Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Fogarty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Surely no one would disagree that the Spitalfields and Tabram attacks were sufficiently similar to have been carried out by the same person.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      Surely no one would disagree that the Spitalfields and Tabram attacks were sufficiently similar to have been carried out by the same person.
      I agree. It all sounds like Foggy, especially the earlier attack. I personally believe Foggy did both attacks and he is a great candidate for the slayer of Martha Tabram.

      (When I think of the possibility of Martha and Foggy I think of Poll setting them up for a "mercy ****". That is, making sure a disabled friend, who has difficulty finding female company, gets some attention.)

      The sad fact I have found in research is that the most unusual but similar or identical happenings can sometimes not be connected. Sometimes I am really amazed at the patterns one can find and then learn none of it is related and no answers are available.

      (I have an absolute terror that my Special Project will turn out that way, that I will find all sorts of words, phrases and sentences in one language and then have someone absolutely prove that the reality is far removed. I think, what are the mathematical probabilities and possibilities? Back to Foggy....there would likely have been more than one blind, alcoholic male beggar with bad attitude and criminal tendencies in the East End of the late 1800s. I don't know how many but there would surely have been more than one.)
      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

      Comment


      • Good evening Anna, here is Gary's scenario about Foggy murdering Tabram and Pearly deployed as his shill.

        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        What if Foggy had carved the fob on James Bousfield’s key chain and was expecting a share in the proceeds when Martha had sold it. She hadn’t, because she’d left it behind, but would Foggy have believed such a story?

        In that scenario it wouldn’t have taken much for a vicious blind beggar with an ungovernable temper to have lost it, bashed Martha on the head with his stick, ripped open her clothing to look for the fob or some money to cover it and, finding nothing, to have commenced stabbing her, first with a small whittling knife and finally with a dagger-shaped carving tool.

        The next day, fearing someone might have seen him with Martha, he coerces Poll into going to the police with a made up soldier story. Poll reluctantly agrees, but later gets cold feet and does a runner to her cousin’s, telling her doss-house friends that she intends to kill herself.
        The term "shill" I use is customarily heard on the streets of New York. You come upon a shell game being played and the player WINS and takes his winning money and walks away whistling a happy tune. So you step up and play the shell game and you lose your money. Well guess what - the "winner" was a shill. He was in on the con.

        Fast Eddie of Bethnal Green said this about Gary's scenario

        Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post

        But for the sake of argument let's go with your possibility. Tabram is found murdered. The only clue is the soldier seen by the copper.
        So guilty Foggy coerces his girlfriend to come forward to insert herself in the investigation to throw added suspicion on some squaddy - possibly (did you consider this) out of his grudge against the military?
        A bit of a stretch there don't you think? The most likely outcome would be to link himself to the murder which he'd have gotten away with.
        And this is where I tend to go along with your reasoning, Ed. It's one thing to use a shill on the general public, on civilians, to trick them out of their money in a shell game, it's another thing entirely to send a shill in to the police. It's like the cops can smell a shill coming. Really sniff em' out.

        If I had gotten away with murder and left the immediate area a free man and not in a paddy wagon, the last thing I would want to do is send in a shill to the police in the morning. What a nervy way to spend the next couple of days.

        Gary that is a very interesting case about the blind man stabbing a woman in Spitalfields Sept 9th. I suppose you have looked high and low, Worship Street, workhouse records, wherever you can to try to find the disposition of the crime if any. To no avail.

        Okay I'll do my own dramatization, because I'm feeling inspired. And cause I like you two fellas, Gary & Ed. Even if I don't go along with your suspect Ed, no hard feelings. I'll try my own hand.

        Tom Fogarty the blind man DID murder Martha Tabram. They ended up on the landing just like you said Gary, in a tiff over his commission for her selling the fobs he whittled for sale. But even though at the time he and Pearly were neighbors on NE Passage, they were not an item yet. Pearly Poll coming forward to testify about the soldiers had nothing to do with Foggy. And she was nobody's shill. Foggy got away with murder plain and simple.

        Some years later, after Foggy and Pearly fell in love and got hitched, he knowing her involvement that fatal night back in August 1888, Foggy confided in Pearly. He told her HE killed Martha that night. But it did not diminish the affection between these two dear souls. They had a bond of love.

        Roy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
          Good evening Anna, here is Gary's scenario about Foggy murdering Tabram and Pearly deployed as his shill.



