Three cases of interruption?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Have you seen the actual detailed notes that you seem to refer to,and that Kileen made,both of his attendance at the death scene and later at the autopsy.Or,like myself,do you rely on inquest testimony that is refered to by various authors.If it is the later,it is quite evident that Kileen is not adamant about anything,and gives,if examined closely,only short descriptive information of a vague nature.He only declares it could have been a penknife that was responsible for thirty eight of the wounds,an observation that was met with amazement at the time.While naming the organs penetrated,and number of penetrations,there is no explanation of how far the penetration extended,or damage caused to those organs.As to the weapon causing the one wound,to the sternum,his thinking was either a dagger or a sword bayonet,two distinctive different types,leaving,in soft tissue,two dissimilar type wounds.However directed at the sternum,and with force,both would penetrate and become embedded requiring considerable force to remove.That force,with the twisting and leverage required,would cause an entirely different appearance at the surface skin and to the wound in general,causing difficulty in identifying the actual weapon.A penknife,if that was the weapon used throughout,would cause the same dissimilar appearance.

[Fisherman]

Harry asks:

"Fisherman,
Have you seen the actual detailed notes that you seem to refer to?"

No, Harry, I have not. Nor do I need to, since the material left leaves me in no doubt whatsoever. You speak of Killeen being vague, but that is simply wrong. This is why:

"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. 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. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life." (The Times, Aug 10)

"I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger." (East London Observer, Aug 11)

"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." (East London Advertiser, Aug 11)

"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 large wound could have been caused by a sword bayonet or dagger." (Daily News, Aug 10)

"That the stabs were from a weapon shaped like a bayonet, is almost established beyond doubt. The wound over the heart was alone sufficient to kill, and death must have occurred as soon as that was inflicted. Unless the perpetrator were a madman, or suffering to an unusual extent from drink-delirium, no tangible explanation can be given of the reason for inflicting the other thirty-eight injuries, some of which almost seem as if they were due to thrusts and cuts from a penknife" (The Echo, Aug 10)

"In 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 by a penknife" (Morning Advertiser, Aug 10)

"There was a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife. The large wound could be caused by a sword bayonet or dagger." (Evening Standard, Aug 10)

Where, Harry, is that vagueness you speak of on behalf of Killeen? I for one can find no such thing. When it comes to the notion of a bayonet, it should be stated that Killeen did perhaps not have many enough years of experience to ensure that he had seen the imprints made by a sword bayonet, but he would have been quite aware of the fact that a bayonet is a sturdy, powerful blade that carries no resemblance whatsoever to a weapon displaying pen-knife width.
As for the old theory of a pen-knife blade causing a hole shaped like that made by a sturdy dagger due to wriggling, I think it is a useless suggestion to make in this case, and I will happily explain why one more time.

Letīs assume that the pen-knifish blade was half an inch wide. That is a generous measure, since not many pen-knife blades are that wide. Now, letīs assume that the killer was not able to retract his knife until he had wriggled up a hole that was one and a half inch wide. It is a ridiculous suggestion, since a millimetre or two of extra width would have done the trick, but in order to be very clear on the matter, letīs make that assumption just the same.
If a blade is wriggled around very much in bone structure, resulting in a size that is two, three or perhaps four times bigger than the actual blade – will that hole produced look like the imprint of a sturdy blade, having been stabbed through the bone just once? No, it would not – instead the edges of the hole will be sawed into by the edge of the blade numerous times, and the shape of the hole will become irregular in shape. It will, in other words, be impossible to say how big the blade that caused it was – the only evident thing will be that wriggling will have caused the hole. When a doctor takes a look at such a hole, he will not be able to tell very much about the blade that shaped it, and therefore he will be cautious in his judgement.
For a doctor to be able to pass verdict on the shape of a blade, the shape of the hole must be of a regular shape. And such holes are often displayed in bone structure, since it will preserve the shape much better than the ordinary flesh and tissue does. If a stab is made in a clean fashion through bone structure, then you will be able to tell whether the blade was sharp at both edges or just the one, and so on. With such a hole at your disposal, you will be able to tell whether other wounds correspond with it or not – which was exactly what Killeen did. The 37 stabs on Tabrams body were hopelessly incomparable to the one at the sternum, and that is in no way “vaguely” expressed no matter what source you choose, Harry. Although there are no measurements left, we know that the 37 stabs would have displayed smallish entrance holes, for if they did not, why on earth would Killeen speak of pen-knife width? He saw and recognized a blade that was so small that he was able to tell that it would have been to frail to penetrate the bone at the sternum. And in that sternum, he saw something completely and utterly different, something that was not caused by what you would refer to as a knife even – something that brought his thoughts to a big, heavy, sturdy dagger, much, much bigger than the other blade used.

