Tweet
Kileen was not adamant in declaring the sternum wound the result of a bayonet.He stated it as an opinion,and I would ask what experience Kileen had of bayonet wounds,being as I cannot find reference to any murder of that era,that was definately attributed to a bayonet.Still even a bayonet embedded in the sternum requires a deal of force to withdraw,and leaves an entirely different looking wound than if inflicted on the softer tissues of a body,and so would a knife.Likewise a knife or bayonet wound tends to have a slightly different apearance if inflicted by a stabbing,thrusting or lunging motion,and I tend to think,because Kileen didn't say,that he did not know how that particular wound was made,or in what order.He noted only that it was different.So there is insufficient information to say that there were two different attackers or two different weapons,and although a possibility must always be considered,my opinion is one attacker and one weapon.
-
-
Harry writes:
"Kileen was not adamant in declaring the sternum wound the result of a bayonet.He stated it as an opinion"
Actually, he did not. He only said that the instrument used at the sternum was a sturdier one than the other blade. He spoke of a dagger at the inquest. And he effectively put an end to anybodys wish to believe that just one blade was used, I´m afraid. He pushed the point in an emphatic manner, and left no room for interpretation.
To this we can of course add that he had the distinctive advantage over those of us who think that he may have been mistaken, of having studied and measured the wounds, millimetre by millimetre, slowly and painstakingly. Since he knew that there had been a different blade used at the sternum, and since he said that all the other wounds could have been produced by a smallish blade, that means that he must have studied each and every one of the other 38 wounds to Tabrams body, and measured them, millimetre by millimetre, up til the time he was ready to establish that none of them would have been produced by the sturdy, powerful blade that was shoved through Tabrams sternum.
He would have spent hours at Tabrams slab, and knowing that he was about to make a very controversial verdict public, he would have made very sure that there could be no doubts about his conclusions.
Had there been such doubts, then he would of course have said so. He could have said that one of the wounds made him feel uneasy or uncertain, and that there was the outward chance that it had been produced by a different blade. Such things open up for a healthy questioning, and he would have been quite, quite aware of that as he took the decision to emphatically rule out the possibility that he could have been wrong.
It is more than enough for me - and it is the most important piece of evidence we have from the Tabram inquest, bravely and unhesitatingly delivered.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Harry,
I do agree with FM that the reality is that there were likely 2 blades which could be detected, one making only a single wound, but I also believe that a soldier might have a dagger and bayonet as part of his regular dress.
Cheers.Comment
-
I'd second that, Harry. Good points well made.So there is insufficient information to say that there were two different attackers or two different weapons,and although a possibility must always be considered,my opinion is one attacker and one weapon.
Cheers,
BenComment
-
Hello
This is an interesting thread as my main objection with Stride falling to the same hand as Eddowes is that seemingly, a shortish knife was used on Stride, and a longer one on Eddowes, all within an hour.Comment
-
I will agree with Bens comment regarding Harrys post....we dont have the definitive evidence to prove 2 instruments were used on Tabram....and that would extend to 2 entirely different blades used on Liz and Kate. For my money thats explained by the fact that Liz's killer had a longer more utititarian blade, and Kates carried something that could be used to cut more intricately, because he was going to take organs if he could.
But I will say that professional opinion that there were 2 distinct wound patterns within the almost 40 frenzies should be factored...as it was then.
All the best.Comment
-
Hello MichaelOriginally posted by perrymason View Post
We have Philips testimony at the Stride inquest as evidence of the size of knife used on Stride. He stated that judging by the position of the body and the angle of the cut a long knife was not used (in comparison to the long cake knife P.C. Drage found on the Whitechapel road, and was presented at the inquest).
Whereas, the Doctors estimated that the knife used on Eddowes was at least 6 inches long.Comment
-
Michael writes:
"we dont have the definitive evidence to prove 2 instruments were used on Tabram"
Well, Mike, what on Gods green earth do you need to accept as definitive evidence? Photos? Or the ghost of Tabram moaning:
-Geez, the other stabs were bad enough, but that thrust through the heart was just a bit too much!
If an adamant assertion on behalf of the medical man that examined her at the killing spot and added her post-mortem to his merits later on, saying that the wounds did not correspond, and that the smallish blade could not have produced the sternum stab won´t cut it for you...? Then what will, Mike?
There are easy ways to put this to the test. Buy a roast, a knife with a blade that holds pen-knife width and a lenghth of at least three or four inches, plus a sturdy dagger, strong enough to pierce bone. Then make one deep stab with the thin blade in the roast, and one with the dagger. After that, you just compare. That was the sort of thing Killeen was looking at, for the longest time asking himself the question "could these wounds possibly have come about by the same blade?" He would have measured depth and width of the punctured holes, and we know what conclusion he came to, and exactly how much he wawered, don´t we? Not an inch, not a second.
How that can make somebody speak of "no definitive evidence" 120 years further down the road is beyond my comprehension. For such things are nothing BUT definitive evidence!
The best, Mike!
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 01-24-2009, 12:14 AM.Comment
-
Jon Guy writes:
"a shortish knife was used on Stride"
I´d like to think so, Jon - but I´ll be damned if I can prove it...
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Again I have to ask, why would Jack be limited to having only one knife?
c.d.Comment
-
C.D. asks:
"Again I have to ask, why would Jack be limited to having only one knife?"
Who says he was, c.d.? It can be reasoned, though, that he worked under so pressing time schedules, that it would be illogical to swop blades every now and then during the different eviscerations - if one blade could do the job, why would he NOT stick to that one blade? And the doctors invariably come to the conclusion that only one blade per job was probably used - but for Killeen. And there is nothing pointing away from the possibility that the same blade could have been used on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - a longish, pointed, very sharp blade.
That would be the reason for people being unwilling, by and large, to ponder a man who swopped blades during the deeds or inbetween them.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Hello FishermanOriginally posted by Fisherman View Post
A Doctor`s testimony at an inquest can surely be regarded as proof ?
Phillips : but it is not such a weapon as I should have fixed upon as having caused the injuries in this case; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision. re: the long chandlers knife.
Phillips : I am of opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.Comment
-
Fisherman,
Dont mistake my concession for a belief on my part that two knives were not used on Martha, I do believe 2 separate weapons were used. I see no problem with Liz's and Kates weapon differing, as I believe different killers wielded them.
Cheers FMComment
-
I have always had a feeling that the different knife used by Liz's killer could be explained by the possibility of Liz carrying a knife and Jack taking it away from her and using it to kill her. Now it occurrs to me that that scenario doesn't fit with her still holding the bag of cachous. So it looks like I have killed off one of my own favorite theories. Damn!
c.d.Comment
-
Jon Guy writes:
"A Doctor`s testimony at an inquest can surely be regarded as proof ?"
I know, Jon, and my own belief is that the knife may well have been a shorter one. But Phillips settles for "unlikely", and that does not travel the whole stretch, I think.
The best,
FishermanComment
Comment