Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

There you go again professing to know more than the medical experts!

No, I donīt. Exactly where do I express that I now more than they do? Please point it out.

If you read what Dr Biggs says your questions are answered, but no you can't accept that because you are blinded by your own desire to believe in what you want to believe in, and not what the facts or evidence tells us.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not blinded in any way, Trevor. But YOU certainly are. You seem to think that dr Biggs can conclude that all the wounds in Tabrams body were caused by the same instrument, and not only that - he can do it WITHOUT EVEN HAVING COMPARED AND SEEN THE WOUNDS!!

That is David Copperfield stuff, and no - I am not speaking of the Dickens character.

Believing, as you apparently do, that Dr Biggs can fly, whistle through his behind and break coconuts between his teeth, Iīm sure you will not mind forwarding this very humble question from me to him:

Dear doctor Biggs! You have made the claim that the 39 wounds in Martha Tabrams body were likely caused by the same blade. I agree with this on a general plane - once there are multiple stabs to a body, they are always likelier to have been made by just the one blade than by multiple blades. However, if you were able to actually see what the wounds looked like, is it or is it not possible that the appearance of them could have made you decide that one or more of them were definitely NOT caused by the same blade as the others?
Basically, the question is: Can there be instances of stabbings where there is no doubt that more then one weapon has been used?

Come now, Trevor, and let us get this overwith. I put it to you that it is not a question of ME thinking I know more than an expert medico, but instead a question of YOU not understanding even the simplest of matters - or being unwilling to concede them.

I am not the one in desperate need of some little sense, you are. Please allow doctor Biggs to establish this for us, once and for all!

[Fisherman]

Trevor,
The report of Dr Biggs leaves no doubt that a one weapon opinion is the most probable one.

How can all doubt be removed before you have seen the wounds, Harry? Just how does that magic work? Isnīt it true that what you say applies ona. geneeral level only, whereas any specific case must be looked at in detail before a verdict can be passed?

One weapon can leave two noticably differently appearing wounds,and that is all Killeen specified in the murder of Tabram.

No, Harry, contrary to what you say Killeen did NOT specify that ONE weapon caused different wounds. He specified that TWO weapons caused different wounds.

Interesting to note that Biggs says,vary considerably,because in the case of Tabram,it is not known by how much the wound in the sternum varied.

Are you or are you not aware that Biggs does not know the slightest thing about how big the variation was in Tabrams case? Are you or are you not aware that this factor and this factor only is what decides whether Killeen was correct or not? Are you or are you not aware that you are figthing a battle that you are as likely to win as Custer was to prevail in Little Big Horn? Meaning that you cannot win, no matter what?

You make the perfect couple, you and Trevor. Weighed up on scales of insight and knowledge, you are the perfect match.

And I am Sitting Bull.

[Fisherman]

Thats what i have been trying to tell Barnacle Bill

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Barnacle Bill, Popeye's rival for Olive Oyl in the 1935 animated cartoon Beware of Barnacle Bill"

[MrBarnett]

Are you or are you not aware that Biggs does not know the slightest thing about how big the variation was in Tabrams case? Are you or are you not aware that this factor and this factor only is what decides whether Killeen was correct or not? Are you or are you not aware that you are figthing a battle that you are as likely to win as Custer was to prevail in Little Big Horn? Meaning that you cannot win, no matter what?

You make the perfect couple, you and Trevor. Weighed up on scales of insight and knowledge, you are the perfect match.

And I am Sitting Bull.

Can I be Crazy Horse?

[Fisherman]

Can I be Crazy Horse?

You can be Horse. Crazy is already spoken for, Iīm afraid.

