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.
Article comments