39 stabs - a frenzy?

[DVV]

Hi again, Fish,
1: Killeen was a fully qualified medico?
Yes, maybe. Phillips also, but he made great mistakes. Both were fully qualified medicos in Whitechapel, in 1888.
2: "I do not for a moment think that Swanson was challenging Killeen's views."
You should, Fish, because Swanson mentioned only one weapon ("knife or dagger"), and never refered to a left-handed murderer.
Why didn't the police call another medico? Well, they've satisfied themselves with one opinion, until the double event (if I'm correct).
3: a knife is not a bullet. Who the world can control a bullet?

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Lots of sound reasoning there, David!

Killeen stated at the inquest that he was a fully qualified medico, something that has sometimes been taken as a sign of him not having the best self-esteem. I don´t know whether that is true or not, and those who want to see him as an inferior doctor are welcome to do so. They will, however, do that without substantiation.

What would he have made of Kellys right leg? Who can say? At any rate, it has precious little to do with the point we are discussing right now - the hole through the sternum.

I do not for a moment think that Swanson was challenging Killeens wiews. He simply referred to the slaying as a murder by knife. If he had wanted to push the point of Killeen being wrong, some substantiation and clarity of language would have been called for. As it stands, we have no sign whatsoever of anybody offering a second opinion on Tabram´s wounds, and if Swanson had been of the opinion that Killeen WAS wrong, that stance could only had been reached by listening to medicos who had examined Martha and arrived at conclusions differing from Killeens wiew.

Find me one single sign that such examinations were carried out, and I´ll rinse my earchannels and start listening.

"That's why I said your scenario makes sense if, and only if, Killeen was right."

You´re getting ahead of yourself here, David - my scenario has not yet been published. But you are correct in anticipating that Killeens examination and his evaluation of what he saw lays the ground to my thinking.

As for the left-hand, right hand business and the possibilities of hammering away strongly with a knife using the wrong hand, I won´t even go there for the moment being. Like I say, if I am correct, each and every bit of the puzzle has a very logical explanation, chest-wound, cut, stabs, location, MO and all.

And I still say that Killeen could NOT have been wrong on the two blades. It has it´s resemblances to the differing results of a very small calibre bullet and a very large calibre bullet fired through a chestplate - you take out your measuring tape and you notice the difference: two weapons used.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
thanks for your kind words (though I may not deserve them). I'm afraid I will desappoint you here, and appear a bit stubborn about Killeen.
Who was Killeen, first? Why was he called in? My guess is that he was involved simply because he was from Whitechapel... It has to be observed that he was never called again in the enquiry. So I will ask again: how many weapons would he have deduced, had he seen MK's right leg?
Swanson 's report quoted above show that the police did not accept his conclusions (2 blades, a left handed person...).
I'm not saying Killeen was wrong, but could have been. The whole case invites us to take doctors' conclusions (not only Killeen's) with great caution. Indeed, this should be almost part of our methodology. That's why I said your scenario makes sense if, and only if, Killeen was right. I've always seen Tabram as a ripper victim, but the idea of JtR having used two weapons in George Yard seems to me very unlikely. The fact that Killeen suspected a left-handed is an indication that the chestbone's wound appeared "different" because it was given from another angle or position, and not because a "dagger" or a "bayonet" did it.
If Martha's killer was right-handed, the strongest wound inflicted could hardly have been done by his left hand, no?

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

I agree with you on most points here. The more probable grip on the knife is the the one you proposed in your earlier post. I was just mentioning the other grip to make the picture more complete, and since it is a method much less probable to cause bruising.

But on the whole, I´m with you on this one!

The best!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Would not the method of holding the knife ,as you describe,result in a thrusting movement instead of a stabbing one,and is'nt it more likely to be used on a person in the standing position.Also would not a thrusting motion result in an angled movement into the body,which,if it had happened would surely have been picked up at the autopsy.It is extremely difficult to inflict a level wound if the victim is lying on the floor,using the underhand thrusting movement,and while I do not think the actions amounted to frenzy,the killer would have been mindfull of the need for haste.It was a public place.

[Fisherman]

David!

I´m dreadfully sorry that I have not responded to your post until now. I have been experiencing all sorts of technical probs (thus the treble posting) and have not been able to send any posts before.
Here´s my answer to you!

To begin with, I would never speak of either stupidity or crazyness on behalf of you or your suggestions. I hope I have not come across that way either. I hold you high in regard, and I appreciate whatever opportunity I can get to debate and discuss with you. Open-minded, knowledgeable, un-prestigious and eloquent are descriptions that surface a lot sooner than any derogatory remarks when it comes to my impression of your own good self, David. And perhaps a wee bit stubborn - but who am I to complaint about such a thing...?