[Abby Normal]

Can I be Crazy Horse?

lol. when I was in "Indian Guides" (kind of like boy scouts, but with obviously more an appreciation for native americans) we had to pick Indian names. I picked Soaring Eagle and when it came to my dads turn he said Sitting Duck. ha!!

anyway back to the point of the thread and Fishermans point about getting the bigger knife somewhere else after the first smaller wounds were made.

fish/gary
how about this scenario? he encounters her, something sets him off and he starts stabbing her with the smaller knife (say a pen/clasp knife that he was used to carying around and perhaps used on millwood)in the heat of the moment. its getting messy, shes not going down easy so he then starts bashing her head and strangling her. then shes unconscious but not dead, and in the lull, he remembers he brought the larger knife and pulls it out to finish her off.

does this sequence work?

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor,
The report of Dr Biggs leaves no doubt that a one weapon opinion is the most probable one.One weapon can leave two noticably differently appearing wounds,and that is all Killeen specified in the murder of Tabram.Interesting to note that Biggs says,vary considerably,because in the case of Tabram,it is not known by how much the wound in the sternum varied.

Without any reason to suspect that Killeen was incompetent or incapable of distinguishing from small pocket knife wounds and larger knife wounds, lets stick with what is on record...which is that Killeen DID state he saw wounds caused by 2 differently configured weapons.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not blinded in any way, Trevor. But YOU certainly are. You seem to think that dr Biggs can conclude that all the wounds in Tabrams body were caused by the same instrument, and not only that - he can do it WITHOUT EVEN HAVING COMPARED AND SEEN THE WOUNDS!!

That is David Copperfield stuff, and no - I am not speaking of the Dickens character.

Believing, as you apparently do, that Dr Biggs can fly, whistle through his behind and break coconuts between his teeth, Iīm sure you will not mind forwarding this very humble question from me to him:

Dear doctor Biggs! You have made the claim that the 39 wounds in Martha Tabrams body were likely caused by the same blade. I agree with this on a general plane - once there are multiple stabs to a body, they are always likelier to have been made by just the one blade than by multiple blades. However, if you were able to actually see what the wounds looked like, is it or is it not possible that the appearance of them could have made you decide that one or more of them were definitely NOT caused by the same blade as the others?
Basically, the question is: Can there be instances of stabbings where there is no doubt that more then one weapon has been used?

Come now, Trevor, and let us get this overwith. I put it to you that it is not a question of ME thinking I know more than an expert medico, but instead a question of YOU not understanding even the simplest of matters - or being unwilling to concede them.

I am not the one in desperate need of some little sense, you are. Please allow doctor Biggs to establish this for us, once and for all!

If you take time to read what he has said the answer to your question is there in front of you.

I have already stated in a previous post that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that two knives were used, but that it is highly unlikely given what we are now told and what knowledge has been gained over the years on knife wounds.

My question is does the outcome of this discussion on this topic take us any further with the investigation than it did the police in 1888. The answer is no so why is everyone continuing to argue over what is a pointless and meaningless topic?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

As far as any modern interpretation of the evidence goes, for my money the man who actually saw the wounds firsthand, barring any reason for discounting his opinion based on prior negligence, wins the respect. That's why Phillips is by far the premier authority on the physical disposition of the deceased..he saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in person.

[c.d.]

As far as any modern interpretation of the evidence goes, for my money the man who actually saw the wounds firsthand, barring any reason for discounting his opinion based on prior negligence, wins the respect. That's why Phillips is by far the premier authority on the physical disposition of the deceased..he saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in person.

Hello Michael,

But was Philips pressed in any way to defend his conclusions?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

lol. when I was in "Indian Guides" (kind of like boy scouts, but with obviously more an appreciation for native americans) we had to pick Indian names. I picked Soaring Eagle and when it came to my dads turn he said Sitting Duck. ha!!

anyway back to the point of the thread and Fishermans point about getting the bigger knife somewhere else after the first smaller wounds were made.

fish/gary
how about this scenario? he encounters her, something sets him off and he starts stabbing her with the smaller knife (say a pen/clasp knife that he was used to carying around and perhaps used on millwood)in the heat of the moment. its getting messy, shes not going down easy so he then starts bashing her head and strangling her. then shes unconscious but not dead, and in the lull, he remembers he brought the larger knife and pulls it out to finish her off.

does this sequence work?

