39 stabs - a frenzy?

[Shelley]

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

Hi Fisherman,

With blades, a pen-knife type would be folding, so couldn't be used on the sternum ( which was harder to pierce given Tabram's age as well) they can't tell what type of knife could be have been used, only through depth and how sturdy it could be under a thrust through the sternum bone to the heart. So it is definatley a 2 weapon situation as regards Tabram.

I believe one essential "point" is missing in the discussions here regarding the term pen-knife. Whether he was precisely describing the wound as such, I doubt...but one characteristic of a pen or pocket knife is that it folds.

To stab directly into bone one would take a considerable risk of having the knife collapse and lop off a finger tip of the assailant. Folding knives are not meant to be used when applying pressure and pushing directly on the tip of the blade. Anyone using a pen-knife that way would understand that risk. Most will "fold under the pressure".

Wonder if thats where that line came from?

Its 2 weapons folks, with one larger fixed blade.....clearly. Doesnt make sense on a murder that could easily have been committed by one man...but there it is anyway. Its not disputable.

Best regards all.

[Shelley]

It was horrible that Tabram died at any hands with such vicious a killing with 39 frenzied stabbings. I don't see that this would have been a premeditated attack, at one time i did with a slip, but i'm sure now it that it wasn't.

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

I posted some years ago with info from a pathologist, because of the age of Martha in her forties the breast-bone is harder to cut, the breat-bone is softer in younger women of thier twenties, i believe the bone starts to harden more from around 28 yrs of age, so Yes Killeen would be right in saying that it could not have been done with a pen-knife, so a bayonet type weapon could have been used.

[DVV]

We of course,have a different understanding of what happened in Whitechapel in that period of time.We begin with the knowledge that there were a series of seemingly connected murders,of which Tabram is thought by some to have been part.Killeen,without knowledge of what was to follow,could only treat Tabram as a singular case,and while each succeeding case might also be expected to be treated as such,it seems likely that as murder followed murder,medical, police,and public opinion was affected by what had gone before.
That Killeen speaks of two different weapons is a cause for puzzlement.When and why did the change in weapons take place,and why for just the one penetration.It seems unlikely to have been the first stabbing blow,and hard to visualise it as being the last.I would hold to a belief that there was indeed only one weapon,and that Killeen erred in that one instance,if his opinion of a Penknife being used was wrong.

Agreed!

[Fisherman]

Two questions, Harry, if I may:

1. "I would hold to a belief that there was indeed only one weapon,and that Killeen erred in that one instance,if his opinion of a Penknife being used was wrong"

What would have prompted Killeen to throw forward the pen-knife suggestion? What factors would have been involved?

2. "It seems unlikely to have been the first stabbing blow,and hard to visualise it as being the last"

What possible grounds do we have to bolster such assumptions? Why must it have been in the range of stabs number 2-38?

I agree wholeheartedly on what you say about the time schedule involved. If Tabram had been the last victim, her post-mortem would have been conducted with another agenda altogether, and it is something that we must keep in mind!

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

We of course,have a different understanding of what happened in Whitechapel in that period of time.We begin with the knowledge that there were a series of seemingly connected murders,of which Tabram is thought by some to have been part.Killeen,without knowledge of what was to follow,could only treat Tabram as a singular case,and while each succeeding case might also be expected to be treated as such,it seems likely that as murder followed murder,medical, police,and public opinion was affected by what had gone before.
That Killeen speaks of two different weapons is a cause for puzzlement.When and why did the change in weapons take place,and why for just the one penetration.It seems unlikely to have been the first stabbing blow,and hard to visualise it as being the last.I would hold to a belief that there was indeed only one weapon,and that Killeen erred in that one instance,if his opinion of a Penknife being used was wrong.

[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

[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]

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]

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

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]

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.

[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.

[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