Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

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

[bolo]

Hi all,

in my opinion, Abberline specifically refers to the first in the Jack the Ripper series 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.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" Hence, historian Philip Sugden rationally concluded, as I do, that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim."

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

"The same, of course, goes for Robert Anderson. His reference to Nichols as the second murder means that he also excluded Emma Smith as being part of the series and counted Tabram as the first offence of the "maniac" known as Jack the Ripper"

Eh ... no. He very clearly speaks about the Whitechapel murders, and they included the victims slain by means of knife by one or more unknown perpetrators; Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, Mackenzie and Coles. Just like we cannot conclude whether the same man killed Tabram and the rest, neither could the police back then. They did not know how many killers the eight women mentioned above met with, Ben, and the headline "The Whitechapel Murders" could only allude to the series of murders as such, and not to the killer/s other than in a much looser way. Since we KNOW that different policemen counted different victims as the Ripperīs, it would not make sense to speak of the Ripper killings to begin with - that would constitute different entities to different people. But the label "The Whitechapel murders" would be quite useful, alluding to the whole series of knife-killed victims over that small stretch of years.

Ergo - NONE of Abberline or Anderson can be established as having put any certain amount of faith in Tabram as the first victim. The suspicion must always have been there, but the soldier connection and the very obvious possibility that TWO killers were present in George Yard (due to the two weapons used) reasonably will have made Tabram a very uncertain bid for both these gentlemen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Who's saying MUST have?"

Ben does. I corrected him on that score.

" I still don't see what the objections are - no, ok, I see what they are, but not why they count for much. "

I, on the other hand, have a lot more trouble seeing how no evidence at all can count for ANYTHING, Sally. And I could not help but to notice how you lesoned Heinrich on another thread that it would be stupid to think that Mary Ann Cox lied, since no evidence can be gathered to substantiate such a thing. One would have hoped that you would use the same clearsighted approach to Killeen, but no - in HIS case, when we are dealing not with an unfortunate who may have had reason to dislike the police but with a professional medico, it is a commendable thing to do to doubt his word.

I find this approach of yours a tad strange, I must say.

"If we're talking about Tabram being a Ripper victim, why is the pro argument on the 'shakiest' of grounds then?

If we're talking about Doctor Tim, then I think we've established that he didn't speak in absolutes either."

We are talking about the suggested one knife scenario, Sally. A ground gets no more shaky than that.

The best,
Fisherman

Yeah, Fish, but I'm not saying Killeen lied, am I? And I haven't even said 'he must have been mistaken' I think that it's possible, yes.

You think there's no evidence for a one knife theory? What about Harry's posts? That all appears quite logical to me, Fish - why not to you?

As for the other thread, Fish, the assertion that Cox 'must' have lied is not comparable with the suggestion that Killeen may have been mistaken - surely you can see that? Objection to the first I can understand, since there is not only no evidence for such assertion, but no apparent motive for it either - it isn't enough to say, 'Oh, Cox must have lied' because it interferes with the premise that Barnett was the Ripper.

This is not the same at all as questioning whether Killeen may have been mistaken. I don't see how such questioning is in any way an insult to Killeen, in spite of your contention that it is. Or are you suggesting that doctors are infallible?

I don't want to go round in circles with you Fish, it's dull. We don't know for a fact- we can't know a) whether one weapon or two were used to kill Tabram; b) whether one person or more was responsible; c) whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not.

It all comes down to opinion, as I've already said - not absolutes.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

" I think you've done a pretty good job of highlighting the significance of the all-important context."

Thanks, Bridewell!

"It would be good to know exactly what he was thinking when he said (if indeed he said it):
"George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed".

It would! And it is our not knowing that is the snag.

"Does he mean the first of the Whitechapel Murders, or the first of the murders which can be ascribed to the "Jack the Ripper" entity?"

Could be either or, and thatīs what I have been saying all along. At any rate, I think that it is all-imortant to keep in mind that Abberlines intention was to tie Chapman to the killings with anything he had at hand, no matter how much he invested in Tabram being Jackīs. And the George Yard connection was the best bid in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Abberline stated that Tabram was the first murder, which is a comment that only makes sense in the context of the Jack the Ripper murders. "

It makes just as much sense in context of the Whitechapel murders, Iīm afraid - a string of murders that may or may not have been perpetrated by the same man. Even today, we donīt know. Andthere you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

here's a quote taken from the 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview with Abberline (quoted from Complete History, paperpback, rev. ed. 2002, pg. 452) concerning Chapman/Klosowski:

"There are many other things extremly remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed [my emphasis], is very serious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

Of course we cannot be sure wether Abberline adopted this view in retrospect or was convinced right from the start that Tabram was the first Ripper victim.

