Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[harry]

No Fisherman,I do not retract anything,nor will I abandon calling your postings lies when I believe I have reason to.
Killeen was a witness in the Tabram murder.As such he would have made a statement.If he had said,and I quote you'A penknife could not have penetrated the sternum', that claim would have been in that statement.I am not interessted in what the paper say,or any conclusions you or anyone else draw from their statements,they are not proofs of anything.So i'll ask you again,where is your proof that Killeen made such a claim?
The most that anyone now can accept is that there was a difference in one of the 39 wounds.How much of a difference is not known,because no details exist,so any attempt to define a particular weapon is pointless.My opinion,and it is just that,an opinion,is,regardless of any differences,only one weapon need have been used in Tabram's death,and I have elsewhere stated my reasons.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I'll just reply to your first lie which is that Killeen stated a penknife could not penetrate the sternum.Just show where he stated that.

The Daily News, from the inquest:

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 Times, from the exact same 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."

This is the wording that is generally thought to say that Killeen was of the meaning that as small a knife as had made the 38 smaller stabs could not penetrate the sternum. Since there is a widespread acceptance that this was what Killeen meant, I strongly object to you calling me a liar. It does not belong to any serious debate.

However, when one reads the East London Advertiser from the 11:th, it says:

"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."

This seems to indicate that what Killen focused on was the shape and size of the blade that pierced the sternum, identifying it as not a knife but instead something like a bayonet or a dagger. If this was the case, then what Killeen meant was not that the knife that caused the smaller wounds could not pierce the sternum but instead that the knife that DID pierce the sternum was so obviously different from the other blade used that there was no way that it could be the same blade.

Both interpretations are possible, none of them make me a liar, and none of them make it any likelier that one blade only was used.

Now, if you will please have the courtesy of not calling me a liar anymore, I hope we are done with this?

[harry]

Fisherman,
I'll just reply to your first lie which is that Killeen stated a penknife could not penetrate the sternum.Just show where he stated that.The rest of your post needs no reply,as it is mainly personnel insults,which is your fallback when on the losing end of an arguement.
Michael,
History is full of people,important people at that,whose words and claims have been contested.Why should killeen be an exemption? He speaks of a difference in one wound only,and that difference was not clarified so as to give a clear impression of how significant the difference was,or what part of the wound was inferred.Was it the sternum itself,or the exit point, or both? It was obviously noticeable.
What we do have to start with and can be accepted as fact,is a body with many injuries,and except for one,alledgedly made by a penknife.So at least,one person one weapon.To go on from there,to include another person,another weapon,it has to be shown there was a need for such.In my opinion that need has not been shown.Sure it is possible for these things to have occured,but if we argue on possibilities,the list is endless.

[MrBarnett]

On Bank Holidays any military man, current or retired, could wear bayonets and/or short swords in public. So suggesting a bayonet may have had more to do with the prevalence of that kind of blade on the streets on that night rather than any specific accusation against an active military man. I still say, bayonet or dagger, the inference is what is important. Not the proper name of the large weapon. Or whether it was indeed carried by an active soldier. You can be sure posers wore regalia out on those nights too...you could buy uniforms, badges, military stuff of all sorts in shops around town.

This killer could well have been 2 men, someone wearing a dagger/bayonet came across the woman as she was being stabbed ad infinitum, and stepped in to spare the woman more agony. Would he later come forward? Or would pen knife man? No. People generally don't confess to murder without first being arrested for it.

Where does that idea come from, Michael? I’ve seen a number of photos of Victorian military men who were out on the town but who did not appear to have been wearing side arms.

I’m sure there’s a source for what you are saying, I’ve heard it said many times before.

But all that would tell us is that soldiers were one category of men out of dozens who might have carried knives.

Why point the finger solely at soldiers and not at others?

Think of the numerous East End ne’er-do-wells who carried knives for nefarious reasons, the butchers, slaughtermen, leather workers etc etc etc Why focus purely on soldiers?

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n736975][QUOTE=MrBarnett;n736972]

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.

That's where we differ then. It seems you can accept the idea of small/large weapons which is what Killeen said, suggesting that someone would stab someone 37 or 8 times with a puny weapon when all the while he also had a large deadly one on him to me is at the very least, highly improbable. In my opinion, its is also illogical.

Yes, we obviously differ on this. I can imagine a situation where an enraged attacker might lash out with whatever instrument comes first to hand. He doesn’t mull his choice of weapon over before he begins his attack. But as his rage subsides and he realises his initial weapon of choice is inadequate, he uses a second instrument.

The example I posted above is very similar. The wife stabbed the husband several times with a flimsy knife that broke and then obtained a second one to finish the job. The pathologist posited two weapons based on the wounds he observed, and that was corroborated by the discovery of a second bloody knife. If the two weapons hadn’t been found, some might have pointed to the illogicality of two knives having been used and questioned the pathologist’s opinion.

