Did Jack kill more than three?

[Sally]

Harry,

I agree that he wouldn't have known much about that. Type of weapon used was surmise, and it was anyone's guess.

Mike

Yes, and he was still a young man and a new doctor - perhaps not so seasoned as an older doctor might have been. I'm not sure when and where he would have had the time to gain much experience of bayonet wounds at that age. I suppose that his medical training might have included wound types - I don't know?

[Fisherman]

Itīs funny how the passing of time cools you off. Yesterday, I wrote a longish post spiced with gunpowder, but the server business denied it access to the boards.
So, today I will only point out that it is NOT anybodys guess if just the one weapon was used, or it was two.
None of the ones who try and push the wiew of a single blade has anything that even remotely reminds us of an insight into what the wounds on Tabramīs body looked like. For all we know, the broad blade may have been two and a half inch, whereas the smaller one could have been a mere half an inch.
Killeen saw the wounds, one by one, and he carefully examined the body into which they had been inflicted. He cut, he measured, he compared and he came up with the certainty that two weapons had indeed been at work.

I would have been fine with a verdict against Killeen if it had had at least some sort of a rudimentary leg to stand on, ā la Long John Silver. It has not, Iīm afraid, and that means that Killeen must be trusted.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"If you consider the most likely scenario to be that of two men with separate weapons culpable in the Tabram murder then I think you're looking at an unusual circumstance - allowing that perhap all murder must be in a sense considered unusual. What do you envisage, exactly?"

I envisage two men with knives, Sally. But NOT working in tandem.
"
If you have one man in a stabbing frenzy - and I don't really see how we can do away with the 'frenzy'' element here - what is the other man doing?"

My suggestion is that he may not have been there from the outset, Sally. The George Yard Buildings staircases opened up to galleries at the back of the house, and I am poinitng to the possibility that the second man may have seen what happened to Tabram, and taken over the job as the first man left. He could have approached the stabbed body and started to inflict the would to the lower abdomen, only to find out what Killeen knew - that she was not dead. That may have made him panick, and finish her off by the heart thrust, after which he fled.
Coincidental? You bet. But it does provide us with an explanation to the strange combination of unfocused, frenzied wounds and the seemingly focused wounds to the lower abdomen and the heart. And I think that there is every chance that Jackīs first killing was an opportunity caught in flight. Finally, whichever way we look at it, we are faced with a complete mystery. That is why people try to facilitate things by opting for Killeen getting it wrong about the two weapons.

"!f you were speculating, would you say that either of these men went on to kill other victims commonly assigned to Jtr? And if so, which? The frenzied stabber, or the one who targetted his strkes?"

You will know my answer to that one by now, Sally!

"Yes, and he was still a young man and a new doctor - perhaps not so seasoned as an older doctor might have been. I'm not sure when and where he would have had the time to gain much experience of bayonet wounds at that age."

He would have been able to tell the difference between small holes and large ones, Sally. Plus he had the advantage of being able to open Tabrams body up to confirm his suspicions, measuring depth and width of the wound in the heart, among other things.
He took very little interest in bayonets, it would seem. The bayonet suggestion came from the coroner, whereas Killeen himself suggested a heavy dagger.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Killeen

Itīs funny how the passing of time cools you off. Yesterday, I wrote a longish post spiced with gunpowder, but the server business denied it access to the boards.
So, today I will only point out that it is NOT anybodys guess if just the one weapon was used, or it was two.
None of the ones who try and push the wiew of a single blade has anything that even remotely reminds us of an insight into what the wounds on Tabramīs body looked like. For all we know, the broad blade may have been two and a half inch, whereas the smaller one could have been a mere half an inch.
Killeen saw the wounds, one by one, and he carefully examined the body into which they had been inflicted. He cut, he measured, he compared and he came up with the certainty that two weapons had indeed been at work.

