Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Home Office annotations - do they rule out a bayonet?

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

  • The Home Office annotations - do they rule out a bayonet?

    I would like to discuss the Home Office annotations, relating to Martha Tabrams death. Regretfully, I have not got the exact wording, but apparently the document says that some of the minor wounds were originally believed to have been inflicted by a bayonet, but that was later discarded since bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable. That would be the gist of the wording, at least.

    It has become apparent to me that there are some posters who say that these annotations effectively rule out the suggestion that a bayonet was used in the Tabram murder. But after having pondered the issue, I have come up with an alternative explanation. Please let me know if I am wrong here or if I have misrepresented the annotations as such. But here goes:

    From the East London Observer of the 18th of August, we have it on record that Edmund Reid, who was the man in charge of the Tabram investigation, believed that the hole in Tabrams sternum proved that a military man had been responsible for it. The obvious inference is that Reid believed that the hole gave away the use of a bayonet. And the most reasonable bayonet to suggest would be the type used by the army at that stage, the sword bayonet, a double-edged 22-inch blade, corresponding well with Dr Killeens suggestion that some sort of dagger blade, long and strong, had caused the damage.

    An obvious feature of the Home Office annotation is that it does NOT speak of the sternum hole. It only says that some of the minor wounds were originally believed to have been inflicted by a bayonet. And that tallies very well with the ongoing discussion on these boards today, where some posters argue that the blade that caused the sternum wound could also have inflicted the smaller 37 wounds, by means of having been inserted only to a lesser degree.

    Here is my suggestion: What if there was an ongoing discussion back in 1888 about this very possibility? We know that we had a man in charge of the investigation that seemingly championed the view that a bayonet - most probably a sword bayonet - was responsible for the sternum wound. So, letīs assume that it was thrown forward that this weapon also could have inflicted at least some of the smaller wounds. And if this suggestion was rejected by Dr Killeen and proven wrong by the medical evidence, then we would have a situation that tallied very well with the Home Office annotation: It was originally suggested that some of the minor wounds were made by a bayonet, but this was subsequentially discarded, since the smaller wounds were not of the unmistakable character that would have been caused by a sword bayonet.

    Is there anything that may support this view? Well, we have the Star from the 24th, that says "It was thought that the wounds were inflicted with a bayonet, and that the murderer must have been a soldier." Interestingly, the Star does ALSO speak of "wounds" instead of the sternum wound only, and equally, it says that it "was thought", potentially pointing to this suggestion having been discarded at some stage.

    Reading the annotations this way, I fail to see why they would in any manner rule out the suggestion of a bayonet.

    The best,
    Fisherman

  • #2
    Hi Fish,

    I would be careful in putting much stock in Home Office annotations or much that is printed by the Star.

    Not saying they were always wrong; a broken clock is right twice a day, but both should be approached with caution.

    I will say this. The subject of a bayonet was still on Wynne Baxter's mind at the time of the Chapman murder. When Phillips was asked by Baxter to describe the implement used to kill and mutilate Annie Chapman, he was specifically asked if any of the wounds could have been caused by a bayonet... and his answer was a definitive 'No'. He was also very clear as to the type of weapons that may have been used and those that may not have. This being the third murder of a prostitute in the same area in a month - and the concern that there was a possible link- brought about much more attention to details than what was experienced with the Tabram case and brought in a divisional surgeon for the first time who was qualified to answer questions about weapons; the benifit of hindsight. And, of course, the much more thorough Baxter was on vacation in Scandinavia at the time of the Tabram murder.

    It was common practice for the constable who arrived at a scene of a violent crime to send for the nearest available physician; in case immediate assistance for the victim might be needed. That may or may not be someone who had the experience and knowledge to disseminate forensic information properly. Immediate care of the victim was priority. Killeen may have gotten his diagnosis right; with what we are left with, I believe we haven't sufficient information to discount his assumptions. But, he was very young at the time and didn't stay in the East End very long after.

    Its just one of the many caveats in this case that brings on speculation... and that speculation is usually based on the prejudice of the speculator.
    Best Wishes,
    Hunter
    ____________________________________________

    When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

    Comment


    • #3
      HO 144/221/A49301C (8g) ff.160 -161

      HO 29 Nov. 88 A49301C 160 8g
      Tabram (? 37) date.8.88.

      Time
      2a.m. and 4.50a.m. probably before 3.30 a.m.