To me, there can be no other interpretation of it all. I realize and respect that other posters may choose to read it differently, but itīs case closed as far as Iīm concerned.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
The fist part of your last post is opinions of newspapermen ,who have no more knowledge of the injuries to Tabram,than what was given by Killeen at the inquest.They knew no more than you or I know.Some examples.'One of the wounds which went through the chest bone'.'A deep wound in the chest'.'The wound over the heart was enogh to kill'Killeen is not reported to have made any of those comments.He is not reported to have given any depth of penetration.He merely refers to a penetration of the heart and a wound to the sternum.The severity of both was not mentioned.It is the same with the wepons.Killeen mentions a penknife and sword bayont or dagger,and only one wound attributed to the latter.He does not specify any kind,or make,or strenghth,or lenghth,or width.That is why I refer to his statement as vague.If he had spent the hours of testing and measureing that you claim in an earlier post,he would have known a hell of a lot more than he divulged.But he didn't know,that seems obvious,so his mention of any type of weapon should be viewed with suspicion.He also doesn't specify the difference of the sternum wound compared to the others,only that there was a difference.It may have been minimal.
Regards.

[Nicola]

Hello,all.

I too,believe that Martha Tabram was Jack's first victim.

The knife issue is interesting. Personally,I believe he used whatever knife he grabbed before he went out to hunt. I don't think a man who is out to cut up women was particularly picky about what kind he used. It isn't the knife that he's concerned about,it's what type of damage he can inflict with it.Possibly,he carried them all on his person,sort of an attachment to them.

Forgive me for being ghoulish,but maybe Jack just said short knife tonight,bayonet to test it out,long knife for fun,etc.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"The fist part of your last post is opinions of newspapermen"

Itīs not my last post, Harry. There will be more! And the fact that all these newspapermen were of the exact same opinion, although they had not seen the wounds point to one thing and one thing only - they had listened to Killeen, and reported what he said. And since the whole issue you raise is that Killeen was "vague", I fail to see in what other manner this suggestion of yours it can be disproved, but by pointing to the inquest reports and combine it with the reports in the press, showing that they had all gotten the message, loud and clear - Tabram was cut by TWO blades.

"He also doesn't specify the difference of the sternum wound compared to the others,only that there was a difference.It may have been minimal."

Yep, Harry - maybe it was not even there. Could have been a product of too lively an imagination on his behalf.
Seriously, Harry, if that difference had been "minimal" - do you think that it would have led him to speak of wounds that did not correspond, and assert us that the blade that pierced her 37 times would not have had the power to break the sternum, whereas he chose to speak of the blade that DID break the sternum as some "long, strong instrument"? Do you believe that this assertion of his came from him believing in another material composition of the blade? It left kind of the same shape of the wound, but must have been stronger since it pierced the sternum kind of reasoning? If the size was the same, then how could he be sure that the 37-stab blade was much more frail???

He does not lay it all out to us in terms of millimetres, no. But he was not just suggesting that two blades may have been used - he was absolutely sure that this was the case. And I really donīt think that you first can tell me that I have not seen the notes from the autopsy, only to later on argue that Killeen never reported the measurements of the wounds. It kind of lacks logic, Harry, and I think you will admit as much if you think things over.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Twist and turn as much as you like,there is no recorded published measurement of the wounds,or of their individual severity.Therefor any opinion other than Killeen's,is based purely on guesswork.There is only one weapon,which Killeen likens to a penknife,stated by him as responsible for 38 punctures,and only one wound that he says must have been caused by another weapon.He gives the cause of death as haemorrhage,and as he does not specify an individual wound as responsible,it must have been a cumulative effect of all.There is no lack of logic as regards the measurements,there were simply none given,and as to a break to the sternum,whereever did you conjure that from.Killeen simply refered to a wound to the sternum.
There was only one newspaper report you entered descibing the heart wound as life threatening,so where is the exact opinion of all.It is also argueable as to what exactly Killeen was refering to when he talks of the sternum.Was it the sternum itself or the flesh covering it.Again we are left to ponder,and you say his inquest testimony was not vague.Now a wound to the sternum is seldom life threatening,indeed even multiple stabs,with knife or bayonet,are seldom fatal in themselves.Nor are they always incacipating.If the first wound to Tabram had been the sternum one ,with the attacker then departing,and a period of time intervening before the second attacker arrives,why did Tabram not seek help.She would have felt pain,and blood loss,and help was only yards away in the tenements.Or she could have screamed for help.She did neither because that single stabbing did not occur.There was one attacker only.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Therefor any opinion other than Killeen's,is based purely on guesswork."