I would have been fine with a verdict against Killeen if it had had at least some sort of a rudimentary leg to stand on, ā la Long John Silver. It has not, Iīm afraid, and that means that Killeen must be trusted.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman

I for one am not 'aganst' Killeen, particularly. I think that his judgement of a 'sword bayonet or dagger' is actually quite broad. It doesn't have to have been a bayonet at all. I suppose, thinking on from my last post that he probably acquired the knowledge from his medical training rather than through experience. At 24 I doubt he'd have seen that many similar wounds.

Presumably the difference between the two wounds and the 37 must have appeared significant enough to him. Do we have to trust him?

Unless we can come up with a good enough reason not to, it seems reasonable to do so.

[Sally]

Fisherman

I think your ideas are interesting. Thank you for responding to my juvenile questioning!

Best regards

Sally

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

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.

Above is from the inquest testimony. There is absolutely nothing in it about carefully measuring wounds. One wound was caused by some kind of dagger (ballock, anyone?). He thought a knife (presumably smaller) could have caused the other wounds. The tip of a blade did the damage, and unless he was in some sort of manical frenzy, it would be very easy to control a dagger to penetration of the desired depth. All wounds were caused while she was living. I agree that a longer blade caused the chest wound, but the smaller wounds could have been the same blade or any other. There is no science in that. It's all possible.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Sally:

"If you consider the most likely scenario to be that of two men with separate weapons culpable in the Tabram murder then I think you're looking at an unusual circumstance - allowing that perhap all murder must be in a sense considered unusual. What do you envisage, exactly?"

I envisage two men with knives, Sally. But NOT working in tandem.
"
If you have one man in a stabbing frenzy - and I don't really see how we can do away with the 'frenzy'' element here - what is the other man doing?"

My suggestion is that he may not have been there from the outset, Sally. The George Yard Buildings staircases opened up to galleries at the back of the house, and I am poinitng to the possibility that the second man may have seen what happened to Tabram, and taken over the job as the first man left. He could have approached the stabbed body and started to inflict the would to the lower abdomen, only to find out what Killeen knew - that she was not dead. That may have made him panick, and finish her off by the heart thrust, after which he fled.
Coincidental? You bet. But it does provide us with an explanation to the strange combination of unfocused, frenzied wounds and the seemingly focused wounds to the lower abdomen and the heart. And I think that there is every chance that Jackīs first killing was an opportunity caught in flight. Finally, whichever way we look at it, we are faced with a complete mystery. That is why people try to facilitate things by opting for Killeen getting it wrong about the two weapons.

"!f you were speculating, would you say that either of these men went on to kill other victims commonly assigned to Jtr? And if so, which? The frenzied stabber, or the one who targetted his strkes?"

You will know my answer to that one by now, Sally!

"Yes, and he was still a young man and a new doctor - perhaps not so seasoned as an older doctor might have been. I'm not sure when and where he would have had the time to gain much experience of bayonet wounds at that age."

He would have been able to tell the difference between small holes and large ones, Sally. Plus he had the advantage of being able to open Tabrams body up to confirm his suspicions, measuring depth and width of the wound in the heart, among other things.
He took very little interest in bayonets, it would seem. The bayonet suggestion came from the coroner, whereas Killeen himself suggested a heavy dagger.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish. Interesting idea...though so highly improbable as to teeter on impossible. I do not beleive in the annals of serial murderers that this or anything like it has ever happened before. Think about it. What are the chances that an embryoinic serial killer would come upon a murdered victim, which just happens to match his eventual victimology, and also murdered in a very similar way? And this would also coincide with his "spark" to begin his murderous campaign? To mention, that he would have to come upon her at a very very small window of time-almost immediately after the initial attack?
The more likely scenarios are:

One man, 2 knives
One man, 1 knife (Kileen made a mistake)
two men, 2 knives at the same time

Once again, physically possible, Fish, but really in your mind do you think this is most likely what happened?

[The Good Michael]

To bring this on thread, if we want to include Tabram in the tally, the idea of two killers doesn't seem likely. The concept of an exploratory type of killing would fit.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

To bring this on thread, if we want to include Tabram in the tally, the idea of two killers doesn't seem likely. The concept of an exploratory type of killing would fit.

