Was it really two blades?

[kensei]

This has been touched upon in other threads but I thought I'd bring it some special attention, as it is a question that has always nagged at me. Doctor Killeen declared that Martha Tabram was stabbed 38 times with a smaller knife and just once with a larger one. It raises all sorts of mysteries- Was she attacked by two people, or by one person carrying two knives? Why would a single attacker pull his smaller knife first and then take 38 thrusts before realizing that he should be using his bigger one? If there was a killer walking around with the m.o. of using two knives- one to begin, and then a "special" bigger one to use for the "deathblow"- shouldn't there have been other murders in the area at the time done the same way? If it was just a hypothetical man who was prone to explosions of temper and who saw the need to carry a weapon for self defense in Whitechapel, why carry two? And of course the big mystery- how likely is it that the man with two knives was Jack the Ripper?

The question that has nagged at me (and others, as I've read) is- was it really two knives? How likely is it that Dr. Killeen could have been in error? Could a smaller knife have hit the same spot twice, or been wrenched out in a particular way, making one wound look bigger? I think Martha was a Ripper victim, perhaps not his first overall but his first fatality, and that she was stabbed with just one knife, a fairly small one for easy concealment. If Dr. Killeen got it wrong, I'd bear him no ill will as everyone makes mistakes, and the forensics of then as compared to now were obviously still in a developing state.

And further, if anyone cares to comment on the weird synchronicity of Martha at the age of 39 being stabbed once for each year of her life, feel free.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Kensei,
I have [ at least for the time being?] terminated posting, however the mention of that forbidden number 39 has rekindled some intrest.
I trust you are not familar with the infamous 'Thirty nine theory', which lists many , many more such Coincidences.. try the search facility.
Mayby you will convinced?
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

This has been touched upon in other threads but I thought I'd bring it some special attention, as it is a question that has always nagged at me. Doctor Killeen declared that Martha Tabram was stabbed 38 times with a smaller knife and just once with a larger one. It raises all sorts of mysteries- Was she attacked by two people, or by one person carrying two knives? Why would a single attacker pull his smaller knife first and then take 38 thrusts before realizing that he should be using his bigger one? If there was a killer walking around with the m.o. of using two knives- one to begin, and then a "special" bigger one to use for the "deathblow"- shouldn't there have been other murders in the area at the time done the same way? If it was just a hypothetical man who was prone to explosions of temper and who saw the need to carry a weapon for self defense in Whitechapel, why carry two? And of course the big mystery- how likely is it that the man with two knives was Jack the Ripper?

The question that has nagged at me (and others, as I've read) is- was it really two knives? How likely is it that Dr. Killeen could have been in error? Could a smaller knife have hit the same spot twice, or been wrenched out in a particular way, making one wound look bigger? I think Martha was a Ripper victim, perhaps not his first overall but his first fatality, and that she was stabbed with just one knife, a fairly small one for easy concealment. If Dr. Killeen got it wrong, I'd bear him no ill will as everyone makes mistakes, and the forensics of then as compared to now were obviously still in a developing state.

And further, if anyone cares to comment on the weird synchronicity of Martha at the age of 39 being stabbed once for each year of her life, feel free.

Hi Kensei,

I think when retrospectively dissecting Martha's murder details you cannot escape the fact that the attending physician was certain about a larger blade being used once, in addition to a smaller "pen-knife" style. To debate whether he was correct or not is another matter....and from what little I know of the man I dont see any reason to suggest that he would make such a firm statement without just cause to do so.

That means for me, his assertions are likely valid.

With that position in mind, its almost impossible to imagine that a man with a large dagger-like weapon on him at the time would instead choose to use a smaller knife first. Particularly when the "pen-knife" was probably a folding knife, as its definition includes. Its also highly unlikely after stabbing away 38 times that he would then suddenly change weapons and choose to deliver a final blow. He already has shown us he thinks he can kill her with the pen-knife using an overkill technique.

Its also apparent that all of Martha's wounds were delivered while she was alive....that means the pen knife stabbing frequency would be rapid, and that she was still alive when the dagger like instrument was used.

It seems to me we have two men based on the 2 weapons, and one was trying to kill her with multiple angry stabs, and the other with the larger blade did kill her with a single well placed one. Perhaps with an element of mercy involved.

Martha was likely killed by men in a gang, or perhaps by men who one of which would try and protect the other from criminal charges, and aid in his removal from a crime scene. Both types of those pairs would be out on that night....the second type being soldiers. Who could and did wear swords and bayonets on Bank Holidays.

