Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

Well, I still lean towards one man in possession of more than one weapon.

But to answer your question, I believe Tabram’s body was found next to an area where there were toilets. Might there have also been coppers for clothes washing nearby? If so, there could have been something, an old poker perhaps, hanging around. But that would mean Killeen mistaking a wound made by a blunt, cylindrical implement for one caused by a dagger.

Or perhaps, as you mention, he was a resident and was able to pop back to his flat to obtain a second weapon.

Or...perhaps he had a cart outside and he was able to retrieve a second weapon from that, eh, Fish?

;-)

Yes, that must have been it! Nah, to be perfectly honest, Tabram is and remains something of the odd one out in the Ripper tally. I can personally see my way through to her having been killed by someone else, serving as an inspiration for that cart driver you are thinking of. Then again, the location where she was killed and the hour it happened does fit the overall schedule that is on offer for him, so if I have to vote, I would count her in. In which case it seems she was not the victim of an intended evisceration attack, going by the choice of weapon brought. It can be reasoned that Lechmere may have been a user of unfortunates as so many serial killers after him who focused on prostitutes, and that something went very wrong with Tabram. Afterwards, the widespread publicity rang a bell inside him, and he decided to take his business to the open streets to feed his narcissism.

... but that is only one of many possibilities. When I nail him, I wonīt primarily be using Tabram, letīs just leave it there...

PS. You are correct in saying that Tabram was found outside the loos on one of the landings. But I think we are looking for something with a pointed end, and not with a cylindrical shape. Was there any such implement that a carter was likely to use, for example ...?

[Fisherman]

Killeen stated that Martha's lungs were pierced a total of seven times. Surely, if she had been alive for any appreciable time after this, then almost certainly she would have been coughing up blood. Yet according to the ELO account, Reeves stated that there was no blood coming from Tabram's mouth.
Curious.

It is indeed!

[Michael W Richards]

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

I haven't seen that particular piece before, but from my understanding up until I read this, ALL soldiers, retired and active, could wear bayonets and short swords with uniforms on Bank Holidays. Im looking for something that says that specifically. Your quote says nothing about Bank Holidays specifically. On Leave would refer to only active soldiers too.

Couple of points that seem to not be clear to some people....yes, Killeens report suggests 2 weapons, yes...the single large wound was enough to kill on its own, and no...its not logical that a killer would switch weapons for one stab after stabbing in a frenzy for 38 stabs, or to one that he would use repeatedly after already essentially killing her with just a single sternum stab. Not to say killers don't use weapons on victims even after they have been wounded sufficiently to succumb. Some do. Did this killer? Outdoors...where he could be caught at any minute? After already stabbing her bad enough to kill her? No. He almost certainly finished her with the large weapon, and again, its highly unlikely he had that large weapon on him when he was working up a sweat stabbing with his penknife.

Lets be realistic in our scenarios so we don't waste time just exploring improbabilities.

[MrBarnett]

I haven't seen that particular piece before, but from my understanding up until I read this, ALL soldiers, retired and active, could wear bayonets and short swords with uniforms on Bank Holidays. Im looking for something that says that specifically. Your quote says nothing about Bank Holidays specifically. On Leave would refer to only active soldiers too.

Couple of points that seem to not be clear to some people....yes, Killeens report suggests 2 weapons, yes...the single large wound was enough to kill on its own, and no...its not logical that a killer would switch weapons for one stab after stabbing in a frenzy for 38 stabs, or to one that he would use repeatedly after already essentially killing her with just a single sternum stab. Not to say killers don't use weapons on victims even after they have been wounded sufficiently to succumb. Some do. Did this killer? Outdoors...where he could be caught at any minute? After already stabbing her bad enough to kill her? No. He almost certainly finished her with the large weapon, and again, its highly unlikely he had that large weapon on him when he was working up a sweat stabbing with his penknife.

Lets be realistic in our scenarios so we don't waste time just exploring improbabilities.

That’s your view, Michael, and of course you’re welcome to it. I personally see nothing improbable about the use of a second weapon by one attacker.

Are you familiar with the attack upon a group of prostitutes in Limehouse apparently by Johannes Morgenstern, MJK’s ‘landlord’? He started with kicks and stabs and then removed his jacket and vest, picked up a poker and beat his final victim with that. There were two distinct phases to the attack, and that’s what I feel may well have happened on the landing of GYB.

[MrBarnett]

Has anyone heard of the Tighe murder case of 1899?

A Wigan miner named Martin Tighe stabbed/cut his wife over 26 times, using two knives. All of the wounds were described as superficial except one in the stomach which had penetrated as far as the spine. It was this wound that proved fatal. Two bloody knives were found at the murder scene. At some point and for some reason Tighe had changed weapons.

Tighe’s counsel suggested to the jury that his client had been in an excited state at the time of the murder and had acted on a sudden impulse, repeatedly stabbing his wife without consideration of the consequences. Nevertheless the jury brought in a verdict of murder.

Why did Tighe change knives? It was never established. But I remember once reading an account of how horse slaughterers kept a bucket of water close at hand in which to wash knives that had become so smeared with blood that they were difficult/dangerous to use. That’s one possible reason for a change of weapon, no doubt there are others.

That a single killer might repeatedly stab their victim with one knife and then switch to another to continue the attack really isn't obviously ‘illogical’.

[Trevor Marriott]

Has anyone heard of the Tighe murder case of 1899?

A Wigan miner named Martin Tighe stabbed/cut his wife over 26 times, using two knives. All of the wounds were described as superficial except one in the stomach which had penetrated as far as the spine. It was this wound that proved fatal. Two bloody knives were found at the murder scene. At some point and for some reason Tighe had changed weapons.

Tighe’s counsel suggested to the jury that his client had been in an excited state at the time of the murder and had acted on a sudden impulse, repeatedly stabbing his wife without consideration of the consequences. Nevertheless the jury brought in a verdict of murder.

Why did Tighe change knives? It was never established. But I remember once reading an account of how horse slaughterers kept a bucket of water close at hand in which to wash knives that had become so smeared with blood that they were difficult/dangerous to use. That’s one possible reason for a change of weapon, no doubt there are others.

That a single killer might repeatedly stab their victim with one knife and then switch to another to continue the attack really isn't obviously ‘illogical’.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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