I think the attack started out by Tabram having her head bashed. Otherwise, I fail to seew that she would have stayed silent throughout the stabbing.

[MrBarnett]

lol. when I was in "Indian Guides" (kind of like boy scouts, but with obviously more an appreciation for native americans) we had to pick Indian names. I picked Soaring Eagle and when it came to my dads turn he said Sitting Duck. ha!!

anyway back to the point of the thread and Fishermans point about getting the bigger knife somewhere else after the first smaller wounds were made.

fish/gary
how about this scenario? he encounters her, something sets him off and he starts stabbing her with the smaller knife (say a pen/clasp knife that he was used to carying around and perhaps used on millwood)in the heat of the moment. its getting messy, shes not going down easy so he then starts bashing her head and strangling her. then shes unconscious but not dead, and in the lull, he remembers he brought the larger knife and pulls it out to finish her off.

does this sequence work?

It does for me, although he hadn’t necessarily forgotten that he had another instrument in his pocket or wherever. He just came to a point where the first weapon was no longer suitable so he took out the other one.

Have you heard the joke about the young native American boy who questions his father about how names were chosen for the children of the tribe?

The father tells him that the tradition was that the father of a child would name the child after the first interesting thing he saw after its birth. He explains that when the boy’s brother had been born he looked up and saw an eagle high in the sky, and that is why his brother was called Soaring Eagle.

The father senses the boy is unhappy about something and asks him, ‘Why do you ask, Two Dogs F*cking?.

[Fisherman]

If you take time to read what he has said the answer to your question is there in front of you.

I have already stated in a previous post that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that two knives were used, but that it is highly unlikely given what we are now told and what knowledge has been gained over the years on knife wounds.

And I have numerous times said that it is always more likely on a general level that one blade only is used, so maybe you too need to open your eyes? What is it you claim that we are "now told", by the way? If it is how wounds may be mistaken for having been delivered by more than one blade, it is not something that we have been told "now" - it has been known for decades on end, and I dare say that the Victorian doctors had good insights into it too.

And please, PLEASE, donīt speak about how it is "highly unlikely" with two blades in the Tabram case, because that is something that cannot be done with no knowledge about the apparition of the wounds. If we saw them, and indeed if dr Biggs saw them, we may have concluded that it was beyond doubt two blades, and if this was so, then "highly unlikely" suddenly turns into "proven".

My question is does the outcome of this discussion on this topic take us any further with the investigation than it did the police in 1888.

If we can make you accept that we cannot possibly state exactly how likely or unlikely it is that Tabram was stabbed with two weapons, we have made a lot of progress.

The answer is no so why is everyone continuing to argue over what is a pointless and meaningless topic?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It would seem that you are one of those most involved, Trevor? Now, send that question of mine to Dr Biggs, please!

[MrBarnett]

It does for me, although he hadn’t necessarily forgotten that he had another instrument in his pocket or wherever. He just came to a point where the first weapon was no longer suitable so he took out the other one.

Have you heard the joke about the young native American boy who questions his father about how names were chosen for the children of the tribe?

The father tells him that the tradition was that the father of a child would name the child after the first interesting thing he saw after its birth. He explains that when the boy’s brother had been born he looked up and saw an eagle high in the sky, and that is why his brother was called Soaring Eagle.

The father senses the boy is unhappy about something and asks him, ‘Why do you ask, Two Dogs F*cking?.

I should say it’s the sequence of the use of knives that makes sense rather than the beating and strangling necessarily.

The existence of the contused wound to the scalp puts me in mind of the attack by the blind man near Spitalfields Market who first felled his victim with a ‘blow’ (fist? stick?) and then began to stab her.

[Abby Normal]

I think the attack started out by Tabram having her head bashed. Otherwise, I fail to seew that she would have stayed silent throughout the stabbing.

i agree. he grabs her by the throat and bashes her head against the wall and or floor-continues bashing and or strangling until shes out. starts stabbing her with the small knife and then switches to a larger knife to finish her off.