Cheers Kensei

[Fisherman]

Kensei asks:

"How likely is it that Dr. Killeen could have been in error?"

Completely unilkely, if you ask me. In fact, even if you DON´T ask me, the same thing would apply.

To begin with, the 37 smaller wounds (disregard, for the moment, both the one that pieced the sternum and the cut-like wound to the lower abdomen) were described as being the work of an ordinary knife, such as a pen-knife. The blade of a pen-knife is characterized by two things; it is relatively narrow and it is relatively short.
Now, can we conclude that this would have held true in Tabram´s case? Well, we know that this blade pierced her lungs, liver, spleen and stomach repeatedly, and it can be argued that a blade that could do that sort of damage could not have been very short; we must allow for perhaps three, four inches or something like that. That would still present a fair possibility to speak of a pen-knife, but only if we add narrow entrance wounds to the picture. If we have three, four-inch deep wounds produced by a broad blade, we would be dealing with a cork-cutters knife, a leather knife or something like that.
So, to a length of perhaps three or four inches, we must add a clearly pronounced narrowness of the blade, something that is very musch strengthened by Killeens suggestion that this particular blade would probably have broken if tried at the sternum.
This, I feel, is about as close as we can come to a description of the smaller blade.
The second blade produced a wound that was described as much the largest and the deepest of them all by the papers. It prompted Killeen to speak of a dagger or a sword bayonet, and he stated that the smaller blade could not have been responsible for the wound to the sternum. There was no uncertainty involved, no "probably´s" or "likelie´s" - it simply could not have been the same blade, is what he tells us.

As I have pointed out before, wiggling had been suggested as something that could have caused a larger hole, and that is of course true. But it would have carried consequences if that was the case! Killeen did the post-mortem, and saw that the heart was pierced in one place. Therefore, he actually SAW the hole produced in the heart by the larger blade. Now, if that hole had been produced by extensive wiggling of the blade of a pen-knife sized blade (and we would be speaking of a blade with a width of perhaps half an inch OR LESS, since we know that the imprints that it had made allowed Killeen to assert us that the blade would have been too narrow and thin and frail to be able to pierce the sternum), then we must to begin with accept that the killer needed to wiggle the blade so much as to produce a hole with a width of perhaps one and a half inches before he could retract it. After that, we also need to accept that all of this wiggling did not leave any traces in the heart itself - there only remained something that seemed to represent a clean stab, corresponding perfectly logically with the hole through the breast-plate, for some unfathomable reason...

Make yourself a two by two by two foot wooden box out of five millimeter plywood. Fill the box to the top with moulding clay, and nail a lid to the box, also made by five millimeter plywood.
Then get hold of a pen-knife, with a blade of, say, three by half an inch, and of a thin character.
Thrust the blade right through the lid.
Then retract it. It will not require wiggling enough to produce a hole with a width of one and a half inches - a millimeter or two will allow for a retraction. Also, what may jam the blade is not the pressure applied to the edge - it is the pressure applied FROM THE SIDES!
Disregard this, and keep on wiggling until you DO have that one and a half inch wide hole. By now you will have done what those who speak for one blade only believe was done to Tabram, and you will have found out that it involved lots of work and a wiggling that was totally out of proportion if your only purpose was to retract the blade.
Now, remove the lid and take a look what all that wiggling has done to the underlying moulding clay, and you will see what I mean; there will be a total mess in the clay, and the hole will be widest furthest away from the lid, instead of the other way around which would be the normal outcome of a single stab with a pointed weapon.

Two blades WERE used; no other interpretations are credible. And hallelujah - that means that we must realize that Tabrams death was something out of the ordinary. When evidence like this comes along, it´s normally something we should embrace. It´s an extremely valuable clue, looking for a useful explanation.

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

I have always interpreted dr Killeen's testimony on this point somewhat differently. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

I thought Killen said that one of the wounds must have been made with a strong-bladed dagger... and I think Killeen believed this because this wound penetrated the breast bone, and was a deep wound.

The other cuts (stabs), since they did not penetrate any bone, could have been made with a smaller knife (like a penknife).

In other words I do not think that Killeen was saying that two knives were used... but rather that the 38 stabs did not require a large dagger type knife, whereas the one wound to the heart did require a stronger knife.

An analogy would be saying.... there was a car that drove 180 MPH, and another car (or maybe the same car) that drove 20 MPH. The first car must have been a very fast car, like a ferrari. The second car could have been any type of car... like a honda, or a ford. (but it also could have been the ferrari).

