Today’s blog (and the next) will be about the creation of a villain through the use of language and innuendo. But first, a little bit of background information.

On Hollywood Ripper, we have a listing of the women that nearly everybody agrees were killed by Jack the Ripper. We call them The Canonical 5. Martha Tabram is not on that list. This will be important information a little bit further down on the page.

Martha Tabram was murdered probably sometime between 2:00–3:30am on August 7, 1888. Her body was found on the first floor landing of the George Yard Buildings in Whitechapel. Here is a description of her wounds:

“The post-mortem examination of Martha Tabram was held by Dr. Timothy Robert Killeen (also spelled Keeling or Keleene) at 5:30 AM on the morning of August 7th. Tabram was described as a plump middle-aged woman, about 5′3″ tall, dark hair and complexion. The time of death was estimated at about three hours before the examination (around 2:30-2:45 AM). In all, there were thirty-nine stab wounds including:

•5 wounds (left lung)
•2 wounds (right lung)
•1 wound (heart)
•5 wounds (liver)
•2 wounds (spleen)
•6 wounds (stomach)

According to Killeen, the focus of the wounds were the breasts, belly, and groin area. In his opinion, all but one of the wounds were inflicted by a right-handed attacker, and all but one seemed to have been the result of an “ordinary pen-knife.” There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator). ”
(For more info, see Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Martha Tabram)

Martha Tabram was stabbed multiple times by her attacker, but her throat was not slashed. She had not been cut open. There were no organs missing from her body. She is generally viewed as the victim of some other killer, or an early “piece of work” by Jack the Ripper before he got his infamous modus operandi down.

The killing occurred, however, only 25 days before the first “canonical” Ripper murder. If it were the Ripper’s work, it would indicate an extremely quick transformation of his technique—from stabbing the exterior of a woman’s body to slashing the throat/ripping out her innards. However unlikely that swift a change would be, the Ripper definitely did show rapid development in his killing technique.

There was a tremendous difference in the level of mutilation committed between the first and fourth canonical murders (though they were only one month apart), and nobody even began to anticipate the level of mutilation he would commit in the fifth (about 5-6 weeks after the fourth). But regardless of all that, what needs to be said is that there’s no obvious sign of the Ripper’s work in the murder of Martha Tabram… as there is in the fifth canonical murder. Tabram is, at best, a controversial listing among alleged Ripper victims.

Now, what does this all have to do with Patricia Cornwell?

Well, the beginning of her story takes place during the evening of August 6—only hours before Martha Tabram’s body was found lying in a pool of blood in the George Yard buildings. August 6 had been a bank holiday. The streets had been full of activity—which Cornwell uses to set the stage for a little bit of innuendo.

Assuming at face value that Martha Tabram was murdered by Jack the Ripper, Cornwell mentions that during the holidy, people could buy costumes of soldiers and policemen with ease (and Martha Tabram had last been seen going off with a soldier). Well, coincidentally, Sickert had a theatrical background and enjoyed wearing costumes, and he also enjoyed disguising his identity in letters he wrote to the editors of various newspapers. (My note: the latter was a common practice at the time, with many letter writers scribbling their opinions pseudonymously).

Notice how we’ve travelled here from facts to innuendo, again using the underlying assumption that Sickert was the Ripper. There is no evidence that Sickert was on the streets on August 6, 1888. There is no evidence that he wasn’t. There is no evidence one way or the other. Neither can Patricia Cornwell produce a receipt for Sickert’s purchase of a soldier’s costume. However, since he must have been Jack the Ripper and since Martha Tabram must have been killed by Jack the Ripper, then Sickert must have been on the streets that night. So how do we account for the rather inconvenient fact that the man Tabram was seen going off with was in soldier’s uniform? Well, rather ingeniously, Patricia Cornwell drags out the notion that perhaps—no, definitely!—Sickert bought a costume so that he could look like a soldier. It’s a bit of a stretch, but as far as Cornwell’s concerned, it works.

Now, why, you ask, is it so important to Cornwell that Martha Tabram be one of the Ripper’s victims? Chronology. You see, Sickert’s mentor (the painter, James Abbott McNeill Whistler—yes, that Whistler) was getting married in a few days. Cornwell needs for us to believe that it was Whistler’s marriage that sent Sickert over the edge into murder. Why? Well, I’ll have to tell you that in the next installment because now I need to go do some other work.

But if you’d like to do some reading in the meantime, here are a couple of links to Stephen P. Ryder’s amazing Casebook website:

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Victims
Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Walter Sickert

(Oh, and yes, I did read the Casebook’s primer to Cornwell’s accusations… nearly a year ago, and it’s brilliant. What I’m writing now, though, is based strictly upon my own examination of Cornwell’s text).

See the Blogcritics posting of this article.