherman.

"Inspector Abberline and Sir Robert Anderson both opted for a tally of six by adding Martha Tabram to Macnaghten's names. Walter Dew believed that these six women were "definite" Ripper victims. But he made the total seven because he felt that Emma Smith had been the ripper's first victim"

"Macnaghten discounted Martha on grounds which are now known to have been largely erroneous. Abberline, Anderson, Reid and Dew, on the other hand, all included her among the ripper victims"

From page 357-358 of the "Complete History...", and he provides a list of sources.

Anderson accepted Tabram as a ripper victim. He referred to her not just as one of the "Whitechapel murders", but as the first murder, echoing the opinion of Abberline. His meaning is astoundingly obvious. He cannot have meant the murders in general, or else he would have cited Nichols as the third murder, and not the second. Anderson singled out those that he didn't consider to have been killed by the same person. They were McKenzie and Mylett, not Tabram, who he clearly included. Of course, neither police official could invest "certain faith" in her being a ripper victim, but they both clearly considered it the probable explanation.

Regards,
Ben

[bolo]

Fisherman,

Bolo:

"in my opinion, Abberline specifically refers to the first in the Jack the Ripper with his George Yard comment. This seems to be a logical deduction from the context of the interview which, as Fisherman mentioned, shows Abberline's intention to tie Chapman to the JtR case."

And if he was referring to Tabram as the first in the Whitechapel murder series instead of the Ripper killings specifically - would it not be likewise logical for Abberline to STILL point out the coincidence? Would he think "Well, since I am not certain that Tabram was killed by the Ripper, letīs not mention the George Yard connection" or would he think "No matter if Tabram WAS a Ripper killing or not, one must say that the George Yard thing was a very remarkable coincidence - and Tabram MAY well have been a Ripper killing, after all".

What do you think?

yes, I think it would be logical for Abberline to point out the coincidence in any case. Then again, the general public rated the lethal attack against Emma Smith as the first of the Whitechapel murders, that makes Tabram the second victim. Wouldn't this mean that Abberline was referring to the first in the Ripper series?

At any rate, Bolo, and as I am certain you realize too - it takes the prefix "In my opinion" before you can state that you think that Abberline spoke of the Ripper murders only.

Agreed, and that is exactly what I did.

Regards,

Boris

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Is it really too much to ask that you don’t keep butting into every discussion I have with other posters? It really is the height of gaucherie, especially after you cautioned me very aggressively “NEVER!” to interfere with what you post to others. Let’s just stick with that arrangement if you don’t mind.

If Tabram suffered a blow to the head and it necessarily impacted upon her cause of death, then yes, it was incumbent upon Kileen to mention it at the inquest, which is presumably why his considerably more experienced colleagues outlined other injuries sustained by later victims at the various inquests. David’s point was an entirely reasonable one. You can fantasize all you want about what “must have” appeared in a “lost report” that got conveniently bombed in the blitz, but we have not the slightest indication that Kileen ever noted the signs of suffocation, for instance. Whether or not it caused her death is irrelevant. We know full well that he was prepared to discuss matters that were unrelated to that particular topic, such as weapon type. He did elaborate, just not on the things that you want him to have elaborated upon. In fact, he didn’t even mention those.

“since you refuse to pick up on very easy things, you must surely realize that repetition is very much called for?”

Oh, don’t be preposterous. I do wish you’d just listen to yourself occasionally. You’re going to keep repeating yourself until – what? – I change my mind, perhaps, or get “worn out”? You’ve tried that before and it never works out, especially against me, remember? I will just out-repeat you, for a thousand pages if necessary. Why not just resign yourself to the fact that I’m not buying your “arguments” and move on?

“1. You have to be wrong, Fisherman, since Sugden disagrees with you.”

No, that is not what I argue at all. Sugden disagreeing with you is merely the icing on the cake. If you think there is any sense in proposing that Abberline thought it “unlikely” that Tabram was a ripper victim, then you simply ARE wrong. Transparently so. And do, I don’t need Sugden to “go to hell” in order for the one-weapon theory to be both plausible and popularly supported as a strong possibility.

“Once again, when part A of a sentence is ludicuously wrong, there is a very large POTENTIAL risk that part B is too.”

“Once again” – and a trillion more times if necessary - if a lot of the Dew Spew is ludicrously wrong, and “riddled with mistakes” there is a very large potential risk that other parts of it are equally spewy.

“The statement that some of the narrow wounds were initially thought to be bayonetinflicted is just as unambiguous, Iīm afraid.”

No, “some” and “one” can easily be confused as the detail is relayed from once source to another. There can be no realistic possibility of the same thing happening with a statement that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable”.

“Up til that point, he very much sided with you. After it - nope.”

Yep, I thought as much. Such was your anxiety that Mike might have been agreeing with me that you went straight on the offensive. You make out that he changed his mind halfway through, which didn’t seem to be the case at all. He was clarifying his stance, not revising it. At least I rather hope he wasn’t.

As for Sugden, he cannot possibly be certain that two weapons were responsible because he knew full well that Kileen harboured no such certainty. He could only have meant that two weapons were used according to Kileen, and that’s in the absence of any alternative explanation that doesn’t involve Sugden being made out a weirdo.

“But after having gone through the book thoroughly, I changed my mind.”