Rob H

[Fisherman]

Interesting, Rob, but let´s look at what was said at the inquest:

"The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

To me, it is very clear that Killeen means that the blade that produced the "wounds generally" (the smaller ones) could NOT have produced the one to the sternum.
What you are saying here, if I am correct, is that Killeen may have meant that the lesser wounds MAY have been produced by a smaller knife than the one to the sternum - but that this need not have been the case.

If the one thing that prompted Killeen to say that the 37 wounds MAY have been produced by a smallish blade was the fact that they all sunk into softer tissue, it would be an odd thing to do to use a pen-knife as an example of a blade that may have caused them. In fact, if you are correct, it could not: what Killeen did, was just to point out that the underlying tissues were so soft that it would allow for a pen-knife to achieve a penetration - whereas Tabrams body bore witness to the fact that they were NOT dealt by a pen-knife, since the entrance holes gave away a larger blade?

It seems awfully far-fetched to me, although it could perhaps not be categorically ruled out. What we would have to allow for in such a case - and accepting that only one blade was used - would be that Tabram had been wounded 39 times by a dagger or a sword bayonet, while the medico chose word himself that 38 of the wounds could well have been inflicted by a pen-knife (although they obviously were not), whereas the 39:th couldn´t.

Although a well spotted linguistical possibility, I think it remains less probable.

The best,
Fisherman
(who hopes he has got you right - you are the English speaking guy and I am the Swede...)

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting, Rob, but let´s look at what was said at the inquest:

"The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

To me, it is very clear that Killeen means that the blade that produced the "wounds generally" (the smaller ones) could NOT have produced the one to the sternum.

Not quite, Fish. Rob's interpretation (which I share) fits Killeen's words perfectly, when you think about it. What Killeen is saying, in effect, is this:

"Most of the fleshy wounds could have been produced with a pen-knife, but that doesn't tally with the wound that went through the bone..."

To that "..." one could legitimately add "therefore it must have been a larger knife that produced all 39", and the sentence still makes perfect sense.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Rob's interpretation (which I share) fits Killeen's words perfectly, when you think about it."

...as opposed to those (like me), who did NOT think about it? Really, Sam!

Just like I said in my former post, I recognize that linguistics allow for Robs interpretation - but that does not mean that I see it as a very credible explanation to things at all. Instead I think we need to draw far too much on those self same lingtuistics to enable an interpretation that allows for the simple scenario you may be looking for in Tabrams case.
I have come to know you as a man who likes simple, rational explanations to things, and who has a slight tendency to dislike more "fanciful" evidence interpretations. One example would be your distinct dislike of Bonds suggestion that Kellys face was covered by her bedsheet as the killer cut away at it - to me, reasonably Bond would have checked both the distance between head and cuts as well as the underlying mattress, and that would put things beyond doubt, more or less.
Your - perfectly legitimate - stance is that Bond would have been wrong, and that the cuts would have come about as a bi-product to the fierce slashes at the face. But if so, one would have expected the cuts in the sheet to be placed quite near to Kellys head, whereas a covering of her face before cutting would produce an extensive UNCUT area close to her head.
All in all, this is of course not thread-related, but it goes to show how you keep a very non-nonsensical line, something for which I admire and envy you 98 per cent of the time - but also something I think may lead you wrong occasionally. And this Tabram business is one such thing, to my mind.

I think that if we had had a deed performed by just the one blade - a dagger-like, sturdy one - then that would have been something that would have resulted in the same verdict as most of the other deeds; a verdict of "only one weapon was used", end of story.

If we are to accept a real possibility of Robs scenario being true, I very much feel that we lack a few vital bits and pieces.
We do not hear Kileen saying "the wound at the heart was of a character that demanded a sturdy weapon in order to pierce the breastplate, whereas all of the other wounds could have been inflicted by a weaker blade, had the killer wanted to".
We do not hear it said that "all the wounds to the softer tissues were inflicted by the same weapon as the others, but they could fully well have been made by a weaker weapon, since the resistance of the flesh would have allowed for it".

Nor do I think we SHOULD hear such things from a doctor, unless he had been specifically asked about the matter: "You tell us that the sternum wound MUST have been made by a sturdy weapon, but could not the others have been produced by a weaker blade?"

But who would ask such a question? And why? If the wounds were all made by the same blade, it would have been pretty obvious that it was a heavy one, fit to pierce BOTH flesh and sternum.

I think that we need to be cautious to buy a temptingly "simple" scenario at the cost of dropping what must always be regarded as a very intriguing piece of evidence. I also think that the Stars words on the heart wound as "much the largest and deepest" one (if I remember correctly) has a lot to say, although the reporter would not have measured things exactly, of course. I also seem to remember that there are other quotations (was there not one involving Hewitt?) that involve the exact same connotations.