          The term "shill" I use is customarily heard on the streets of New York. You come upon a shell game being played and the player WINS and takes his winning money and walks away whistling a happy tune. So you step up and play the shell game and you lose your money. Well guess what - the "winner" was a shill. He was in on the con.

          Fast Eddie of Bethnal Green said this about Gary's scenario



          And this is where I tend to go along with your reasoning, Ed. It's one thing to use a shill on the general public, on civilians, to trick them out of their money in a shell game, it's another thing entirely to send a shill in to the police. It's like the cops can smell a shill coming. Really sniff em' out.

          If I had gotten away with murder and left the immediate area a free man and not in a paddy wagon, the last thing I would want to do is send in a shill to the police in the morning. What a nervy way to spend the next couple of days.

          Gary that is a very interesting case about the blind man stabbing a woman in Spitalfields Sept 9th. I suppose you have looked high and low, Worship Street, workhouse records, wherever you can to try to find the disposition of the crime if any. To no avail.

          Okay I'll do my own dramatization, because I'm feeling inspired. And cause I like you two fellas, Gary & Ed. Even if I don't go along with your suspect Ed, no hard feelings. I'll try my own hand.

          Tom Fogarty the blind man DID murder Martha Tabram. They ended up on the landing just like you said Gary, in a tiff over his commission for her selling the fobs he whittled for sale. But even though at the time he and Pearly were neighbors on NE Passage, they were not an item yet. Pearly Poll coming forward to testify about the soldiers had nothing to do with Foggy. And she was nobody's shill. Foggy got away with murder plain and simple.

          Some years later, when Foggy and Pearly fell in love and got hitched, he knowing her involvement that fatal night back in August 1888, Foggy confided in Pearly. He told her HE killed Martha that night. But it did not diminish the affection between these two dear souls. They had a bond of love.

          Roy
          Lucky fella, that Foggy.

          He kills a woman in Whitechapel and his next door neighbour in another parish, a woman he barely knows, goes to the police and tells them that she and the victim were out and about prostituting themselves with a couple of soldiers on the night of the murder. She agrees to attend an ID parade at the Tower but then does a runner, telling her doss-house pals that she intends to top herself. When the police drag her back to the East End, she first fails to ID the soldiers, then, on a second attempt, picks out two men who have alibis for the night in question.

          Purely by coincidence, Foggy and the ‘genuine witness’ later bump into each other in the vast metropolis of North East Passage, fall in love and marry.,

          Comment


          • Roy,

            It just occurred to me that I have personal experience of a girl being sent to the police with a false story concerning a crime. She handed over some stolen goods that she was coerced into telling the police she had found near the home of an accomplice of the thief who was threatening to grass him (the thief) up. The police suspected absolutely nothing and the girl was eventually able to reclaim the ‘lost property’ after the requisite period.

            This was in East London rather than New York, though, so probably not relevant to your theory.

            Gary

            Comment


            • NE Passage:

              39BFD5E4-1A48-4596-8E5B-3E7BA80F9067.jpeg

              Where Poll and Foggy met?

              Comment


              • Gary you must stop putting up your family photos. This is Ripperology not Genes Reunited.

                Similarities between the Spitalfields Market attack and Tabram?

                Spitalfields: in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of witnesses, no attempt at stealth, random stabbing on any available part of body (hands, head, forehead), cuts superficial, victim companion of assailant.
                None of these features are present with Tabram. Apart from Tabram received numerous stab wounds from a knife – but those wounds were clearly very different.

                Conclusion – the Spitalfields and Tabram incidents are almost wholly dissimilar.

                We don’t even know that Foggy was blind in 1888.

                I would expect that if he was ‘no name’, he would have been known by many beat coppers (and Section Sergeants, let’s not fall into the trap of forgetting them) as he would have been a fixture around the East End. His begging patch would not have coincided with just one beat would it?

                Foggy was hardly an angel while in the forces so we can presume he wasn’t an angel prior to his marriage to Pearly Poll. The suggestion here is that he coerced Poll into giving false evidence. Not very angelic behaviour I should think. And had he been the Spitalfields attacker there would be even more reason to think that he couldn’t have been ‘no name’.

                I would find it strange that Poll would push her future husband into the clutches of Tabram to sate his sexual appetite. And then after knowing that he viciously murdered her, and covered up for him, she goes and marries him?
                Is this some sort of Brady and Hindley relationship? Fred and Rose West? Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr?

                The scenario get’s no better if Poll believed the real reason for Foggy’s interest in Tabram, and his motivation for murder, wasn’t sexual, but was to retrieve his whittled key fob! Layer upon layer of baseless speculation… but hey! What can one say?