[Michael W Richards]

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph piece is useful in giving us an idea of where the idea of a bayonet may have come from.

On afternoon of the 7th, Fras Hewitt was already putting forward the theory that Tabram had been killed with a bayonet because soldiers had been seen drinking nearby. Now that in itself doesn’t necessarily follow. All sorts and conditions of men whose occupations or lifestyles might have led them to carry a variety of sharp instruments would have been drinking within a short distance of GYB that night.

But if Hewitt had been privy to a conversation between Killeen and Barrett when Barrett mentioned, perhaps as no more than an aside, that he had seen a soldier lurking nearby a few hours previously, the possibility of the ‘great gaping wound’ at least having been made by a bayonet would be an easy assumption to make.

This was before the inquest, possibly even before Killeen had completed the PM, and certainly before Pearly Poll turned up at Commercial Street nick with her soldier story.

On Bank Holidays any military man, current or retired, could wear bayonets and/or short swords in public. So suggesting a bayonet may have had more to do with the prevalence of that kind of blade on the streets on that night rather than any specific accusation against an active military man. I still say, bayonet or dagger, the inference is what is important. Not the proper name of the large weapon. Or whether it was indeed carried by an active soldier. You can be sure posers wore regalia out on those nights too...you could buy uniforms, badges, military stuff of all sorts in shops around town.

This killer could well have been 2 men, someone wearing a dagger/bayonet came across the woman as she was being stabbed ad infinitum, and stepped in to spare the woman more agony. Would he later come forward? Or would pen knife man? No. People generally don't confess to murder without first being arrested for it.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n736972]

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.

[QUOTE]


That's where we differ then. It seems you can accept the idea of small/large weapons which is what Killeen said, suggesting that someone would stab someone 37 or 8 times with a puny weapon when all the while he also had a large deadly one on him to me is at the very least, highly improbable. In my opinion, its is also illogical.

[MrBarnett]

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph piece is useful in giving us an idea of where the idea of a bayonet may have come from.

On afternoon of the 7th, Fras Hewitt was already putting forward the theory that Tabram had been killed with a bayonet because soldiers had been seen drinking nearby. Now that in itself doesn’t necessarily follow. All sorts and conditions of men whose occupations or lifestyles might have led them to carry a variety of sharp instruments would have been drinking within a short distance of GYB that night.

But if Hewitt had been privy to a conversation between Killeen and Barrett when Barrett mentioned, perhaps as no more than an aside, that he had seen a soldier lurking nearby a few hours previously, the possibility of the ‘great gaping wound’ at least having been made by a bayonet would be an easy assumption to make.

This was before the inquest, possibly even before Killeen had completed the PM, and certainly before Pearly Poll turned up at Commercial Street nick with her soldier story.

[MrBarnett]

I think that's about right Harry, though I think if I had a larger blade to begin with why would I be using a small blade that I would have had to fish out of my pocket then unfold to use? A Dagger, or a bayonet, whichever, implies a sheath, or a scabbard, or something tucked done behind his belt. Im sure you get my point, the larger blade would be far easier to access anyway. I think if you can accept a 2 blade premise, which it seems you could, then logic dictates 2 people.

I think it also suggests that the pen knife man had to use that knife.

ps....I gave you Dictionary definitions of pen-knife...the general understanding of what that was in Victorian times was different than it is now.

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.

[Michael W Richards]

Is that Canadian vernacular, Michael? I’d still consider a penknife to be a folding pocket knife. The sort of thing you might have ready to hand when you become enraged at someone’s behaviour and which you first use on them before realising that the wounds caused by that weapon might leave your victim alive long enough to reveal your identity to the next passer-by. So then what do you do? Well, if you have a larger, albeit unwieldier, tool to hand, you might deliver a coup de grace with that, using both hands possibly.

I’m not saying that is what happened, but there’s nothing remotely implausible about the scenario.

I think that's about right Harry, though I think if I had a larger blade to begin with why would I be using a small blade that I would have had to fish out of my pocket then unfold to use? A Dagger, or a bayonet, whichever, implies a sheath, or a scabbard, or something tucked done behind his belt. Im sure you get my point, the larger blade would be far easier to access anyway. I think if you can accept a 2 blade premise, which it seems you could, then logic dictates 2 people.

I think it also suggests that the pen knife man had to use that knife.

ps....I gave you Dictionary definitions of pen-knife...the general understanding of what that was in Victorian times was different than it is now.

[MrBarnett]

Harry, it occurs to me that the Victorian definition of a pen-knife includes a folding feature, and I think that in and of itself would indicate that it was a very dangerous weapon to the user if attempting to penetrate anything that offered great resistance. Like bone. In todays vernacular the term is used to describe a variety of pocket blades and tools, but back then it was commonly used to describe a smallish, single bladed, folding knife capable of being carried in your pocket.