That’s just the problem, though. You argue very aggressively, and with unwarranted, off-putting tenacity, over matters that you soon dispense with, only to argue the reverse approximately two weeks later with equally aggressive, unwarranted, off-putting tenacity. We’ve had Fleming, the Dew Spew and now Tabram. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to change your mind. Quite the contrary, it demonstrates a certain flexibility that isn’t at all apparent from your posts, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you went straight back to including Tabram as a ripper victim at some point in the near future. If you remember, that was your opinion until a week or so ago.

“Eh, the "indication to the contrary" would be that we have it on record that the police sought high and low for soldiers in the case”

Well, of course they did. They were duty-bound to follow up the leads provided by Pearly Poll and PC Barrett that initially appeared to implicate a soldier or soldiers as the possible assailant(s). That doesn’t mean they adhered to that theory for any appreciable length of time, and the evidence is that they did not. Whatever Reid thought in the immediate aftermath of the murder, his ultimate opinion was certainly not that a soldier killed Tabram, and unless Reid was an idiot, I somehow doubt that it was accurately recorded that he considered it “proven”. The crucial clue here is that Reid was not quoted directly.

“B/ Tell me what evidence you have for the one weapon suggestion, the Abberline-said-Tabram-was-the -Rippers suggestion and the A-bayonet-was-discarded theory. It should not waste all that much of your time, Ben”

It’s a colossal waste of your time to both request and expect the entire contents of this thread to repeated.

Ben

[Sally]

Fish, I'm wounded.

I asked perfectly reasonable questions, in fact, which you don't seem to want to answer - up to you of course.

Viz:

Why do you discount the logical suggestions put forward by Harry as an alternative to the two weapons theory?

Why do you think the one weapon theory is groundless?

Those are questions entirely pertinent to the current discussion, and so I don't see how such discussion is to be considered not 'fruitful' exactly.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting that, Jon!

"The two earlier murders - the one in George Yard and the other in Osbourne St. - are not believed to have been the work of the miscreant who is still at large; but it is a peculiar fact, taken in conjuction with the coincidence of dates already marked, that the murder of Mrs. Turner, in George Yard occured on the 7th day of August."

I wonder if Ben can see the alternative use of the word "coincidence" here, or if he will tell us that it means that the Daily Telegraph had made itīs mind up that Tabram WAS killed by the Ripper...

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Dodging the issue Fish, I'm afraid. So, you are stating as fact that there were two weapons? Ok then."

No, Sally, I am dodging you specifically, since I donīt think you contribute to the discussion in a fruitful manner.

As for the issue, read again:

"There were two weapons, THAT IS THE MUCH SOUNDER STANCE due to the evidence." I am not an idiot, Sally, no matter what you may think about that, and I have repeatedly stated that no certainty is to be had. Would you please respect that in the future? Thank you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

At any rate, Bolo, and as I am certain you realize too - it takes the prefix "In my opinion" before you can state that you think that Abberline spoke of the Ripper murders only. And since others - among them me - are of a different opinion, instead opting for Abberline speaking of the Whitechapel murder series, a series of unsolved murders, it applies that no certainty can be reached whether Abberline WAS convinced that Tabram was Jackīs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

What Abberline & Anderson wrote 15-20 yrs? after the fact has no bearing on what they thought in the fall of 1888. Reflections always have the benefit of 20-20 vision.

As for Anderson referring to Tabram as the 2nd, this only indicates that he is acknowledging an 'in-house' consensus. That Tabram was bundled in with the rest of the 'unsolved' Whitechapel Murders, not that he himself thought she was the first kill of a serial killer.
That distinction needs to be made.

Also, though not an official source, it is well to notice that in the still existing police files an interesting article was cut from the Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.
In here we read:
"The two earlier murders - the one in George Yard and the other in Osbourne St. - are not believed to have been the work of the miscreant who is still at large; but it is a peculiar fact, taken in conjuction with the coincidence of dates already marked, that the murder of Mrs. Turner, in George Yard occured on the 7th day of August."

So here we have a contemporary account, from a publication which was not commonly known to publish articles designed to inflame public opinion. Which, informs the reader that Tabram was not automatically included as the first of the series, even though, by date alone there may be reason to do so.
Which means that if Tabram was included by anyone, it was not due to any evidence.
Her inclusion was based on date & perhaps savagery which although are worthy of note, are not suitable arguments beyond coincidence.

As stated numerous times, the opinions of Police officials many years after-the-fact are not to be used as a firm guide as to their thoughts at the time.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Sally:

"Yeah, Fish, but I'm not saying Killeen lied, am I?"

Iīm sorry, Sally, but I donīt want to play the "since you say that I have said that you once said that I really did not say what you claim that I said that you was about to say-game" anymore.

There were two weapons, that is the much sounder stance due to the evidence. And hey, it was Killeen who said there was, not me ...

The best,
Fisherman

Dodging the issue Fish, I'm afraid. So, you are stating as fact that there were two weapons? Ok then.

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"in my opinion, Abberline specifically refers to the first in the Jack the Ripper with his George Yard comment. This seems to be a logical deduction from the context of the interview which, as Fisherman mentioned, shows Abberline's intention to tie Chapman to the JtR case."

And if he was referring to Tabram as the first in the Whitechapel murder series instead of the Ripper killings specifically - would it not be likewise logical for Abberline to STILL point out the coincidence? Would he think "Well, since I am not certain that Tabram was killed by the Ripper, letīs not mention the George Yard connection" or would he think "No matter if Tabram WAS a Ripper killing or not, one must say that the George Yard thing was a very remarkable coincidence - and Tabram MAY well have been a Ripper killing, after all".

What do you think?

The best,
Fisherman