      Place
      landing at George Yard bldngs, a tenement house in Whitechapel

      Nature of injuries &c. &c.
      wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger
      Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable

      parts removed
      WtB. Mary Ann Nichols (45)31.8.88. between 2.30 and 3.45 on footway in Buck’s Row, Whitechapel

      throat cut, nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged: the coating of the stomach was cut in several places: Two small stabs on private parts: may have been done by a strong bladed knife? By a left handed man.

      money: and nothing left behind.
      parts removed
      The description of the cut is not quite clear? clerical error pelvis = pubes.
      If so, the cut would be a circular sweep starting from centre of waist

      WtB Annie Chapman
      Chapman (Contd)8.9.88.doubtful.
      Evidence points to something between 5.30 and 6 :- but medical evidence says about 4 o’cl.in back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, a Small tenement house in Spitalfields i.e. Whitechapel

      throat deeply severed, incision jagged. above right shoulder a flap of abdominal wall, the whole of the small intestines and their attachments. Above left shoulder 2 other portions of abdominal wall and pubes in a large quantity of blood.
      Head of 1st phalanx of ring finger abraded :- distinct ring marks on proximal phalanx of same finger.

      Missing … navel and surrounding part of abdominal wall, uterus and upper part of vagina, most of the bladder also missing.
      PTO anatomical knowledge.
      Knife used must have been a small amputating knife or a well ground Slaughterman’s knife narrow thin & sharp, blade 6 to 8 inches long.

      Eliz. Stride 30.9.88 1 a.m. inside gates of Duffield’s Yard Berner Street Whitechapel
      throat deeply severed, and slight abrasion of skin at the end of the cut.
      Removed

      Cath. Eddowes 30.9.88 1.44 a.m. Mitre Square near Leadenhall St. City
      missing
      left kidney & uterus*
      HO 144/221/A49301C (8g) ff.160 -161
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Fisherman,

        I'm not sure quite what was wrong with the existing thread, where these very issues are currently under discussion, but still...the noteworthy point in the Home Office document is that the notion of a bayonet's involvement in the murder of Martha Tabram was later revised on account the "unmistakability" of the wounds that a bayonet create. The number of wounds on Tabram that a bayonet was "first" suspected of creating has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the HO observation. It doesn't matter if it was first suspected of creating one, some, or lots of the wounds. The central bullet point here is that it was ultimately considered to have been responsible for NONE of them - not the "minor wounds" and not the sternum wounds.

        Unfortunately, your suggestion would only make sense if there had been any insinuation, then or now, that a bayonet had been responsible for the smaller Tabram wounds. But there wasn't, and so regrettably, it doesn't.

        All the best,
        Ben
        Last edited by Ben; 02-29-2012, 05:06 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I posted the HO file as I have it, verbatim, without comments.

          It appears unsigned, and to the best of my knowledge is complete, with errors.
          Originally transcribed approx. 12? yrs ago by a past member of Casebook, I think,...Alex Chisholm, but I could be wrong about that.

          Regards, Jon S.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #6
            Many thanks for producing that for us, Jon.

            wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger
            Knife OR dagger.

            They evidently weren't sure which.

            An extremely interesting observation, especially in light of the current discussion.

            Comment


            • #7
              The only proper study of bayonet wounds,w as made where the bayonet was affixed to a rifle.Grasped in the fist,it was no different than any other type of dagger,and would show no dissimiler appearance to a wound.The only reason,as Hunter and others have pointed out,is that the reference to soldiers being seen in the vicinity of Tabram's killing,has led officials and press of the time,to suggest a soldier and soldiers weapon as being involved.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hunter:

                "I would be careful in putting much stock in Home Office annotations or much that is printed by the Star."

                I think I have been pretty adamant as regards how much stock I put in the Home Office annotation up til now - not too much at all. And I know that the Star was not reliable, generally speaking.

                What I find of interest is the correlation. I had not noticed it before, and it does seem that there was a discussion about "some of the wounds" having been bayonet inflicted. This led me to the proposition I made.

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks for posting the report, Jon! Am I correct in reading it as if it suggests that parts were removed from Tabram and Nichols?

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ben:

                    "the noteworthy point in the Home Office document is that the notion of a bayonet's involvement in the murder of Martha Tabram was later revised on account the "unmistakability" of the wounds that a bayonet create. The number of wounds on Tabram that a bayonet was "first" suspected of creating has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the HO observation. It doesn't matter if it was first suspected of creating one, some, or lots of the wounds. The central bullet point here is that it was ultimately considered to have been responsible for NONE of them - not the "minor wounds" and not the sternum wounds."

                    The report says not a thing about the sternum wound, Ben. It says that "some of the wounds" - meaning that NOT all wounds are up for discussion here - were first thought to have been bayonet inflicted. It furthermore speaks specifically of these wounds as narrow, meaning that they must reasonably belong to the flurry of 27. Thus no comment at all is made about a bayonet being discarded as the sternum weapon. Therefore, this Home Office annotation has no bearing at all on that particular detail.

                    "Unfortunately, your suggestion would only make sense if there had been any insinuation, then or now, that a bayonet had been responsible for the smaller Tabram wounds."

