Distribution of Tabram's wounds.

[Errata]

I believe the evidence suggests a second man errata, and that, for me, is enough. Polly and Annie were killed by a lone wolf.

Why Polly and Annie? As opposed to any other combination?

[Michael W Richards]

Sailorman Hutchinson.

I think its pretty clear that Hutchinson tried to make himself appear to be Wideawake. Its likely Wideawake did not have similar reciprocal goals.

[DJA]

Sailorman Hutchinson.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe the evidence suggests a second man errata, and that, for me, is enough. Polly and Annie were killed by a lone wolf.

I should have added that in almost all the Canonical cases there is little evidence to support 2 men, save the Wideawake man in the last murder. Hence its the only one that had an "Pass for Accomplices" waiver issued.

[Michael W Richards]

I agree the rage is absent in the C-5. However it’s incredibly common in cases where women are murdered by their men. Whether it be a husband, a boyfriend, or customer. Say he can’t get it up, and she laughs, and he goes nuts. It’s a kind of violence that’s very common, even in groups. It’s the kind of rage that’s exploded before, That people in his life have learned to fear and excuse. And it got lethal. That is a story as old as time. That’s a story that even happens today. While it’s aberrant, it’s not unusual. It’s almost unremarkable except for the bayonet wound. That was a statement. So I tend to discount Tabram as a Ripper victim. But the two different weapons has something to it.

I believe the evidence suggests a second man errata, and that, for me, is enough. Polly and Annie were killed by a lone wolf.

[Errata]

Swagger sticks are nasty pieces of work.

[DJA]

Patton carried a swagger stick with a blade in it.
George C Scott played Patton and Sherlock Holmes.
Not to mention General Turgidson,alongside Jack D Ripper.

[A P Tomlinson]

I have an update on the carrying of bayonets.
Apparently no common soldier would carry a standard weapon when off duty.

They wore a special belt called a "Walking out belt" when off duty that had no rings or hooks to accommodate a scabbard.
To ignore this would result in being "written up" and possibly face punishment.

They would, however, be issued with an item called a "Swagger stick"

https://royalsussex.weebly.com/victorian-uniform-guide.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swagger_stick

The Royal Sussex website is specifically devoted to that regiment, but I'm told that the same rule applied across the board.
The wikipedia link contains a nice image showing the walking out belt of a different regiment, the most marked difference being that the photo shows a polished leather belt, where the one used by the Royal Sussex, among others, were whitened.

As can be seen, (or... not seen) there are none of the brass rings that would be used to attach scabbards and other items.

I had never realised that swagger sticks were issued to privates. I'd always imagined commissioned officers and maybe an RSM, at best.

[Errata]

That part above that I made bold is for me the deciding factor here errata. I don't see such raw emotion in any other kill until Mary Kellys. Save perhaps the spiteful nature of the facial cuts on Kate. These were killers who were angry when they killed...maybe even the single cut to Liz is a result of momentary rage. Annie was killed and mutilated almost clinically....which is precisely why they then targeted their search for suspects on the medically trained. Something they did only in Sept.

I agree the rage is absent in the C-5. However it’s incredibly common in cases where women are murdered by their men. Whether it be a husband, a boyfriend, or customer. Say he can’t get it up, and she laughs, and he goes nuts. It’s a kind of violence that’s very common, even in groups. It’s the kind of rage that’s exploded before, That people in his life have learned to fear and excuse. And it got lethal. That is a story as old as time. That’s a story that even happens today. While it’s aberrant, it’s not unusual. It’s almost unremarkable except for the bayonet wound. That was a statement. So I tend to discount Tabram as a Ripper victim. But the two different weapons has something to it.

[Errata]

Rapiers, not red beers. There’s a fun autocorrect

[Errata]

Yes, of course, sorry. We started asking them to hold a sword in the up hand /En Garde position. Most would point the sword with the blade downward (or up and down in the case of a two edged sword or dagger). The cross guard running past the line of the thumb towards the wrist and over the fingers rather than the knuckles.

It all came about when we had a few too many sherbets and started discussing the way The Dread Pirate Roberts points his rapier at Prince Humperdinck toward the end of The Princess Bride... He holds it so that the blade is parallel to the floor and we found that (MOST) people only do that if they have to hold the weapon out long enough for their arm to tire...

These were solid grip weapons with no shaping so one could literally hold them at any position within 360 degrees and it pretty much feel the same in the hand.

Many modern short bladed weapons with moulded grips almost necessitate that grip, with the single finger scooped for added traction. And the curved grip of old bone handled knives favoured that position.

A bayonet would probably (and looking at the one kindly provided by DJA, I think I'm sure) have an ovoid grip, which would lead to the weapon being held in that Blade following the line from wrist to fingers position. Both in the up hand and down hand (cross guard running under the heel of the hand toward the wrist) grip.

Again, none of what we did was in the least bit scientific.

In fact I've just written all that and realised I can sum it up better this way.
Most people held the blade at 90 degrees to the thumb and knuckles, in both an up-hand and down-hand grip. With the cross guard extending from wrist to past the fingers as opposed to knuckles to thumb.


