overkill

[FrankO]

Killeen SPECIFICALLY stated that the blade of the smaller knife would have broken if tried on the sternum. That means that he had a pretty good idea of what the blade looked like, when it came to width and thickness. And why wouldn´t he - having 30 plus stabs to go by!

I knew you’d chime in sooner or later, Fish!

I have, again, gone through all Killeen’s press statements (I could find), but couldn’t find any reference to the smaller blade breaking if tried on the sternum. Perhaps you can lead me to it.

Furthermore, the East London Advertiser of 11 August, the East London Observer of same date and the Times of 10 August didn’t mention a ‘deep wound’ or explicitly a ‘long, strong’ instrument. Especially the EL Observer was very detailed in the coverage of the inquest.

This is what the East London Advertiser wrote: "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."

Furthermore, as policing, forensics and forensic pathology being in their infancy back then, I wonder if Killeen was really as thorough as you hold him to be. The woman was dead and her death was due to loss of blood. Whether a long or small knife was used for one of the stabs, wouldn’t change that and quite probably couldn’t have been a major factor in trying to find her murderer(s). Because in the end, nothing could be actually proven back then.

Therefore, I’m not as convinced as you are that Killeen couldn’t have been mistaken.

The best, Fish!
Frank

[Fisherman]

The eveneing News of the 10:th of August - among others - bear it out, Sam:
"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."

Of course, no exact length of the weapon is mentioned, but since Killeen apparently uses the two parametres long and strong in an effort to tell the blades apart, and since he thought that the wound over the heart could have been inflicted by a bayonet, there is little reason to believe that it was as short a blade as the other one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

length enters very much into the equation - at least when you consider that Killeen used two parametres to tell blade number two apart from blade number one: strength and length.

I don't see that Killeen makes any mention of the length of the "(sword)bayonet-like" blade, Fish, nor of the depth of the wound (which might have a bearing on the blade's length, of course). On the contrary, the impression I get is that Killeen is describing a "hole in the chest", that might have been caused by a broader knife than those which inflicted the other stab-wounds.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I can't see that length enters into the equation. It's the apparent width of the wound that's relevant here, surely, not its depth. A bayonet-sized hole might be caused by a "large bore" knife, sword or bayonet, but it could equally be inflicted by a smaller weapon, if wielded appropriately."

Sam, length enters very much into the equation - at least when you consider that Killeen used two parametres to tell blade number two apart from blade number one: strength and length. And you, just as I, know that Killeen suggested that blade number two was used only once: at the sternum. Therefore the wound that travelled through the sternum was a wound that went deep enough to allow for Killen to establish that the blade that caused it was a long one. There is no room for a debate on that issue - the ONLY thing that could have caused Killeen to say that the blade was long would have been the distance it travelled through Tabrams body.
Now, if we want to suggest that only ONE blade was used in the Tabram slaying, and if we KNOW - and we do! - that the blade in question was a long one; then why on earth would Killeen say that the blade responsible for the 36"smaller" stab wounds was of a pen-knife resemblance? Was that a pen-knife with a long blade, long enough, actually, to allow for a comparison with a sword bayonet - Killeen speculated, probably after having had it suggested to him - that this may have been the type of weapon that killed Tabram?
It does not work, Sam - it remains totally implausible, and that owes to the fact that Killeen said BOTH long and stron about the second blade, in an effort to point out what made it differ from the other blade. That blade was obviously shorter, and Killeen would have known more or less exactly the length of it, having looked at 36 samples of how deep it travelled into the body, driven by a stabbing motion. After having established the length of that blade, he said that the second blade was a long and strong one, obviously meaning that it was INSTEAD a long and strong one, as opposed to blade number one. And that, of course, is where the lenght enters the equation - and solves it: two blades were used.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

Given that one can make a wound this size "o" with a knife, or this size "O" by pushing the implement in a bit further, and/or wiggling the blade, I can't see that length enters into the equation. It's the apparent width of the wound that's relevant here, surely, not its depth. A bayonet-sized hole might be caused by a "large bore" knife, sword or bayonet, but it could equally be inflicted by a smaller weapon, if wielded appropriately.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"One might imagine that a smallish blade, having gotten stuck in the breastbone, might need a bit of levering to the left and right before being extricated. Such an action might produce a wider, bayonet-like, wound I suppose."

But can one, Sam, imagine that the smaller blade, dubbed "pen-knifish" by Killeen, would have been LONG? In an earlier post here, you stated that a four-inch blade may have passed for a pen-knife variant. But would Killeen have described a four-inch blade as a "long" one? I fail to recognize such a possibility. If there was some wiggling involved (and I don´t think there was), it may have produced an impression of width, perhaps - but surely not one of LENGTH?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"When having to choose between 2 men with 2 different knives and 1 knife only being used once, 1 man using 2 different knives, and wiggling the penknife, this last scenario seems the easiest and most feasible."