Is that Canadian vernacular, Michael? I’d still consider a penknife to be a folding pocket knife. The sort of thing you might have ready to hand when you become enraged at someone’s behaviour and which you first use on them before realising that the wounds caused by that weapon might leave your victim alive long enough to reveal your identity to the next passer-by. So then what do you do? Well, if you have a larger, albeit unwieldier, tool to hand, you might deliver a coup de grace with that, using both hands possibly.

I’m not saying that is what happened, but there’s nothing remotely implausible about the scenario.

[Michael W Richards]

Harry, it occurs to me that the Victorian definition of a pen-knife includes a folding feature, and I think that in and of itself would indicate that it was a very dangerous weapon to the user if attempting to penetrate anything that offered great resistance. Like bone. In todays vernacular the term is used to describe a variety of pocket blades and tools, but back then it was commonly used to describe a smallish, single bladed, folding knife capable of being carried in your pocket.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
It appears you are the one that doesn't understand or do not want to.Read what I replied to Michael.
No, I do not have to rely on the size of the wounds to state whether Tabram's injuries were caused by one or two weapons.All I have to do is rely on Killeen's statement there was a difference in the wound to the sternum.

U-huh. So when Killeen says that the smaller knife could not have pierced the sternum, this information allows you to conclude that the wound in the sternum was small enough to fit with a stab of the lesser weapon?
Thatīs an entirely new and VERY fresh approach to science. It is in fact a science all of itīs own. Maybe we should call it, say .. a harried conclusion?

Let me inform you that Killeen nowhere and at no time says that it was only this factor that governed his decision. Pointing out that the lesser blade would in his opinion have been at risk to break at the sternum does not in any shape or form include grading down the sixe of the sternum weapon to fit with the smaller one. It is nothing but an invention of yours, staying true to the glaring misinterpretations you so often supply these boards with.

My reasoning is based on training,experience and published material.

No, it is based on a complete absence of facts, a trip to La-La Land and a complete misunderstanding of how to use the records.

What amazes me ,is your continued reliance on just the word of one person,but then again that is all you have.

One must say, though, that is a whole lot better than basing it on no person at all and having to phantasize everything up on your own. Not that you are not up to the task, of course. Ready and willing!

And no,I haven't,despite your misleading insinuations,asserted that one weapon only could have been used.I have stated the opinion that only one weapon need to have been used,and I have explained why,in detail.

To no avail at all, sadly.

You do not have to stray from these boards to understand that weapon is a penknife.

One, moreover, that caused a damage described in one report as a "great gaping wound". It will have much resembled the great gaping hole in your reasoning, methinks; more of a meat cleaver hole than a pen knife one.

That caused a hole in the sternum described as In nothing I have read from you,have you been able to convey a knowledge that a penknife COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED ALL THE WOUNDS.

I can play that game too: No matter what you are informed, you just put your hands over your ears, close your eyes and say "No, no, no, no, no, no, no ....

That's how it works,if only you were able to understand.

But I DO understand how you work, Harry. All of it. Easy-peasy. Now I am not willing to spend any more time on your delusions and old pals who knew all there is to know about stab wounds, I have got better things to do. I only wish you had too. So go ahead, the stage is yours - congrats!

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,
Saying it was a likely cause of a wound,leaves doubt.Even doctors explanations can be challenged if they used those terms,and there is an alternate explanation.

If your focused on the likely part Harry, ok. I believe any hedging here would be due to the inconclusive evidence as to specifically what weapon the larger one was. We have dagger and bayonet offered. Both larger than a pen-knife to be sure, but also potentially quite different looking blades. Width, single/double edged, 6-8 inches/11-13 inches...some bayonets even served well as short swords too. So likely in my estimation is appropriate and not weak. And the message is clear. One stab was made by a larger blade. Whether that was larger width, girth, length...who can say. But there was a discernible difference.

[harry]

Fisherman,
It appears you are the one that doesn't understand or do not want to.Read what I replied to Michael.
No, I do not have to rely on the size of the wounds to state whether Tabram's injuries were caused by one or two weapons.All I have to do is rely on Killeen's statement there was a difference in the wound to the sternum.
My reasoning is based on training,experience and published material.What amazes me ,is your continued reliance on just the word of one person,but then again that is all you have.And no,I haven't,despite your misleading insinuations,asserted that one weapon only could have been used.I have stated the opinion that only one weapon need to have been used,and I have explained why,in detail.You do not have to stray from these boards to understand that weapon is a penknife.In nothing I have read from you,have you been able to convey a knowledge that a penknife COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED ALL THE WOUNDS.
That's how it works,if only you were able to understand.