Exactly my take on it, Harry. Which is why I use his contention that two weapons were used. Everything else would be resorting to "twisting and turning", and I agree with you that one should be careful about such things.

"There is only one weapon,which Killeen likens to a penknife,stated by him as responsible for 38 punctures"

Not really, Harry. Only 37 of the wounds that remain when we detract the sternum wound were punctured wounds. One was more of a cut, and it would have been very hard to assess how the blade that caused it looked.

"He gives the cause of death as haemorrhage,and as he does not specify an individual wound as responsible,it must have been a cumulative effect of all."

Yes, Harry - and he says that Tabram lived through her ordeal, plus he adds that the piercing of the heart would in itself be enough to cause death. Make of it what you will.

"why did Tabram not seek help.She would have felt pain,and blood loss,and help was only yards away in the tenements.Or she could have screamed for help"

There were other damages than the knife wounds, Harry: There was an effusion of blood between skullbone and scalp, indicating that she had suffered a severe blow to the head. You canīt ask for a much better explanation to her silence than that. Since we know that Killeen says that she was alive throughout the stabbing, and since we can deduct that it takes considerable time to stab somebody 37 times, one would have expected her to yell her head off - but she did not. The blow to the head is the probable reason to that silence.

"There was one attacker only." Perhaps, Harry. It remains a possibility. But likewise does the scenario with TWO knifemen - and to my mind, it is by far the likelier take on things.

The best,
Fisherman






The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Ok! Thirty seven punctures and one gash,satisfied?.Whats your point?.As to the effusion,there is no information from Killeen that would indicate the cause or time of happening.
Had there been a severe blow to the head,would not Killeen,at the autopsy, found some evidence of it's happening?Why try to introduce another false assumption?
No! It was a newspaper that reported the heart wound was enough to cause death.Killeen only reported it's occurance.
Still that's getting away from the main problem of whether there were two different weapons.You now say there is no way to assess how the blade looked.You could have said the two blades,being as you believe there were two used.If we do not know how the blade looked,we have no way of knowing how the wounds looked,or of judging the difference.All the writings I have seen on the subject goes with first assessing the thirty eight penknike type wounds as described by Killeen,and accepting his statement that the Sternum wound must have been by a different weapon.I look at it this way.Could the weapon used in the sternum wound,have been responsible for the other thirty eight?.A dagger or sword blade weapon.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Ok! Thirty seven punctures and one gash,satisfied?"

No. I would be a lot more satisfied if you could take in a correction like this without getting upset or annoyed about it. And I believe in trying to be as correct as possible when assessing a case. If that does not sit well with you, I am sorry. I do not point things like these out for malicious reasons, Harry.

Here is the quote I use when speaking about the effusion of blood. I may add that it is recognized in Sugdens and Beggs books on the Ripper case, only to mention two authorities. You find it on the Casebook timeline of Tabrams death:
"Dr Killeen conducted the post-mortem:
An effusion of blood between the scalp and bone; the brain was pale but healthy; at least 22 stab wounds to the trunk; 17 in the breast, including 5 stabs wounds to the left lung, 2 stabs to the right lung - albeit healthy, and the heart was stabbed once, which was rather fatty; except for stab wound nothing about the heart to cause death; some blood in the pericardium; the liver was healthy and stabbed 5 times; the spleen was healthy and stabbed twice; both kidneys were healthy; the stomach was healthy and stabbed 6 times; the intestines were healthy; the other organs were healthy; the lower portion of the body had one stab wound - 3" long and 1" deep, but was not mutilated; there was a lot of blood between her legs; nine stab wounds to the throat, yet it was not cut, and there was no evidence that the carotid arteries had been severed; the breasts, stomach, abdomen, and vagina seemed to have been the main areas; death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood; sexual intercourse had not recently taken place; no evidence of a struggle; except for the wound on the chest bone, all injuries seem to have been inflicted by a right-handed person, using a penknife; the stab wound to the heart might have been made by a dagger or bayonet by a left-handed person."

Since we have no original source to turn to, Harry - even the inquest records are handed down to us by a newspaper - we can of course state that this lack of original material makes any claim deriving from secondary sources untenable. If you want to do so, it is your own choice. I will not join you, though.