If I can convince my Mrs to let me, I might try and conduct a couple of tests this weekend as to what sort of strike toward a standing target generates what sort of degree of force. (we used to have an old set of Fish Scales that could be adapted for such work...) Though I'm pretty sure it would be the upward thrust from the hip as opposed to the "push" stab.
The most powerful would undoubtedly be the downward strike on a prone target from a kneeling position. Both parties in a relatively fixed position allowing none of the force to dissipate.

And I'm fairly certain that the blow to the sternum could only have done it's job if Martha had been either bent double, pushed against a wall, or prone. Short of our man taking a run up.

And once again I catch myself rambling, so will go and buy some Maltesers with which to oil the wheels of my getting permission to start stabbing planks of wood in the back garden this Sunday.

There is an entire vocabulary dedicated to the movement of swords, but usually the vocabulary is useless in conversation and we rely on movie scenes to get us through. The way Westley holds his sword in that scene is an attack position, when Inigo Montoya sort of slides into the scene next, the sword is in En Garde. A neutral position from which you can either attack or defend.

I think the real question with Martha Tabram is a little different. Daggers are inherently different, we hold them differently, we use them differently. So the question is did he go Psycho on her, or West Side Story ( which is a better knife fight than you think it is)? Underhand, like a boxers body blows or overhand, possibly making the signature “Wee wee wee“ sound as he did it.

given her height, given their location, given how difficult it actually is to stab someone in terms of force, I think the attack was entirely under hand. There is a natural movement with an arm swinging back-and-forth with the elbow bent, like a piston position, we’re so used to it we walk that way. I think that’s the key to making it to upwards of 30 steps. Otherwise you just tire out. But given the grouping on her body, I think bending her over and essentially punching her with a knife over and over does the trick.

I think the blow to the sternum came when she was on the ground. I think there was a downward thrust, I think the ground below her made it easier to punch through the sternum. It is a classic bayonet move, and in fact instructed as a killing blow. But it is a fairly typical coup de grace. What’s interesting is that it was entirely unnecessary. She was not going to survive that attack. And I would think somebody with any combat experience would’ve known that. So either someone wasn’t taking any chances, which points to a careful sort, he didn’t know, which points to an inexperienced sort, or it was part of his fantasy. Which would be interesting If we could tie that one stab into any part of Jack the Ripper fantasy. And I’m not sure we can.

all of my swords are red beers, so the guards ensure that you hold it in a specific way. I’ll have to go through my daggers and see if I can find anything either stiletto like or bayonet like. I don’t think I have anything being that link, but I think I might be able to find the appropriate blade shape.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If that's the report I was thinking of, it's a lot less definitive than I remember. But it's still a fair inference, I think; that the perceived difference between the supposed blades was length and strength, rather than blade shape. But a long, strong blade can still make a short wound in soft flesh.

Indeed Joshua, Also he must have stabbed Martha through the sternum with some force. That sort of force of blade hitting bone would cause a jarring effect up the knife holders arm. Perhaps he was just a little more careful with the other stabs.
Regards Darryl

[A P Tomlinson]

Do most people then believe she was prone for the majority of the attack?

I'm not saying this is my preferred theory, but there is a possibility that the distribution of the shallow stab wounds might be due to him thrusting the knife in while both were stood, and as she buckled and bent forward the blows struck higher up her body. His hand around her collar or the back of her head so she could not escape.
This sort of attack would be less frenzied and a lot more deliberate. His focus being on holding her and forcing each blow rather than what I imagine may otherwise appear to be someone just randomly hacking at her prone form in some wild delirium. As she finally gave way, or his own strength did, he would lay her supine and strike his finishing blow with his bigger blade that may have been harder to reach in the initial attack for fear of her realising her fate.

I'm not saying "this is what I think happened" I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it would account for the distribution and nature of the blows.

The thing that has me a bit puzzled is where in the "frenzy" attack he decides to switch weapons and make one clean killing Coup de Grace and not continue with at least a couple more heavier blows. It's that sternum strike that makes me wonder.

Of course, it could just as easily been the situation that the Squaddie from the constables statement got fed up of waiting for his "chum", went to find him and stumbled upon the frenzied attack. Pulling his chum off he realises the girl is still alive and finishes the job with his own bayonet to protect his friend/the Regiment.

[A P Tomlinson]

He may only have been holding it that way because he lacked the strength to stand.

That was my point and exactly what sparked the debate!

Ian's initial complaint was along the lines of; "Look at that, some bloody pirate... he should know that holding it at that angle with his arm stuck out, the bloke would have to throw himself on the blade for it to do any damage!"

(I will accept no criticism of that movie...)

[Joshua Rogan]

" The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His [ DR Killeen] opinion is that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger..."(The Times, August 10, 1888)

If that's the report I was thinking of, it's a lot less definitive than I remember. But it's still a fair inference, I think; that the perceived difference between the supposed blades was length and strength, rather than blade shape. But a long, strong blade can still make a short wound in soft flesh.