Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[MrBarnett]

I haven't read Tom Wescott's book. Is Tom suggesting that both Smith, and Tabram were JTR victims?

Tom hints at much, but doesn't put his money where his mouth is, except to say that if Daniel Sullivan was responsible for the death of Mary Ann Austin in 1901, then there's 'every possibility that he was one of the Whitechapel murderers'.

[John G]

Still a euphemism for her genital area, I'd have said. Otherwise he would have been more precise as to where the injury was.

Tom argues much. If the wound had been internal, isn't likely Killeen would have mentioned the fact?

Well, of course, Dr Phillips was loathe to be too explicit at Chapman's inquest, and had to be instructed by the coroner to give more detailed evidence. Dr Killeen states that, "the lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place..."

If lower portion was a euphemism, then the use of the word "penetrated" certainly suggests an internal injury.

[Observer]

If you had been following the thread and noticed the question mark at the end of the sentence, you would have got the right impression.

No doubt.

[Observer]

Tom hints at much, but doesn't put his money where his mouth is, except to say that if the 'Mog Sullivan' spoken of as living at the same address as Pearly Poll, was the future Mrs Crossingham, then her brother Daniel was probably responsible for the Whitechapel murders.

Right. I won't ask why, perhaps I'll read the book.

[Batman]

Well, of course, Dr Phillips was loathe to be too explicit at Chapman's inquest, and had to be instructed by the coroner to give more detailed evidence. Dr Killeen states that, "the lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place..."

If lower portion was a euphemism, then the use of the word "penetrated" certainly suggests an internal injury.

If you bring up great points like this you, are sure to witnees a whole essay on why penetration doesn't mean internal in a moment

[MrBarnett]

Right. I won't ask why, perhaps I'll read the book.

I misquoted Tom, and edited my post to correct the mistake.

I've done a fair bit of research on Margaret Sullivan and see no evidence that she or her brother were in Spitalfields in 1888.

[Abby Normal]

Dr Killeen stated that, "there was a deal of blood between the legs, which were separated. Death was due to haemorrhage and loss of blood." It therefore seems that the private parts were an important focal point for the killer.

In respect of the serial killer argument, overkill was also apparent, as it was with the C5 murders (this is a typical serial killer characteristic, applying to 70% of serial murders reviewed by David Canter.)

It also possible that the body was posed. PC Barrett stated, "The clothes were turned up as far as the centre of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such as to suggest in my mind recent intimacy had taken place."

I realize that it's been argued that she may have been attacked whilst preparing for intercourse, however, it doesn't seem very likely to me that she'd remain rooted to the spot whilst somebody stabbed her 39 times.

Of course positioning the body is another very common serial killer trait, exhibited in 75% of the cases reviewed by Canter.

good post John-agree with everything you say here.

[John G]

If you had been following the thread and noticed the question mark at the end of the sentence, you would have got the right impression.

Of course, Smith doesn't say that she was attacked by three men-she merely said it was at least two- and only refers to the age of one of her assailants. Moreover, Tom Westcott points out that Inspectors Reid, Abberline, and Helson all suggested Smith had been attacked by one man.

It's at least possible Tabram was attacked by more than one man, considering the large number of wounds, the likelihood more than one weapon was used, and the fact she'd earlier been seen in the company of two men.

[Observer]

I misquoted Tom, and edited my post to correct the mistake.

I've done a fair bit of research on Margaret Sullivan and see no evidence that she or her brother were in Spitalfields in 1888.

Right. I'm firmly in the killer flew the roost 130 years ago camp. He'll never be named, a total non entity lost in time.

[John G]

good post John-agree with everything you say here.

Thanks Abby!

[John G]

If you bring up great points like this you, are sure to witnees a whole essay on why penetration doesn't mean internal in a moment

Thanks Batman!

[Observer]

. Moreover, Tom Westcott points out that Inspectors Reid, Abberline, and Helson all suggested Smith had been attacked by one man

Really? Why would they say that when Smith maintained she was attacked by more than one man?

[MrBarnett]

If you bring up great points like this you, are sure to witnees a whole essay on why penetration doesn't mean internal in a moment

The term penetrate was used about all the injuries. The heart, liver and lungs were penetrated. From the outside, I'm guessing. Or perhaps he went in through the lower part and caused all the injuries internally. It's the old 38:1 irrelevancy again.

[MrBarnett]

Really? Why would they say that when Smith maintained she was attacked by more than one man?

And did they express that opinion before the whole JTR roadshow got underway?

[Observer]

And did they express that opinion before the whole JTR roadshow got underway?

I doubt it.

There were other women in that area, at that time, assaulted by a group of men. If Abberline and chums didn't associate Smith's assault with those perpetrated upon other women, then I'd say they were neglecting their duty.