Just thought I should add this detail here.

EDIT: Others beat me to it, my apologies.

Regards,

Boris

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Yes, Abberline stated that Tabram was the first murder, which is a comment that only makes sense in the context of the Jack the Ripper murders. If he meant the murders in general, he would have referred to Smith as the first murder, and not Tabram. So we're in agreement here. In addition, Abberline favoured Klosowski as Jack the Ripper and cited the fact that he lodged in George Yard as a perceived "plus" in that theory's favour. He even described the "coincidence" as "extremely remarkable", which it would not have been if he didn't think it likely that Tabram was a ripper victim. It would have meant nothing. Hence, historian Philip Sugden rationally concluded, as I do, that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim. There can be no proof, as you note, since we lack the "proof" that any two victims were slain by the same hand. When people refer to a coincidence as "extremely remarkable", the inescapable inference is that they coincide because they link. Otherwise it would be "just a coincidence."

The same, of course, goes for Robert Anderson. His reference to Nichols as the second murder means that he also excluded Emma Smith as being part of the series and counted Tabram as the first offence of the "maniac" known as Jack the Ripper, agreeing with Abberline. As we know, the killer was also known as the "Whitechapel murderer" and he considered Tabram, not Smith, as part of the "Whitechapel murders". Anderson discussed the cases which, in his opinion, were the unrelated to the series - Alice McKenzie and Rose Mylett. Sugden also concludes that Anderson supported Tabram as a ripper victim, and really, we hear no dissenting police voice from any senior police official except Macnaghten, who wasn't part of the original investigation.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Hi Fisherman,

Many thanks for such a detailed exposition. I'd read the PMG intervew and can't, in isolation, take it as proof positive that Abberline thought Tabram was a JtR murder. I think you've done a pretty good job of highlighting the significance of the all-important context.

It would be good to know exactly what he was thinking when he said (if indeed he said it):

"George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed".

Does he mean the first of the Whitechapel Murders, or the first of the murders which can be ascribed to the "Jack the Ripper" entity? I would have thought Emma Smith and Ada Wilson would be better candidates for the first of the former. If "first of" has any genuine significance, I think the "Jack the Ripper" murders a better fit. Having said that, we don't know that these were Abberline's actual words. He could have referred simply to the George Yard murder, with the journalist adding "the first of" reference in a misguided attempt at clarification for the benefit of his readership.

Overall, I think my position has to be that the remark attributed to Abberline is suggestive of a view that he considered Tabram's to be a Ripper murder but, in isolation, not proof of it. I am conscious, here, of what I said to Heinrich on another thread about the uncorroborated evidence of Mary Cox, but hers was a first-hand account and this is a second-hand report, in a newspaper, of something he allegedly said.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Since nobody seems to want to post the purported reason that Anderson would have believed that Tabram was a Ripper killing, I may just as well do it myself. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe it all derives from Andersons book "The Lighter Side of My Official Life", where he writes: "The second of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders was committed the night before I took office, and the third occurred the night of the day on which I left London."

This means that we can conclude that he names Nichols the second victim, and arguably, that puts Tabram in the frame as victim number one.

But where does Anderson say that he himself counted Tabram as a true Ripper victim? Correct: Nowhere.

What he DOES say is that Tabram belonged to a series of killings that came to be known as the "Whitechapel murders". But we are of the exact same meaning today, no matter whether we believe Tabram was the Ripperīs or not. She still belongs to the picture, to the general frame of POTENTIAL victims, a frame that sports Alice MacKenzxie on the other side in spite of the fact that most people do not think she was truly JAckīs. And that is all we can say of Andersonīs convictions. He would, if I am correct, have been of the exact same meaning that I think Abberline was: That Tabram MAY have been the Ripperīs. How far this took him is open to questioning, just as it is in Abberlineīs case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I'd quite like an answer to this one, Ben."

If you need to see the bit that Ben says puts things beyond questioning that Abberline regarded Tabram a Ripper victim, then that lies in a Pall Mall Gazette interview from March 24 1903, where Abberline makes a case for George Chapman being the Ripper. In the article, Abberline is reported to have said: "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious..."