                Roy

                I’ll run with your dramatization as that is the ball-park we occupy.
                But to tie up all the loose ends, how about this for a more juicy ending…

                After marrying Poll and enjoying two years of wedded bliss, Foggy confesses to the murder of Tabram. Poll reacts with shock and disgust. Foggy kills her and gets away with it again, this time by managing to pass it off as natural causes.
                In shock and torment at his deed and as a personal form of retribution, Foggy pokes his own eyes out to render them totally useless, after having pretended to be blind for several years to facilitate his begging occupation.
                Foggy loses the last part of his sanity and ends his days in the asylum.
                That is the perfect denouement!

                Hollywood here I come.

                Comment


                • Ed,

                  You missed out the wounds to the neck of the Spitalfields victim and the wounds to Tabram’s throat.

                  You missed out that the Spitalfields victim was felled by a blow and that Tabram had a contusion between the scalp and the skull, so she may well have been also.

                  You missed out that as the Spitalfields victim’s wounds were not life threatening, they may well have been caused by a small bladed knife, just like 38 of Tabram’s.

                  What evidence do you have of Tabram’s relationship to her assailant?

                  As for the timing and location of the attacks:

                  To a blind man it’s always night time.

                  Neither attacker seemed to worry too much about potential witnesses. A few feet away from someone’s door in a crowded tenement whose landings were used by rough sleepers is clearly less risky than a busy street in broad daylight, but both attacks appear to have fuelled by an uncontrollable rage - the Spitalfield’s attacker’s ‘ungovernable temper’.

                  We needn’t start crawling down the rabbit hole of serial killers’ MO/signature. What we have here is a man (could be 3 men, but I opt for 1) who got very angry very easily and lashed out with whatever weapons were at his disposal: bladed implements, his heavy stick, his boots, his fists.

                  And the Millicent Fox attack fits very nicely. His weapon of choice that time was his heavy stick (which may also have been what felled both Tabram and the Spitalfields victim). There was a copper nearby, but he didn’t care, he was up for lumping him too. A vicious blind man of ungovernable temper, heedless of the consequences.

                  Comment


                  • Screenplay

                    Did your producer ask you to leave out the bit where even before the wedding cake had been scoffed Poll checked herself into the infirmary with a dose of the clap?

                    Comment


                    • I mistakenly used the term ‘contusion’ for Martha’s head injury. What Killeen discovered was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone.

                      Comment


                      • Gary
                        I only only gave an outline - a synopsis if you will. Lots of details can be padded out with a bit of imagination.

                        Which leads me back to the 'similarities' between Spitalfields and Tabram.

                        Tabram was attacked in a secluded spot. One must assume that Foggy didn't bump into her there... unless he was visiting one of your relatives? Perhaps you are trying to insert your ancestors into the case, after having stumbled into this branch of the academe (if I may use that affected term for our humble field of endeavour).

                        Ok - let's assume Foggy did not bump into Tabram on the landing, but was with her in the street first. Why did he wait? Why did he tap-tap-tap up those stairs before attacking her? All corners are dark and secluded to him! Why not stab her in the neck in the street - as in the Spitalfields case?

                        The Spitalfields wounds were all over the place and were superficial.
                        With Tabram, twenty one of the thirty nine penetrated to the internal organs. They were not superficial even if all but one was inflicted with a pen-knife type weapon.

                        I don't know that anyone can say that Tabram's attacker was fuelled by an uncontrollable rage. Projection?

                        Lot's of people in the East End lashed out with boots, fists, sticks, even knives. That does not make them suspects in the Tabram murder, just because they married Pearly Poll a five years later.

                        The only connection between Foggy and Tabram was that five years later Foggy married the woman (Pearly Poll) who claimed to be with Tabram prior to her murder. And he probably knew Pearly Poll at the time of Tabram's murder. There is no reason to think Foggy knew Tabram.
                        I doubt he engaged in a five year courtship, so it seems unlikely he was that familiar with Pearly Poll in 1888.
                        But in the Spitalfields case, the victim was the blind man's companion. It was some type of domestic.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                          Gary
                          I only only gave an outline - a synopsis if you will. Lots of details can be padded out with a bit of imagination.

                          Which leads me back to the 'similarities' between Spitalfields and Tabram.

                          Tabram was attacked in a secluded spot. One must assume that Foggy didn't bump into her there... unless he was visiting one of your relatives? Perhaps you are trying to insert your ancestors into the case, after having stumbled into this branch of the academe (if I may use that affected term for our humble field of endeavour).