I will go over things again, and try to read it your and Robs way, Sam, and maybe I will be able to offer more of a recognition afterwards - but I doubt it, to be honest. To me, it is more the byproduct of Ripperologys typical turning each and every stone over - the linguistical ones not least. Sooner or later you are bound to find examples where new explanations can be offered that have some sort of support in the fact that almost any wording can be interpreted, alternatively interpreted - and misinterpreted. If Ripperology has taught me nothing else, it has at least taught me THAT!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Two swift points, made by the same paper, would seem to clear things up:

“There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman. It will be recollected that at the inquest, when asked his opinion as to the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, Dr. Keeling [Killeen] replied that they were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife - all except the wound on the breast bone. As to the instrument with which that had been caused he could not say with any degree of certainty, but of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”
East London Observer, August 18:th.

“I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument”
East London Observer, August 11:th.

So, it is stated that Killeen was of the mind that the smaller wounds "were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife" and he asserted that “I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument”.

Surely that must lay the suggestion that he was dealing with wounds he believed to have been produced by the same blade, and that he only exemplified with the ordinary knife/pocket-knife/pen knife in order to point out that such a weapon COULD have pierced Tabrams flesh, to rest?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Nor do I think we SHOULD hear such things from a doctor, unless he had been specifically asked about the matter: "You tell us that the sternum wound MUST have been made by a sturdy weapon, but could not the others have been produced by a weaker blade?"

But who would ask such a question? And why?

Why indeed, Fish? It might simply have been Killeen musing out loud - this was, remember, a time when "officials" sometimes used the most convoluted means to get a point over. They still do, to some extent.

To me, it is more the byproduct of Ripperologys typical turning each and every stone over - the linguistical ones not least.

Sadly, such stones are about the only items of evidence we have left to examine! Besides, it's as legitimate to deduce "he meant two weapons" as it is to conclude "he meant one weapon" from Killeen's words.

To me, the "one knife" scenario seems inherently more likely than the "swapping weapons" or "two killers" arguments, for any number of reasons.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"To me, the "one knife" scenario seems inherently more likely than the "swapping weapons" or "two killers" arguments, for any number of reasons."

It IS more likely, Sam, no doubt about that - but not all things go down the likeliest way! I trust you have seen the quotations from the E L O, that very much bolster this? Killeen did not just say that the smaller wounds "may" have been inflicted by a smaller weapon than the sternum one - he was quite adamant that two blades HAD been used.

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

"“I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument”
East London Observer, August 11:th."

This is a good point... I don't think I had seen this report before. Just for clarity, lets post the transcripts in full:

"I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger." ELO Aug 11

"In his opinion the wounds were caused by a knife, or some such instrument, but there was a wound on the chest bone which could not have been caused by a knife. An ordinary penknife could have made most of the wounds, but the puncture in the chest must have been made with a sword bayonet or a dagger." - ELA, Aug 11

"He examined the body and found 39 punctured wounds. In the witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently with a penknife. The large wound could have been caused by a sword-bayonet or dagger." - Eastern Post, Aug 11

"In the witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently with a penknife. The large wound could have been caused by a sword bayonet or dagger." - Manchester Guardian, Aug 11

So, apparently I stand corrected. Killen did apparently say he was of the opinion that 2 weapons were used. Shows how you must read various versions of the inquest testimony, because some reports omit things.

RH

[Fisherman]

Rob writes:

"So, apparently I stand corrected."

...plus, you stand as the guy who offered some ingenuous thinking outside the box and inspired the rest of us to give such things a go every once in a while - it is always useful and sometimes rewarding!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

So, apparently I stand corrected. Killen did apparently say he was of the opinion that 2 weapons were used.

Likewise, Rob. Thanks for drawing this to my/our attention, Fish.

Shows how you must read various versions of the inquest testimony, because some reports omit things.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more.

[perrymason]

To that "..." one could legitimately add "therefore it must have been a larger knife that produced all 39", and the sentence still makes perfect sense.

That isnt quite the case Sam.

The inference isnt that the wounds that were indeed measurably smaller than a single larger one could have been caused by the same, "dagger-like" blade. Nowhere in any quotation does Killeen suggest that all the wounds could have been made with a "dagger-like" blade.

That fact that he distinguishes the wounds by "pen-knife" and "dagger-like" seem to clearly suggest that he felt 2 weapons were used.

Perhaps some dont feel he was correct.

Id have to see some reason to question his credibility to go along with that conclusion.

All the best