Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Harry
You are quite right to emphasise the problem with researchers relying heavily on the content of newspaper reports. I have stated before these are not primary sources and the majority cannot be accepted as such. How can anyone rely on articles from newspapers in Manchester or Sheffield to be accurate when they either conflict with other newspapers or are in direct conflict with the inquest testimony and the writers of those articles from those papers were not present to record the events they then publish

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Harry
You are quite right to emphasise the problem with researchers relying heavily on the content of newspaper reports. I have stated before these are not primary sources and the majority cannot be accepted as such. How can anyone rely on articles from newspapers in Manchester or Sheffield to be accurate when they either conflict with other newspapers or are in direct conflict with the inquest testimony and the writers of those articles from those papers were not present to record the events they then publish

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

On 8th August, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph printed a verbatim statement by Francis Hewitt which its reporter had obtained (or so they said) on the afternoon of the murder.

Perhaps you can explain the conflict between their very early report and the reports of other papers. As I’m sure you know, the only record of the Tabram inquest we have is what was printed in the press.



Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

On 8th August, the Sheffield Daily Telegraph printed a verbatim statement by Francis Hewitt which its reporter had obtained (or so they said) on the afternoon of the murder.

Perhaps you can explain the conflict between their very early report and the reports of other papers. As I’m sure you know, the only record of the Tabram inquest we have is what was printed in the press.



Gary

You have to ask yourself did the Sheffield newspaper have its own reporter in London to interview Hewitt. I would say the chance of that are zero.

So who was the reporter who interviewed Hewitt, or was there no reporter and the Sheffield newspaper obtained their report from the Central News agency or from another newspaper who did have a reporter in the area?

The conflicts are easily explained especially if a number of newspapers were using the Central news agency and knew that their press release was going to be used by multiple papers, tweaking the report would make their article different from the rest. Its commonly called being less than liberal with the truth.

Just to again clarify the difference between primary and secondary sources

If a newspaper published an article based on a report they have obtained from Central News or another reporter on an event or interview that neither were present then the newspaper is still a primary source but the article is secondary source or hearsay.

If a newspaper publishes a report from their own reporter who was present at any event then both become primary sources.

It has been proven many times that articles on the ripper murders in the newspapers that do not have any corroboration are unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

You have not been asked to retract anything, although it would of course be the decent thing to do. Then again, you seem unable to read and understand what you are told, so maybe that is where your problem lies.

You now "ask me again" what proof I have of Killen saying that a pen-knife could not have penetrated the sternum, and that is superfluous since I pointed out in my last post that the wording used by Kileen has generally been beleived to tell us that this was so. However, I also very clearly deminstrated how it need not be so, posting another quotation from the East London Advertiser, pointing to how Killeen may instead have meant that a knife such as the one used in the 38 lesser stabd would not have produced the kind of hole there was in the sternum.

I am pleased to see that you have now understood that ni measuring of the wounds can be made and thus we cannot tell if it was one or two weapons. This is whjat I have said over and over again, although it has - expectedly - been lost on you. I have also said that SINCE we cannot measure the wounds, any suggestion that it was more likely one weapon cannot be in any way substantiated. That stands. Plus I have said that the view we must work from is that a medico commenting of phsyological matters is more likely to be right than wrong. That too stands.

The result of me having laid this out for you to digest has been the common one: you call me a liar. That, I´m afraid, makes you a disgrace.

There we are.

[Fisherman]

It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you please explain who it is you are so subtly referring to here, Trevor? And if it is me, then maybe you could explain to all of us how my particular theory becomes propped up by accepting that Killleen was more likely right than wrong about the two blades?

In actual fact, since my theory involves a single killer, and since a two knife scenario points AWAY from that scenario in a much higher degree than a one knife scenario does, have you not gotten things very wrong? Again?

[MrBarnett]

You have to ask yourself did the Sheffield newspaper have its own reporter in London to interview Hewitt. I would say the chance of that are zero.

So who was the reporter who interviewed Hewitt, or was there no reporter and the Sheffield newspaper obtained their report from the Central News agency or from another newspaper who did have a reporter in the area?

The conflicts are easily explained especially if a number of newspapers were using the Central news agency and knew that their press release was going to be used by multiple papers, tweaking the report would make their article different from the rest. Its commonly called being less than liberal with the truth.

Just to again clarify the difference between primary and secondary sources

If a newspaper published an article based on a report they have obtained from Central News or another reporter on an event or interview that neither were present then the newspaper is still a primary source but the article is secondary source or hearsay.

If a newspaper publishes a report from their own reporter who was present at any event then both become primary sources.

It has been proven many times that articles on the ripper murders in the newspapers that do not have any corroboration are unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, the SDT claimed their reporter personally interviewed Hewitt on the afternoon of the murder, and the interview appeared nowhere else as far as I know.

I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[MrBarnett]

There were numerous references to the London Correspondent of the SDT in 1888.

This is from a few years before - 1881 - but I would rate the possibility of the paper having a reporter available to personally visit George Yard Buildings in 1888 a little higher than Trevor’s ‘zero’. Just a little.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you please explain who it is you are so subtly referring to here, Trevor? And if it is me, then maybe you could explain to all of us how my particular theory becomes propped up by accepting that Killleen was more likely right than wrong about the two blades?

In actual fact, since my theory involves a single killer, and since a two knife scenario points AWAY from that scenario in a much higher degree than a one knife scenario does, have you not gotten things very wrong? Again?

I am not pointing at anyone specific, all through this ripper mystery, there are researchers who clearly readily accept without question the content and accuracy of newspapers articles to prop up theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There were numerous references to the London Correspondent of the SDT in 1888.

This is from a few years before - 1881 - but I would rate the possibility of the paper having a reporter available to personally visit George Yard Buildings in 1888 a little higher than Trevor’s ‘zero’. Just a little.

7 years is a long time, times change, people change, the world changes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk