Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, but I think we came to different conclusions, didn't we?

Rob

Did we? I think we only differed on the mathematics of Killeen's wound count and in the end I ended up more or less agreeing with you on that and amended my text.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

Could there have been two separate deranged killers at large at the same time?.Poor Martha's murder was frenzied also the killer used two weapons.Mary Kelly's murder could be described as frenzied and people have stated over the years that two weapons must have been used also why didn't Kelly's killer take organs away with him I know people can't decide about her heart been missing but her murder appears different from the rest.Let's face it we have had a lot of suspects put to us over the years so why not two separate killers ?

[robhouse]

Kudos to Rob House for being the first to look as close as he did at the Tabram murder.

Yes, but I think we came to different conclusions, didn't we?

Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

I have also always wondered if Pearly Poll was induced to provide a false identification either through a promise of money or a threat of retaliation.

c.d.

I don't think it was either. She was up to neck in the murder. I go into great detail about this and about Pearly Poll in my book. So I'll be more free to talk about it next month after it comes out.

As for Tabram's wounds, I go into detail about that as well. She wasn't just stabbed 'in the genital area', she was stabbed internally, via the vagina, as was Emma Smith. None of this stuff is to be found in the Ripper books on your shelf. Kudos to Rob House for being the first to look as close as he did at the Tabram murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

What were the soldiers' alibis? I seem to recall that it came from fellow soldiers in their platoon. Is that correct?

c.d.

Pearly Poll's two soldiers had their own alibis. They were solid. I believe it was Barrett's man whose alibi was a fellow soldier.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

G'Day Rob

specifically, a 3 inch cut, 1 inch in depth, which could be a stab, but more likely a deliberate cut.

Thanks for that I knew I'd seen it somewhere.

[c.d.]

I have also always wondered if Pearly Poll was induced to provide a false identification either through a promise of money or a threat of retaliation.

c.d.

[robhouse]

I have written pretty extensively on Tabram's wounds, and there is some info on this in my book. In my opinion, I think it is pretty clear that Tabram had wounds (or at least a wound) in the genital area. The exact description of the wound is not available, but it seems to me that the newspapers self-censored the information given by Killeen at the inquest. In short, at least one newspaper used the term "legs" as a euphemism for genitalia. Another referred to wounds in the "lower portion of the body" —specifically, a 3 inch cut, 1 inch in depth, which could be a stab, but more likely a deliberate cut.

An excerpt from my book:

"The exact nature of Tabram’s wounds is now somewhat difficult to determine, since the newspaper reports of Dr. Killeen’s inquest testimony were incomplete, and varied in details. For example, a report printed in the Evening News on August 10 stated, “Dr. Kaleene [sic]… found 39 punctured wounds on the body and legs. There were no less than nine in the throat and 17 in the breast.” Of all the papers that covered the inquest, this is the only mention of any wounds in “the legs.” Most of the newspaper accounts of Killeen’s testimony specifically listed 21 punctures in the organs—5 in the left lung, 2 in the right lung, 1 in the heart, 5 in the liver, 2 in the spleen, and 6 in the stomach. But one newspaper, the East London Observer, noted the existence of an additional wound: “The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth.” The exact location of this 3-inch cut “in the lower portion of the body” is not given. But Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, in his summary report of the murder, noted that there were “39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part.” The mention of a wound in “the private part” is probably a reference to the same wound The Observer claimed was in the “lower portion of the body.” The fact that the other newspapers do not mention the wound at all, suggests that they deemed this detail of Killeen’s testimony too obscene to print. The Observer also noted that “there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated”—this is another detail that was also not mentioned in any of the other newspaper accounts. In other words, both the Evening News’s mention of a wound in the “legs,” and the Observer’s mention of a wound in the “lower portion of the body” were both probably referring to the same wound, and were both simply euphemisms for “genitalia.” In this respect, it is important to remember the victim Annie Millwood, whose injuries were described as “numerous stabs in the legs and lower part of the body.”

To illustrate the point, we need only compare two similarly worded extracts of Killeen’s testimony in the East London Observer and the East London Advertiser, both of which were printed on August 11. In both versions, Killeen’s testimony is given in the same sequence, and both papers use almost the same wording in describing the 22 specific punctures to the organs. Then, the Observer continued:

The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. From appearances, there was no reason to suppose that recent intimacy had taken place.

Whereas, the Advertiser only wrote:

Dr. Keeling then described where the wounds had been made, and in answer to questions stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion.

It is perhaps also relevant to point out that the coroner “thanked Dr. Keeling for the very careful way in which he had given his testimony.”"

RH

[The Good Michael]

Thanks for that, Mike. I have always wondered if the alibi came from fellow soldiers. I am not sure what it means when they say it was proven that he was in the barracks. The point being that soldiers might want to support one of their own.

I agree. It also seems as if a mistake regarding the color of the hat band may have been enough to dismiss Poll's ID. I think Tabram was killed by the soldier and as you said, was protected by his mates.

Mike

[c.d.]

Thanks for that, Mike. I have always wondered if the alibi came from fellow soldiers. I am not sure what it means when they say it was proven that he was in the barracks. The point being that soldiers might want to support one of their own.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

You lost me here, Mike. Did you mean to provide a link?

c.d.

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_tabram.html

Yes, sorry

[c.d.]

C.D.,

Right here under Reid's statement.

Mike

You lost me here, Mike. Did you mean to provide a link?

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

C.D.,

Right here under Reid's statement.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Tom,

What were the soldiers' alibis? I seem to recall that it came from fellow soldiers in their platoon. Is that correct?

c.d.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

If genital stabbings were present, then a real possible connection, no bad pun intended, seriously, is possible. Not conclusive of course, but it opens the possibility to a precursor to "JTR" type focus. A specific that should NOT be dismissed casually. If present of course.