Regardless of this, and regardless of the fact that I agree that medicos often disagree, nowadays as well as back then, I must answer your question (am I sure that all doctors at the time would have agreed with Killeen?) with an emphatic yes. That I am, at least as sure as we can get without the physical evidence before our eyes. I have never seen the wounds, and I have not performed Tabrams autopsy - but Killeen did!

Let´s not forget that he would have set out with the same conviction that you have - he would probably be looking for just the one blade. To assert that TWO blades had been used took courage and conviction. If there had been any chance to believe in just one blade, he would in all probability have pounced upon it.

I sometimes have the feeling that some posters think that it was a tough call, that the wound in the sternum could be interpreted in many ways, that it could have been the result of wiggling or hacking or something like that.
In all probability, that hole was clean as a whistle, and very easy to interpret, both when it came to the width of the blade and its thickness. Keep in mind that Killen was comparing two blades that to him seemed like a pen-knife blade and a sturdy dagger. The latter would have been many times as wide as the former, perhaps three, four, five or even more times. It would also have been a thick blade, and not the more fragile kind of blade that Killeen could read from nearly forty other stabs. That´s a healthy lot of material to deduct from!

He would have known the exact shape of that weaker blade, and he would have removed skin and tissues from above Tabrams sternum, leaving the bone exposed to the bare eye, and in that bone he saw one mighty stab, BANG!, and the retraction of that blade, leaving a "fingerprint" of the blade, clear enough for him not to hesitate for a second as he asserted that the hole through the sternum could NOT have been made by the blade that seemingly had caused the rest of the damage.

No room for mistakes, thus, if I´m not mistaken. And thus no room for any deviating wiew on behalf of any other medico of a sound mind.

All of this does not make your suspicion that Killeen could have been wrong crazy or stupid. Questioning established facts is a very important thing to do, and it often provides refreshing insights. In this case, though, I think the clarity of Killeens testimony and the circumstances surrounding his decision speaks very clearly for accepting the good doctor´s words.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Tell me, Fish: are you sure that all doctors at the time would have agreed with Killeen ?

Killeenn made the autopsy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He washed, analyzed, numbered, cut and measured!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you any clue, could give us any documented hint that there would have been one doctor who would have not agreed ?

What kind of question is this ?
What kind of functioning a brain which asks such questions ?

Never read such a contorted logic.
Not even the serial killer integrists (well, for them is another problem...no logic at all).

[Canucco dei Mergi]

We all very well know that doctors can be mistaken. Phillips himself had a long experience (more than Killeen may be), but he made several mistakes and somehow - to say the least - misled the police.

Philips making several mistakes ????????
Misleading the police ?????????
Ahem....

I think is better I go.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

Hi Fish,
my answer would be very simple: I think very unlikely that there were two weapons used

Very unlikely ?
You classify as 'very unlikely' the conclusion of the 'médecin légiste' ?

You must be joking.

'Unlikely' would already be very hazardous.

Come on...this is not a way to treat the case. It makes you wonder the usefulness of any discussion. One can't travel so deep in the jungle.

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
my answer would be very simple: I think very unlikely that there were two weapons used, let alone two killers.
And I really don't see why this opinion should be taken as a crazy or stupid one, Fish.
We all very well know that doctors can be mistaken. Phillips himself had a long experience (more than Killeen may be), but he made several mistakes and somehow - to say the least - misled the police.
You have, by the way, already noted that Killeen was quite far from flat. So why should I flatly accept these two weapons, knowing what we know about forensic ?
This said, I repeat that I will wait for your article. I'm sure it makes sense, but only if two different weapons were used.
Tell me, Fish: are you sure that all doctors at the time would have agreed with Killeen?
We know that different doctors = different opinions, in 1888.

Amitiés, and the best as always,
David

[Fisherman]

Even if we were to swallow this assertion of yours, David, instead of just recognizing that it had dawned on Swanson that the deed was perpetraded by knife: what possible evidence are you suggesting led Swanson to his, ehrm...conclusion?
A look at the East London Observer of August the 11:th is refreshing. It has Killeen stating: ”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”
That effectively shows that the shape of the wound through the sternum ruled out the possibility that it was made by the same instrument as were the other wounds.

If Swanson really held the belief that you are implying, then he would have fallen into the self same trap as you are caught in, David: ”It is improbable that two blades were used, ergo it was only one blade.”

But the Tabram murder WAS an improbability in this respect, I believe. I also think that there are more pertinent questions to answer, as for example why he stabbed 38 times and cut once.

