Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[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?

[Fisherman]

Can I be Crazy Horse?

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

[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]

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"

[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]

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!

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Thats what i have been trying to tell Barnacle Bill

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, Trevor, you may well be right in saying that some posters only want to read and digest what suits them. For example, you refuse to ask Biggs about whether wounds from different weapons can be read in a body, and instead keep pumping out the same onesided information over and over again. You apparently donīt want to have the other side of the matter discussed in any shape or form; if Biggs has said that wounds are hard to tell apart, that should be regarded as applying universally to all cases. If wounds CAN be told apart, that knowledge should NOT be divulged here.

It is not as if you are hard to expose, Trevor. You do most of the work yourself. And you do it well.

PS. Many wounds are quite easy to tell apart and cannot possibly have been made by the same implement. We do not need Biggs to tell us that, it is common knowledge. But it would nevertheless be nice if you owned up to it.

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

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

[Fisherman]

Actually, Trevor, you may well be right in saying that some posters only want to read and digest what suits them. For example, you refuse to ask Biggs about whether wounds from different weapons can be read in a body, and instead keep pumping out the same onesided information over and over again. You apparently donīt want to have the other side of the matter discussed in any shape or form; if Biggs has said that wounds are hard to tell apart, that should be regarded as applying universally to all cases. If wounds CAN be told apart, that knowledge should NOT be divulged here.

It is not as if you are hard to expose, Trevor. You do most of the work yourself. And you do it well.

PS. Many wounds are quite easy to tell apart and cannot possibly have been made by the same implement. We do not need Biggs to tell us that, it is common knowledge. But it would nevertheless be nice if you owned up to it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Seconded!

It seems that some posters on this thread only seem to want to read and digest what suits them or their theory, and disregard everything else. I have previously posted a lengthy reply from Dr Biggs on this topic,however I will post yet again and this time I hope those referred to will look read and digest the contents.

"Sometimes, a particular knife will leave specific tell-tale signs in the skin that indicate that it has been used, for example a serrated knife will sometimes leave regular serration marks along the edge of the wound. However, that is not always the case, and so serrated blades can leave “non-serrated” marks, “double-edged” blades can leave apparently “single-edged” marks, etc. In reality, most stab wounds look like generic stab wounds, and tell us very little about the blade other than some crude dimensions. So in theory there might be a situation where two very specific blades have left their “signatures” in the skin of the same victim, therefore “proving” two different blades have been used… but far more commonly the same blade will simply have left behind lots of wounds of different shapes, leading the observer to think that perhaps more than one blade was used"

"Most of the stab wound cases we deal with were caused by a single weapon, even though wounds in the same victim may vary considerably in appearance. We often get asked in court whether multiple knives could have been used in a particular case, and where there is more than one wound we invariably have to say “it’s possible” as it is something we can (never say) never rule out"

"Getting back to the case in question, it is entirely feasible for a “normal” knife to penetrate the chest bone, so there is no need for a separate dagger-type weapon to have been used. It is far more likely that a single implement was used, and that the different appearance of the wounds is nothing more than the variation than we expect to see in such cases"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Some have said the scenario is so implausible it should not even be considered.

You might care to ask Dr Biggs whether it is ever possible to distinguish wounds caused by different weapons.

Seconded!

[Fisherman]

One suggestion put forward for believing the sternum wound was the last, and that it killed her,was taken from the newspaper that reported she lived through all the wounds sustained.Yes,the newspaper says all.Now 'Lived through' is a common expression,and can mean survived.Lived through the blitz was a common saying,so was lived through two world wars,and it means,in both cases,survived.So did the newspaper report mean Tabram survived all of the stabbings? What else are we to believe?.The report could have said ,lived through 38 stabbings and was killed by the final one,but it didn't.

If you are thinking of the Times report, it did not say that Tabram lived through the stabbings, it said: "His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life."

That does not mean that she survived the stabs. It only means that she was not dead as any of them were dealt. However, if she lived through the 38 small stabs and was killed by the 39:th, the larger one, then we have the exact situation that Killeen words: all of the wounds were caused during life. But the last one killed her.

This is the exact reason why I say that the larger wound will have been the last one. Because if it was not, then all of the wounds cannot possibly have been "caused during life" since the larger wound was lethal. So there is only one way that Killleen could have been correct on this, and that is if the larger wound was the one last dealt.

[harry]

One suggestion put forward for believing the sternum wound was the last, and that it killed her,was taken from the newspaper that reported she lived through all the wounds sustained.Yes,the newspaper says all.Now 'Lived through' is a common expression,and can mean survived.Lived through the blitz was a common saying,so was lived through two world wars,and it means,in both cases,survived.So did the newspaper report mean Tabram survived all of the stabbings? What else are we to believe?.The report could have said ,lived through 38 stabbings and was killed by the final one,but it didn't. Interesting now,to observe some posters are considering alternate types of weapons for the sternum wound.
Trevor might also ask Dr Biggs whether the same weapon can make two dissimilar looking wounds.Trevor of course will not,because Trevor has more than enough experience and intelligence,that he doesn't have to.

[MrBarnett]

No one is saying it would have been impossible for two knives to have been used, but that it is highly unlikely based on what we now know 131 years later about knife wounds in the 21st Century.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Some have said the scenario is so implausible it should not even be considered.

You might care to ask Dr Biggs whether it is ever possible to distinguish wounds caused by different weapons.