                          Ok - let's assume Foggy did not bump into Tabram on the landing, but was with her in the street first. Why did he wait? Why did he tap-tap-tap up those stairs before attacking her? All corners are dark and secluded to him! Why not stab her in the neck in the street - as in the Spitalfields case?

                          The Spitalfields wounds were all over the place and weer superficial.
                          With Tabram - twenty one of the thirty nine penetrated to the internal organs. They were not superficial even if all but one was inflicted with a pen-knife type weapon.

                          I don't know that anyone can say that Tabram's attacker was fuelled by an uncontrollable rage. Projection?

                          Lot's of people in the East End lashed out with boots, fists, sticks, even knives. That does not make them suspects in the Tabram murder, just because they married Pearly Poll a five years later.
                          You’ve got your head down that rabbit hole again. The first part of the Spitalfields attack occurred while the woman was ambulatory. The second part, the felling, kicking and stabbing was interrupted by the crowd. The circumstances of the Tabram attack were different. She was probably supine while all the stabs were inflicted and her attacker was free to adopt any position he wished in order to carry them out. He was even free to rip open her clothing to identify the precise spot to inflict the fatal wound.

                          Who knows why/how he and Martha wound up on the 1st floor landing of GYB, a mere 12 feet away from the caretaker’s front door. Or what might have transpired between them to trigger the killer’s ungovernable temper.

                          Comment


                          • That isn't the hole that my head is in.

                            You seem stuck in a circle around his 'ungovernable' temper - as if that makes him a credible murder suspect? Being prone to temper tantrums? If that were the case then more than a few people I have the dubious honour of becoming acquainted with during the course of my Ripperological endeavours would make equally good suspects - were they to avail themselves of one of those time travelling contraptions.

                            But wait - the killer ripped open Tabram's clothing to establish the most suitable loci for his incisions? While she struggled? And she went quietly with him, and lay down quietly (apart from that damned tap-tap-taping echoing like an infernal metronome around and through the stairwell, resonating into the inner sanctum of the caretakers flat I shouldn't wonder).
                            And during the preamble he governed what was in common times ungovernable, before he was triggered... triggered by what? The elusive whittled key fob? Who knows. If only that tantalising piece of evidence would present itself. Perhaps a reference in a musty copy of the East London Advertiser will provide illumination.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              That isn't the hole that my head is in.

                              You seem stuck in a circle around his 'ungovernable' temper - as if that makes him a credible murder suspect? Being prone to temper tantrums? If that were the case then more than a few people I have the dubious honour of becoming acquainted with during the course of my Ripperological endeavours would make equally good suspects - were they to avail themselves of one of those time travelling contraptions.

                              But wait - the killer ripped open Tabram's clothing to establish the most suitable loci for his incisions? While she struggled? And she went quietly with him, and lay down quietly (apart from that damned tap-tap-taping echoing like an infernal metronome around and through the stairwell, resonating into the inner sanctum of the caretakers flat I shouldn't wonder).
                              And during the preamble he governed what was in common times ungovernable, before he was triggered... triggered by what? The elusive whittled key fob? Who knows. If only that tantalising piece of evidence would present itself. Perhaps a reference in a musty copy of the East London Advertiser will provide illumination.
                              If your ‘ungovernable temper’ leads you knock a woman down in the street and repeatedly stab her, then that’s somewhat more serious than having a temper tantrum. If you make a habit of doing that, you may well end up killing someone. In comparison, petulant Ripperologist are harmless creatures.

                              And that is quite possibly what happened to Martha, she was whacked over the head and then repeatedly stabbed. First with a small bladed knife and then with a longer, stronger weapon which may have been some kind of a dagger. Killeen seemed a little uncertain as to exactly what the weapon that caused the fatal wound was.

                              Quite a messy wound, I would imagine, the weapon smashing through the breastbone and piercing the heart. That’s the wound that needed to be in just the right place and needed to be inflicted with a ‘longer stronger’ weapon.

                              Comment


                              • My guess is that the blind assailant's temper was often governed otherwise one must presume that the lady in question would not have been his guide. Who can judge what provoked his ill use of the woman? But the Tabram attack is of a wholly different order. It can hardly be be ascribed to ungovernable temper.
                                But in any event, was it Foggy at Spitalfields anyway. There is so much speculation.

                                With Tabram, who knows exactly how the scalp wound was inflicted? Did she hit her head while falling perhaps? Did he kick her in the head while she lay fatally wounded? It is difficult to know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X