Harry, your point on the bruising is a valid one. But I don´t think we can be sure that he held the knife in his fist the way you suggest. In cases of frenzy, it is the most common way to hold the knife, but those who are used to fighting with knives generally prefer the kind of grip where the blade protrudes fron the thumb side of the hand, since it gives better control and superior reach.
I don´t know if we can deduct that bruising around the entrance holes of the stabs would have been reported about. But if you are thinking along the lines of distinguishing between stab wounds and ”punctured wounds”, it must be pointed out that Killeen actually described ALL the wounds as punctured wounds. In the East London Observer he speaks of ”39 punctured wounds”, and that simply means that the wounds were caused by puncturing the skin as opposed to other types of wounds inflicted by other types of weapons.

On the point of Don Soudens suggestion that the cut on Tabrams body was the result of the blade hitting the pubic bone and skidding to the side, I think that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
But I also think that the human body offers many a bone to strike where a similar effect could have been reached; ribs, chest bone, hip bones, collarbones etcetera, etcetera.
As Tabram lay on the ground, she offered about one thousand square inches of target area. That skidding stab could have sat anywhere on them square inches. But no, it just so happens it ends up on the lower part of her body, meaning that we cannot rule Jack out.
And for some reason, if this is what happened, Killeen did either not realize that a skid was the explanation, or he simply chose to ommitt telling us what had happened. Those are the only two options open to us!

So either we are desperately unlucky – or we are looking at something where there is no need to look for any random explanations.

Personally, I do not hesitate to go for the second choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Even if we were to swallow this assertion of yours, David, instead of just recognizing that it had dawned on Swanson that the deed was perpetraded by knife: what possible evidence are you suggesting led Swanson to his, ehrm...conclusion?
A look at the East London Observer of August the 11:th is refreshing. It has Killeen stating: ”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”
That effectively shows that the shape of the wound through the sternum ruled out the possibility that it was made by the same instrument as were the other wounds.

If Swanson really held the belief that you are implying, then he would have fallen into the self same trap as you are caught in, David: ”It is improbable that two blades were used, ergo it was only one blade.”

But the Tabram murder WAS an improbability in this respect, I believe. I also think that there are more pertinent questions to answer, as for example why he stabbed 38 times and cut once.

Harry, your point on the bruising is a valid one. But I don´t think we can be sure that he held the knife in his fist the way you suggest. In cases of frenzy, it is the most common way to hold the knife, but those who are used to fighting with knives generally prefer the kind of grip where the blade protrudes fron the thumb side of the hand, since it gives better control and superior reach.
I don´t know if we can deduct that bruising around the entrance holes of the stabs would have been reported about. But if you are thinking along the lines of distinguishing between stab wounds and ”punctured wounds”, it must be pointed out that Killeen actually described ALL the wounds as punctured wounds. In the East London Observer he speaks of ”39 punctured wounds”, and that simply means that the wounds were caused by puncturing the skin as opposed to other types of wounds inflicted by other types of weapons.

On the point of Don Soudens suggestion that the cut on Tabrams body was the result of the blade hitting the pubic bone and skidding to the side, I think that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
But I also think that the human body offers many a bone to strike where a similar effect could have been reached; ribs, chest bone, hip bones, collarbones etcetera, etcetera.
As Tabram lay on the ground, she offered about one thousand square inches of target area. That skidding stab could have sat anywhere on them square inches. But no, it just so happens it ends up on the lower part of her body, meaning that we cannot rule Jack out.
And for some reason, if this is what happened, Killeen did either not realize that a skid was the explanation, or he simply chose to ommitt telling us what had happened. Those are the only two options open to us!

So either we are desperately unlucky – or we are looking at something where there is no need to look for any random explanations.

Personally, I do not hesitate to go for the second choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi all,
Just to mention that Swanson had already corrected Killeen's conclusions in september 1888:
"Dr Keeling (sic) of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found 39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."
No bayonet, one weapon.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi all,
Just to mention that Swanson had already corrected Killeen's conclusions in september 1888:
"Dr Keeling (sic) of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found 39 wounds on body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."
No bayonet, one weapon.

Amitiés,
David

[harry]

Just one,perhaps final question on the frenzy style wounds.Assuming Killeen to have been correct on the kind of weapon,and the method of use that of stabbing,would I be correct in thinking that the Knife? would be held in a fist like grip.That the little finger and lower palm be toward the body on impact,that a frenzied stab would be delivered with suffificient force to penetrate the blade fully,and the fist make solid impact with the flesh?Would that not cause bruising?.Thirty Eight frenzied violent stabs,yet there is no mention of bruising at all,only of puncturing.Seems strange.

Perrymason,
Thank you for for your kind remarks.
Regards.