Mike

Hi Mike
Agree.

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Above is from the inquest testimony. There is absolutely nothing in it about carefully measuring wounds."

Correct, Mike. The same applies for all the victims, to be sure! And that is because, just as you say, we are dealing with inquest testimony, and not with the autopsy reports. The Tabram inquest served to establish an unwrongful death at the hands of one or more persons who remained unknown, whereas the Tabram autopsy report had no such goal at all. It instead served to establish, as exactly as possible, what had happened to Martha Tabram from a medical point of wiew. And in it, there would have been measurings and such, just as there would have been lots of other details that could not possibly serve any purpose at the inquest.
That is why I say that Killeen would have measured the wounds, and that he would have known more of them than any other person back then - not to speak about you and me, Mike!

The more important part of Killeens inquest testimony lies in the phrasing "such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone".

It says that the small blade "could not" have made the chest wound. Such a suggestion would be an impossible one. It was not - and has never been - on the map. So I strongly advice against your assertion that anything is possible, Mike. It remains a suggestion thrown forward with no substantiation at all. Killeen was a professional medico. He had no reason at all to present anything but his own exact estimation of what he saw. If he had felt that the wounds differed much, but could still be the result of the same blade, he would have said so. Thankfully, he was able to lay any such suggestion to rest - although some of us frenetically try to disturb that rest.

Now, I have a sneaking feeling that this is as far as we are going to get. If you still want to bolster your suggestion of just the one blade with an assertion that anything is possible, grounded on no detailed - or undetailed - knowledge at all about the sizes and shapes of Tabramīs wounds, then okay, fine.
I prefer to go along with the certainty expressed by the professional medico who performed Tabramīs autopsy, and who did not wawer a millimeter as he left posterity with a verdict of two weapons. It sort of makes for a better argument, methinks ...

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"Think about it."

Aha - THATīS how itīs done...?

The best,
Fisherman

[corey123]

Hello Fishermen,

You are still forgetting the home office jotting.

The point of if means they had thought something other that Killeens opinion of two blades.

Meaning that, quite as they said it, it was first believed to be a bayonett wound that they were quite unmistakable. So perhaps, Killeen had made a mistake? Perhaps.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Keep the faith while I rock the casbah.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Keep the faith while I rock the casbah."

Letīs take turns, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Corey:

"You are still forgetting the home office jotting.

The point of if means they had thought something other that Killeens opinion of two blades.

Meaning that, quite as they said it, it was first believed to be a bayonett wound that they were quite unmistakable. So perhaps, Killeen had made a mistake? Perhaps.

...and, from your former post:

"... the home office added a connatation that read "The wound which was first thought to be done by a bayonet". "

Now, letīs first establish that this does not affect Killeens assertion of two blades. The only wound this relates to is the one in the sternum. And it was NOT first assumed to have been made by a bayonet. Killeen made it clear at the inquest that his belief was that something like a dagger had been used.

From the inquest:

"His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life."

AFTER that, this is morphed, as can be seen in the the Manchester Guardian of the 12:th:

"The large wound could have been caused by a sword bayonet or dagger."

...and from there, guess where it goes? East London Advertiser, August 18:

"It would seem that the suggestion of Dr. Keeling, who made the post mortem examination, that a sword bayonet might have inflicted the wound in the poor woman's chest, sent the detectives inquiring as to any soldiers being about the neighbourhood on the night in question."

So, suddenly the bayonet becomes Killeens own suggestion! Alacazam!

The suggestion was of course made after Killeen had had his say, and he agreed that yes, maybe it had been a bayonet. It was NOT, however, his original stance. Likewise, if we are to choose inbetween the post-mortem doctor and the Home Office when trying to understand what weapon had been used, I would go with the doc ten times out of ten. The bayonet business was lead on by the fact that it was known that Tabram had consorted with soldiers on the night she died.

The best,
Fisherman