"You now say there is no way to assess how the blade looked".
Depends on what blade we are speaking about, Harry. I have always claimed that Killeen would have known a lot of how both the "pen-knife" blade looked, as well as the "dagger" blade, and I think we can deduct logically very much about how at least the former one looked: Smallish and thin, though long.
The blade I am saying would have been hard to describe is the one that cut the lower part of her body, since a cut does not give away blade width or length. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Killeen may not have been able to firmly establish that this cut was caused by the smaller blade. It could have been the case, just as it may have been the result of a cut by the sturdier blade - or, if we wish to cover all angles, even by a third blade.

"All the writings I have seen on the subject goes with first assessing the thirty eight penknike type wounds as described by Killeen"

Absolutely, Harry! Which is why the obvious posibility that the cut was caused by the dagger has been overlooked for all this time. If you ponder the question, you will see what I mean, I think; If I was to stab two holes through a sausage, using a pen-knife with a smallish blade, and a dagger, you would immediately be able to see which blade made which puncture, would you not?
But if I then told you to turn away, and cut the sausage in half, using one of the blades - how would you be able to tell which one I used from looking at the two halves?
THAT is why I say that the Ripper may well have been in place at George Yard Buildings, and that he may only have been responsible for two of Tabrams wounds.

Donīt get me wrong - I donīt hold this wiew to get into brawls. I do so because I think it offers a very intriguing and real possibility to show why we may be wrong if we think that Nichols was Jacks first kill.

The very best, Harry!
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Back Again

Hey all,

Just wanted to say hi. Been away for awhile. Nothing serious, life just got in the way. Have you all found JTR yet? Just kidding. Looking forward to catching up on posts..........


Greg

[harry]

Fisherman,
Who said I was upset.I take these things with a smile,as I did your remark about you being as correct as possible.A sausage,for example,is a very poor choice on your part,when assessing the difference between the sternum and the softer parts of a human body,and this as you are well aware is the main thrust of my arguement. Couple of small points on the inquest testimony as you described. However much faith you put in the people writing it,I put as much faith in my sources,and althogh there is little between the two,the differences are important.A struggle that took place when the sternum wound was delivered.Never seen it mentioned anywhere else,but of course a struggle might have affected the appearance of the wound,so a plus if anything for one weapon belief.A struggle might have caused a difference.The wound to the heart being made by a dagger or sword bayonet.My source says the dagger or sword bayonet was responsible for the Sternum wound,the only wound Killeen implies was made from a different weapon.Unless of course you and your source suggest both were from the same movement,and I would argue strongly against that.Now you claim not to use secondry sources.Isn't the effusion of blood a secondry source,since the official report is not to hand.You really let yourself down at times,making such claims,it is hard not to get cross wit you.Killeen of course,could never tell the type of weapon(s) used.All he would have had,if indeed he spent the hours you claim he would have measuring the wounds,was some idea of the length and width and thickness of the blade only.So the term penknife,I am sure,was not meant by him to have a definitive meaning,and as the number of different blades in use at that time,on all manner of weapons,were quite numerous,the term is by no means over useful.
Now here is an example of mine.A person needing to drill holes of the same diameter,in both wooden and metal posts buys two types of drills because he knows the wood drill will not penetrate metal.Why not use a metal drill for both materials?Because he does not think.
More tomorrow,
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Who said I was upset."

I did.

"I take these things with a smile"

Good on you, Harry!


"A sausage,for example,is a very poor choice on your part,when assessing the difference between the sternum and the softer parts of a human body,and this as you are well aware is the main thrust of my arguement."

Right, Harry. Iīll alter my suggestion then:
Buy yourself two parts of a pig - the ham and the breastbone. Then stab into the ham with a pen-knife, and stab through the breastplate with a sturdy dagger. Afterwards, try and assess which blade caused which damage. I think you will have as little difficulty telling the difference as you would have had in the sausage comparison. But, to be honest, that was NOT my point, was it? No, my point was that if you cut a sausage in two halves, you are not going to be able to see whether it was done by the pen-knife or the dagger. I do hope you are not disputing this, Harry? And since - logically - you are not, you must realize that Killeen would have stood no real chance of telling which of the two blades that caused the cut.

"Now you claim not to use secondry sources. Isn't the effusion of blood a secondry source,since the official report is not to hand.You really let yourself down at times,making such claims,it is hard not to get cross wit you."

