Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

I find her, to say the least, Suss.

Hi Gut, does that mean suspect? The kicker about Pearly Poll is that she knew Tabram had been murdered before anyone else and volunteered a lie to them. This directly implicates her as an accomplice AT LEAST after the fact. As I discuss in my book, she was the very first person to identify Tabram...before Bousfield...and went to the police with a prepared lie that Reid was able to poke a bunch of holes in. The questions isn't just 'why would she lie' but the first question must be 'How did she know Tabram was dead before she got to the police stattion?' These discoveries intrigued me in my research and led to the book. Pearly Poll must have known the killer of Tabram. Then consider she lived with Emily Horsnell at the time of her murder, next door to Emma Smith at the time of her murder. Then she lives with both Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman. Then consider Pearly Poll's friend beats up Annie Chapman just before her murder. And I believe Poll was also the woman who first named John Pizer as Leather Apron. It's quite possible she knew all the Whitechapel murder victims. But do I think she was the Ripper? No. But she damn well knew who was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I find her, to say the least, Suss.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day again Tom

So in particular you think she led about the killer or the ID?

Pearly Poll lied about everything and Reid knew it. She had not been with Tabram that evening. There were no soldiers. Had Reid been successful in proving that Pearly Poll was elsewhere on that night he would have prosecuted her. If Reid didn't believe her, why should we?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day again Tom

So in particular you think she led about the killer or the ID?

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

What was Poll lying about, everything or just specific issues.

The entire thing from beginning to end. She might even have been lying about being friends with Tabram. I believe she knew her, but that they were not friends. She knew who killed her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

What was Poll lying about, everything or just specific issues.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, 'Poll' and PC Barrett failed to satisfy Reid.

Though PC Barrett is not suggested to have invented the soldier he spoke to, he just failed to correctly identify him.
So why treat Pearly Poll any different?

The suspect seen by Mary Cox (also a prostitute) was never verified to exist but no-one suggested that she invented the whole story of Blotchy.
Unless we are to believe that detectives treated Cox any different to Pearly Poll then we might accept that attempts were made to verify if Tabram & 'Poll' were seen in company with any soldiers at the pubs in question.

Detectives did try to verify if Mary Kelly & Blotchy had been seen in the pubs and beer houses in the area, at which they failed, so why not with Tabram & Pearly Poll?

Due to lack of evidence all we can ascertain is that Pearly Poll & PC Barrett both failed to identify the accused soldiers, not that either of them were lying about the existence of those soldiers.

I discuss the facts about Pearly Poll at length in my book. There's no question she was lying. PC Barrett was not lying - at least I see no reason to assume he was - but the man he spoke to had nothing to do with the murder. He was only significant in light of other evidence that was soon discredited.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Sunbury.

We are likely talking about the same weaponary, I have posted this military issue penknife/clasp-knife before.



Then the 1887 Martini-Henry sword-bayonet (dagger?)



We can't be 100% sure of course, but as we know soldiers had this equipment available it is not helpful for anyone to pretend no suitable argument exists.

The possibility of two soldiers being responsible for Tabram's murder is just as viable, and if circumstantial evidence is considered, more than likely, than some unknown unnamed hypothetical lone killer.

[The Good Michael]

How does that work?
A larger knife has a wider blade, wider than a penknife.



Only those who insist that one killer was responsible.
It isn't switching knives that is the problem, its the single killer hypothesis that doesn't work when there is medical evidence of two knives.

A larger knife may have a narrower tip thus producing narrow wounds. Don't try and identify me as a single killer theorist. That would be a foolish supposition. Medical evidence in this case means conjecture and nothing more. Give me a pen knife and a filleting knife or a ballock dagger and I guarantee if I made shallow woulds, you couldn't tell the difference and a doctor couldn't either.

Mike

[Sunbury]

"It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave."
Echo, 10 Aug, 1888.

Soldiers were issued with a military penknife, a dagger and a bayonet.
We have no direct statement as to Privates being allowed to carry the small penknife when on leave, but a penknife is small enough to smuggle out and no-one would be the wiser.

Hello Wickerman, I think it might be more accurate to say Soldiers were issued with Jack Knives, a clasp knife with a marlin spike as part of it. The spike was for removing stones from horse hooves and basic leatherwork.

The link below shows jack Knives from the era,

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/edged-...-1979-a-12677/

Sailors had similar knives for working at sea. In a city any farrier or coachman or anyone else working with horses or leatherwork would carry such a knife.

The two blade theory could be a single jack knife, the spike would leave a larger sucking wound, similar to a triangular bayonet. Thats just supposition though.

[Wickerman]

In this murder we have evidence the woman was in the company of a soldier at one point before her murder, and that soldiers were about as a result of the Bank Holiday....allowed to wear short swords and bayonets.

"It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave."
Echo, 10 Aug, 1888.

Soldiers were issued with a military penknife, a dagger and a bayonet.
We have no direct statement as to Privates being allowed to carry the small penknife when on leave, but a penknife is small enough to smuggle out and no-one would be the wiser.

The Echo above states that Corporals & Sergeants were allowed to carry sidearms (bayonets/daggers?).
Coincidently, the two suspects were a Private & a Corporal, coincidentally the two types of wound were consistent with a Penknife and a Dagger.

It is also stated anecdotally that soldiers going off on leave together would often switch jackets with different ranks in order to confuse witnesses if any trouble should arise.

[Wickerman]

I agree. A large knife may easily make smaller wounds.

How does that work?
A larger knife has a wider blade, wider than a penknife.

Anyone who says differently must come up with a good reason for a guy switching knives.

Only those who insist that one killer was responsible.
It isn't switching knives that is the problem, its the single killer hypothesis that doesn't work when there is medical evidence of two knives.

[Wickerman]

... there actually is zero evidence that Tabram was in the company of a soldier, so that theory is out the window....

Yes, 'Poll' and PC Barrett failed to satisfy Reid.

Though PC Barrett is not suggested to have invented the soldier he spoke to, he just failed to correctly identify him.
So why treat Pearly Poll any different?

The suspect seen by Mary Cox (also a prostitute) was never verified to exist but no-one suggested that she invented the whole story of Blotchy.
Unless we are to believe that detectives treated Cox any different to Pearly Poll then we might accept that attempts were made to verify if Tabram & 'Poll' were seen in company with any soldiers at the pubs in question.

Detectives did try to verify if Mary Kelly & Blotchy had been seen in the pubs and beer houses in the area, at which they failed, so why not with Tabram & Pearly Poll?

Due to lack of evidence all we can ascertain is that Pearly Poll & PC Barrett both failed to identify the accused soldiers, not that either of them were lying about the existence of those soldiers.

[GUT]

G'Day again Tom

Purely from memory it wasn't the bluntness of the knife that I recalled as setting it apart, as I said I'll try and find my notes. I don't understand how or why anyone would but the blunt knife theory.

Maybe after he was finished it might not have been so sharp.

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Tom

I know I've got detailed notes on it somewhere, I'll pull them out when I can and post, you may be right, but I seem to recall that it came from reports on the inquest.

Such a pity that so much is lost to us, the full transcript of the inquests would shed so much light I believe.

I know the Stride inquest frontwards and backwards. One of the doctors speculated that the blade might have been short because of how and where she was found, but he didn't take into consideration the scarf. It was used to pull her neck up front the stones precisely because the knife wasn't short. The idea that the knife was blunt or dull is a modern myth that should have been put to death years ago but - like so many Stride myths - sticks around to piss me off. Not you or any poster, mind you. You're the ones who've been taken in. The myths themselves and the authors who should know better piss me off.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott