39 stabs - a frenzy?

[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).

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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 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]

Hi David!

1. Once again, I am not pushing the point that Killeen could not make mistakes. Any person who believes he never can make a mistake - makes a mistake!
But not all persons WILL make mistakes about some things. Though a doctor may mistake one disease for another, that does not mean that the same doctor would take a look at a two-inch wide hole and mistake it for a half-an-inch one. We have to distinguish between apples and pears here, David!

2. No, I should not believe that Swanson was challenging Killeens wiew, especially not if there never was a second examination. If that was the case, what on earth do you think Swanson grounded such a suspicion on? Gut feeling? An amateur session of his own in the post-mortem room?

3. Who can control the thin, frail blade of pen-knife size so as to give the impression of a blade of three, four times the width and perhaps the double thickness when stabbing through a hard chestbone, David? And who would do so? And how would that somebody avoid it leaving signs in the tissues underneath the bone and the heart that would tell the tale of what had happened?
Moreover, if he stabbed 38 times, retracting the knife nice and clean at every occasion (we have no report of any of the other wounds being anything but stabs, but for the cut, and even that is describes as a stab by Killeen), then why would he start carving away at the hard chestplate for some considerable time, creating a perfect image of a wide, sturdy dagger-blade???

You are on very thin ice with this one, I´m afraid. And the lakes have not yet frozen here in Sweden.

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

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

I think is better I go.

There is one thing on which all medicos will agree: laughing everyday is good for health.
So, please, keep posting.

[DVV]

Having just read the recent posts on the "Swanson family tradition" thread,
I must recognize that you've fulfilled my wish far beyond my expectations.
Thanks again.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Despite the incredulity of the findings, there was indeed the professional opinion that there were wounds made by two distinct blades, likely both varied in length and width of penetration. And again, she is last seen with a soldier...granted its not like Lawendes sighting where the woman is dead within 15 minutes of being seen with someone, but it is more compelling when added to the "bayonet" style wound, that is referred to specifically as such.

One of the biggest issues in this study is the desire to see the work of the Ripper in murders that have little or nothing to do with "ripping"... like Elizabeth Stride, and Martha Tabram for example.

When Martha was killed, she was thought a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer...an unknown man who may have killed a few unfortunates with a knife. When Annie was killed, the term Leather Apron was not only used because of its proximity to the victim in the yard, it was used because this was the second butchered woman, and suddenly all eyes were on butchers, cobblers, leatherworkers, slaughterhousemen, ....men whose trade required sharp knives specifically....and at least a cursory knowledge of anatomy.

It was a different killer than the Whitechapel Murderer. And he was different than the Torso maker, and he was different than the man who likely kills Clay Pipe Alice. There were knife killers available besides Jack.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

Despite the incredulity of the findings, there was indeed the professional opinion that there were wounds made by two distinct blades, likely both varied in length and width of penetration.
When Martha was killed, she was thought a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer...an unknown man who may have killed a few unfortunates with a knife.

Hi Michael,
I tend to disagree, here. When Martha was killed, she was not considered a victim if the "Whitechapel murderer", not at all... Police followed the trail of the soldiers, and besides, there was the theory of "gangsters".
Even the figure of Leather Apron, as described by The Star in early September, was a mix of a "lone mad killer" and a gangster who was "blackmailing prostitutes".
About the "2 distinct blades", we can't take for granted that Killeen's suggestion was based on the "length and width of penetration". It could have been because Killeen didn't thought a "penknife" was able to pierce the chestbone. And that would explain why Killeen wasn't flat at all: he said he thought that the wound couldn't have been made by what he thought to be a penknife.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David!

Please let me walk you through this once more, and try to point out where you would be wrong!

You write:

"we can't take for granted that Killeen's suggestion was based on the "length and width of penetration"

Right! What you are saying here is that we cannot be sure that the hole in the chest differed from the others, and thus it could have been the same weapon. You point out that Killeens words can be interpreted as only saying that a pen-knife would be too frail to pierce the sternum.

If we accept this thesis of yours, David, we are left with a wound in the chest that was similar to the others, but which would have been inflicted by a less frail material than the others.

What I fail to see here, David, is why Killeen would have asserted what he did if the holes in Tabram were all comparable. Why would he speak of two blades in such a case?

Of course it was a question of blade width and thickness, David. No other explanation will take flight, as you will surely realize.

Actually, Killeens statement that the blade from the other wounds would break at the sternum was nothing but an educated guess: he knew the width of the blade, he knew what thickness such a blade normally is (the wounds would have contracted somewhat, making an exact assessment difficult on that particular point), and he simply concluded that the type of blade used normally is a frail one.
It´s not as he could tell the type of steel it was made of. What he concluded in all his studies of the different blades used, he concluded from the width and thickness and length traces left.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Good morning Fish,
This is not a "theory", just a suggestion. There is a big difference between stabbing flesh and bones, and in such a case, it is almost meaningless to compare the width and length of the wounds. As far as I know, Killeen didn't say: "I know there were 2 different blades, because I measured the wounds."
He said the little knife that pierced Tabram 37 times (+1cut) could hardly, in his opinion, have pierced a hard bone like the chestbone. But was the supposed knife so weak? When I am in Ethiopia, I use to buy sheeps, and I've learn to slaughter and cut them (I hate this, but I am ashamed to ask local people to do so instead of me...), and all this awful work, I do with one knife.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi David, and a very good morning to you too!

Was that supposed knife so weak? Well, we cannot know, can we? The one thing we can tell is that Killeen saw the traces it left in nearly 40 cases, and that is a hefty amount of material to work from. I really don´t think that we can hold much doubt about him having a very clear picture of what that blade would have looked like. The rest is a question of the composition of material in the blade, and we will never most probably never know anything about it. Therefore we must settle for what has been handed down to us: it was a smallish blade, small enough for a pen-knife resemblance to be thrown forward.

There is, just like you say, a big difference in stabbing through flesh and through bones, one of the major differences being that you get a better picture of the thickness of the blade when you are dealing with bone structures since there will not be the same type of contraction of the wound. The width is measurable in both cases, but the thickness is not that easy to establish in flesh.
Why you say that it is "meaningless" to measure width and length of the wounds and compare inbetween the two types of stabbings is beyond me, I´m afraid. It´s not as these parameters will change due to the different resistance the knife meets - the lenght and width will be easily measurable in both cases, provided that the blade is sunk in to the full and that the stab is a comparatively clean one.

The best!
Fisherman