To Ben, this constitutes ironclad proof that Abberline DID think that Tabram was the Ripper. I have pointed out to him that is proof of one thing and one thing only: That he considered it a coincidence that Tabram was killed in an area where Chapman had lived.

My stance is that if Abberline wanted to pin Chapman for the murders on the whole, then it would be very strange if he did not mention this coincidence, since it is the ONLY potential clue inbetween Chapman and ANY of the victims.
It is another thing altogether whether Abberline genuinely believed that Tabram WAS a Ripper victim. It may well be that he simply acknowledged that there was a chance for it, but that he actually did not regard that chance as very large.
But at any rate, since he was making a case for Chapman as a potential Ripper, Abberline would reasonably have mentioned the coincidence attaching to George Yard. The underlying reasoning may well have been "I canīt tell if Tabram was a true victim or not, and myself I donīt invest much in it - but at any rate, one must say that the fact that they both can be tied to Geroge Yard is a coincidence whichever way we look upon it."

This is how I see it, Bridewell. It could have been either way, if you ask me.
If you ask Ben, though, itīs a different story. He regards this interview as conclusive proof of Abberlineīs belief in Tabram as a true Ripper victim.

Take your pick!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Who's saying MUST have?"

Ben does. I corrected him on that score.

" I still don't see what the objections are - no, ok, I see what they are, but not why they count for much. "

I, on the other hand, have a lot more trouble seeing how no evidence at all can count for ANYTHING, Sally. And I could not help but to notice how you lesoned Heinrich on another thread that it would be stupid to think that Mary Ann Cox lied, since no evidence can be gathered to substantiate such a thing. One would have hoped that you would use the same clearsighted approach to Killeen, but no - in HIS case, when we are dealing not with an unfortunate who may have had reason to dislike the police but with a professional medico, it is a commendable thing to do to doubt his word.

I find this approach of yours a tad strange, I must say.

"If we're talking about Tabram being a Ripper victim, why is the pro argument on the 'shakiest' of grounds then?

If we're talking about Doctor Tim, then I think we've established that he didn't speak in absolutes either."

We are talking about the suggested one knife scenario, Sally. A ground gets no more shaky than that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Dear Ben

Ben!

You forgot to point me to the part where Sugden states that Abberline believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Could you help out?

The best,
Fisherman

I'd quite like an answer to this one, Ben. It's not that I doubt your word, but I've read before that Abberline believed Tabram's to be a Ripper murder, but I've never located the source. Is it a first-hand quote from Abberline himself, or a claim by a later source that this was Abberline's view? The first would, I think, present a stronger case than the second.

Regards, Bridewell

[Sally]

Sally:

"I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim"

That would be because there is no such problem. The only problem around is that we have it asserted that she MUST have been so, and that it could NOT have been soldiers who did for her.

No, No, Fish, I don't think so.

You can't speak in absolutes here, can you? No of course not. Who's saying MUST have, and CANNOT then? (here we go again )

I just think on the balance of probability, all things considered, Tabram MUST have been a Ripper victim.

No, not really, just kidding - but I consider it likely all things considered, y'know? I still don't see what the objections are - no, ok, I see what they are, but not why they count for much.

What do we do about that, much larger, problem, Sally? What do we do when somebody on the shakiest of gounds tries to present a case that flies in the face of all the collected evidence?

I dunno Fish, what do we do about that?

If we're talking about Tabram being a Ripper victim, why is the pro argument on the 'shakiest' of grounds then?

If we're talking about Doctor Tim, then I think we've established that he didn't speak in absolutes either.

No fishing this weekend then? Hey, you don't think it could've been a fish knife that killed Tabram do you? Actually, maybe I'd better stop there, or this'll turn into a Bad Barnett thread, and we don't want that.

[Wickerman]

There is, for example nothing in the inquest report from the Times speaking about a pen- or pocket knife, but other papers write later that Killeen very clearly stated at the inquest that the knife doubtlessly WAS of this type.

This is very clear evidence that we have is a RECORDING of Killeen and not his exact words. It therefore also applies that some things may have been left out.

Precisely Christer, it isn't very difficult to understand is it? We can find plenty of examples of press reports differing on content across all the Inquests.
With Ben its a case of only seeing what he wants to see.

Regards, Jon S.