                    That insinuation would be exactly what we have BOTH in the Home Office annotation AND the Star, Ben! Or are you saying that we need a third source?

                    The best,
                    Fisherman
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 02-29-2012, 10:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ben:

                      "They evidently weren't sure which."

                      They evidently thought that parts were taken from Tabram and Nichols too. And that evidently is wrong. And at the end of the day, Killeen WAS sure about things. Moreover, if we take a look at it semantically, where do we end up? The wounds on Tabram WERE all inflicted by a knife or dagger, the way Killeen saw it.
                      Letīs assume that it instead had said "wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife AND dagger". My hunch is that would have people saying "but that does not tell us which of the wounds were inflicted by what!", implicating that such a wording could point to half of them being knife- and the other half dagger-inflicted.

                      Semantics can work wonders for us. We may read things selectively and "interpret" them so as to fit our bill. It would be nice, though, if we instead saw things from BOTH sides and allowed for ALL interpretations. Because a body with 1-2 dagger wounds and 37-38 knife wounds is a body with 39 wounds made by a knife or dagger.

                      the best,
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Harry:

                        "The only proper study of bayonet wounds,w as made where the bayonet was affixed to a rifle.Grasped in the fist,it was no different than any other type of dagger,and would show no dissimiler appearance to a wound.The only reason,as Hunter and others have pointed out,is that the reference to soldiers being seen in the vicinity of Tabram's killing,has led officials and press of the time,to suggest a soldier and soldiers weapon as being involved."

                        That sounds about correct up til the point where we remember that Reid thought it proven that a military man was responsible for the deed. And he judged that by the apparition of Tabramīs sternum wound! So apparently SOMETHING was present in that wound that left Reid with no doubts at all. Judging that it was all proven is an extremely strong wording.

                        Oh, how one would wish for just a little more information, just some slight elaboration. It is all very frustrating.

                        The best,
                        Fisherman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi Ben
                          Originally posted by Ben View Post

                          Knife OR dagger.

                          They evidently weren't sure which.

                          An extremely interesting observation, especially in light of the current discussion.
                          Quite a hot potatoe for those who are still hammering that "dagger = two cutting edges" to the people present at the inquest.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ben View Post
                            Many thanks for producing that for us, Jon.
                            You're very welcome, I'm sure you'll make use of it
                            Knife OR dagger.

                            They evidently weren't sure which.
                            Well, I think the brief note does contain mistakes, that being one.
                            The other being the fact the writer confused the small knife wounds with being caused by a bayonet, which clearly was not the case.
                            Seeing as how the writer appears to be out of touch with specifics I don't see any value in using this as a source in any argument.

                            Outside of this HO file, our understanding is that Killeen suggested "knife AND dagger", not "knife OR dagger", also that it was the "LARGER wound suggested to be associated with the bayonet", not the many smaller wounds.
                            The file with respect to Tabram contains too many contradictions to be of any value, it was afterall dated 29 Nov.
                            Another example of inaccurate recollections some 14 weeks?, after the event.


                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Thanks for posting the report, Jon! Am I correct in reading it as if it suggests that parts were removed from Tabram and Nichols?
                            Hi Fisherman.
                            I think the "parts removed" was just a subheading, like Time, Place, Money, etc.

                            Regards, Jon S.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It furthermore speaks specifically of these wounds as narrow, meaning that they must reasonably belong to the flurry of 27.
                              No, Fisherman.

                              They must reasonably belong to any of the wounds that were initially suspected of having been inflicted by a bayonet. Since the sternum wound fits the bill and no other, it logically follows that the sternum wound was amongst those referred to in the Home Office document.

                              And at the end of the day, Killeen WAS sure about things.
                              No, Fisherman.

                              At the end of the day, he wasn't at all "sure", or else he'd have said so. What he actually said was "I don't think" that the wounds were created by one weapon only.

                              Well, I think the brief note does contain mistakes, that being one.
                              The other being the fact the writer confused the small knife wounds with being caused by a bayonet, which clearly was not the case
                              No, Jon.

                              Neither of those were "mistakes". "Knife or dagger" meant exactly that, and obviously implies that none of the wounds betrayed any one-side/two-side distinction of the type that would set a knife and a dagger apart. The fact that it argues against your two-day-old theorizing does not make it a "mistake". The Home Office document neither stated, nor implied, that the "small wounds" were ever suspected of having been created by a beyonet, so that one doesn't qualify as a "mistake" either. The Home Office document reveals, quite conclusively, that a bayonet was ultimately exonerated of having had anything remotely to do with the Tabram murder, and for the that reason, I fully intend to keep using it again and again "in any argument". I just hope people are willing to go round and round in repetitive circles with me, 'tis all.

                              All the best,
                              Ben
                              Last edited by Ben; 03-01-2012, 01:21 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X