When and where did I state that I do not use secondary sources? Going through my last post to you, I can only find this passage, touching on the matter:
"Since we have no original source to turn to, Harry - even the inquest records are handed down to us by a newspaper - we can of course state that this lack of original material makes any claim deriving from secondary sources untenable. If you want to do so, it is your own choice. I will not join you, though."
And, commenting on your being crossed with me: If so, Harry, you should get crossed with Sugden and Begg and a whole lot of renowned ripperologists and writers too. In the end, I fear that you may end up being crossed with heaps of people.

"I put as much faith in my sources,and althogh there is little between the two,the differences are important.A struggle that took place when the sternum wound was delivered.Never seen it mentioned anywhere else,but of course a struggle might have affected the appearance of the wound"

Exactly WHAT source are you talking about, Harry? I - and the rest of the board visitors - need to know the source you are referring to, before I can comment on the extent to which it can or cannot be favoured over any other source. The last time over we had this argument, you spoke of "books", but that will not do if you want to gain any trust on the matter. Sources, please!

"Killeen of course,could never tell the type of weapon(s) used.All he would have had,if indeed he spent the hours you claim he would have measuring the wounds,was some idea of the length and width and thickness of the blade only."

Are you suggesting, Harry, that Killeen did NOT spend any time measuring the wounds, trying to establish as closely as he could what kind of weapon/s had inflicted them...?

"So the term penknife,I am sure,was not meant by him to have a definitive meaning"

Arguably not, Harry, just like you say - but it was not a suggestion that we can easily discard either - for it was grounded on what Killeen saw as he examined Tabram. I have said a hundred times, and I am willing to make it an even thousand, that we KNOW for certain that many of the 37 stabs were NOT inflicted by a pen-knife. A pen-knife blade would not have had the length to puncture the inner organs of the voluminous Tabram. Thus it was NOT the length of the blade that led Killeen to speak about a pen-knife resemblance. I will leave it up to you to deduct exactly WHAT it was, Harry.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Does not matter what animal or substance you choose,it would only be a fair comparison if both wounds ,cuts or whatever you choose to call them,were made with the same weapon.However,inyour experiment we would know the weapon(s) used.We do not know,in the case of Tabram,what kind of weapon(s) were used,not eactly,and you do like to be exact,you have said so yourself.
As for secondry sources,we all have to use them,not enough original material surviving to do much else,and we do make claims based on those secondry sources,you included,whatever denials you may come forward with.
Now I was expecting you to raise the subject of my sources,and it's a fair request.Unfortuneately I do not give the names of individuals on open boards,but should you forward me your email address,or ask for an independent poster to accept same,I would be more than willing to oblige with details.I must say though,I am surprised after so many years,you should suddenly appear to doubt my honesty.Not that I am upset or offended,just surprised.
Begg and Sugden,why bring their names forward,and why should I be cross with them?,or any other ripperologist,or writer.Did any of those people,by the way,suggest two different assailants?I see though,you appear to put yourself in their league,but can't say it impresses me.
Iv'e not suggested Killeen did not spend time measuring the wounds etc.The only suggestion comes from you which said he would have.Iv'e only commented on the scarcity of information he divulged concerning his autopsy findings,or more correctly,i'm becoming used to that word, information that has survived from secondry sources.
Regards.

[Gideon Fell]

I thought that all 39 wounds were punctured wounds.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"I am surprised after so many years,you should suddenly appear to doubt my honesty."

God forbid, Harry. You have never given me any reason to do so, and I really donīt think asking for a source is casting doubt over the honesty of a poster.

"Begg and Sugden,why bring their names forward,and why should I be cross with them?,or any other ripperologist,or writer.Did any of those people,by the way,suggest two different assailants?I see though,you appear to put yourself in their league,but can't say it impresses me."

Why bring them forward? Because you implicated that doubt must adhere to the record that Tabram had sustained a blow to her head, and these gentlemen obviously do not doubt it since they present it in their books as a fact.
As for me putting myself in their league, really, Harry...! I have never professed to any other level of knowledge on these boards than that of an interested scholar who is surpassed by many a student and researcher. I detest comparing penis lengths, Harry, simple as that, since it leads nowhere. The only thing we can make use of on the boards are the differing amounts of knowledge we bring here as well as the ability we have to interact with other posters in order to push our joint knowledge a bit further along the road. If we are to quibble over who knows more or less, then that will in no way contribute to that venture.Therefore I always try to avoid getting caught up in prestige battles, and freely admit to being the smallest and meekest of ripperologists, as long as it serves the cause.

I will, as you suggest, contact you privately, and we can sort out the matter about the sources.

The very best, Harry!
Fisherman