To keep in mind:

Killeen SPECIFICALLY stated that the blade of the smaller knife would have broken if tried on the sternum. That means that he had a pretty good idea of what the blade looked like, when it came to width and thickness. And why wouldn´t he - having 30 plus stabs to go by!

The instrument that pierced the sternum was described as "long and strong", and "strong" is the exact opposite of what he saw in the smaller blade, just as "long" serves to tell us that the blade travelled deep. How deep? We don´t know. But we DO know that the other blade was "pen-knifish", and pen-knife blades are not long. So, no, we are not dealing with just the one blade if you ask me!

Furthermore, if we accept that the stab through the sternum was the one that pierced her heart, and if we allow ourselves to speculate that - although Killeen quite clearly used the term "long" to tell the blade apart from the smaller "pen-knife" - the two blades actually could be mistaken for each other lengthwise, then what happens if we have a case of wiggling?
Well, we may perhaps (but only perhaps) be provided with a hole through the sternum that may lead the thoughts to a larger blade. At least, it could increase the impression of width of the blade.
It could hardly, though, increase the impression of thickness, could it? And so, why did Killeen speak of a "strong" blade? That would have owed to nothing but the thickness, I should think.

Finally, even IF Killeen was tricked by this suggested wiggling, I fail to see that he would not have realized what had happened when he opened Tabam up - for that he did, and one of the organs he took a closer look at was the heart. If there had been any wriggling about, that would be portrayed in the tissues of the heart! When you wiggle a knife, it will reasonably swing like a pendulum at the point, more or less. And such a thing would be very easily read by the examining pathologist (Killeen), I gather.

Besides, that examining pathologist would have been surmising from the outset that just the one blade had been used, for that is what statistics and empirical studies of stabbing frenzies perscribe - once he realized that another interpretation was possible, he would have made sure that no mistake was applicable before he passed his verdict. Could the differing appearance owe to the angling of the blade, to a movement on behalf of the victim, or to wiggling? But no, Killeen leaves no room whatsoever for any other solution to what he saw but the one he worded at the inquest: There was one smallish, pen-knife like blade, rather frail and thin about. And there was also a TOTALLY different blade involved, a blade that was long and strong, instead of short and frail.
It´s not as if it´s a close call, you know!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Frank. One might imagine that a smallish blade, having gotten stuck in the breastbone, might need a bit of levering to the left and right before being extricated. Such an action might produce a wider, bayonet-like, wound I suppose.

[FrankO]

What if he wiggled his penknife?

When having to choose between 2 men with 2 different knives and 1 knife only being used once, 1 man using 2 different knives, and wiggling the penknife, this last scenario seems the easiest and most feasible.

[Sam Flynn]

What if he wiggled his penknife?

Hi again Michael,

I don’t particularly believe in a mercy stab. Whoever dealt Tabram at least those 37 stabs, wasn’t pitying her in the least. So, it was more likely a stab to finish her off, although it's not clear if that stab to the sternum was the one that also pierced her heart.

Anyway, in my view, every scenario involving 2 men that I’ve heard so far, seems just as ‘constructed’ or ‘artificial’ as the scenario I recently suggested of one man changing from one knife to the other to inflict one or two last wounds.

The best!
Frank

Fair enough Frank....but in this instance 2 killers is to me the more likely of the solutions. As we discussed...one man wielding both weapons yet using the large one only once doesnt fit....he uses a small one 38 times in a frenzy and a large one only once?

The only way 2 men is not the best answer here is if there was only one type of blade used on Martha.....and that would directly refute the opinion of the man that inspected the wounds.

All the best amigo

[FrankO]

Hi again Michael,

I don’t particularly believe in a mercy stab. Whoever dealt Tabram at least those 37 stabs, wasn’t pitying her in the least. So, it was more likely a stab to finish her off, although it's not clear if that stab to the sternum was the one that also pierced her heart.

Anyway, in my view, every scenario involving 2 men that I’ve heard so far, seems just as ‘constructed’ or ‘artificial’ as the scenario I recently suggested of one man changing from one knife to the other to inflict one or two last wounds.

The best!
Frank

It’s fair to suggest that 2 weapons were used, but to assume it, would go a little too far in my view. To assume that 1 man used both knives is not so hard to explain, although I admit that perhaps it is a little hard to imagine. But 1 man administering 37 stabs and that the other only inflicting 1 stab (leaving the cutlike-wound to the private part aside for the moment) doesn’t seem feasible either.

Cheers, Mike!
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the pat..it is nice to agree on some things ...., and on the above...if the single wound is only intended to be a kill wound, it might makes more sense seeing 2 men using the two weapons.

That large dagger or bayonet wound might have been partially a mercy stab. She would be in horrible pain, but perhaps still breathing after all those stabs....Killeen did say ALL the wounds were caused in "life"...one final stab to once and for all kill her.

A second man comes into the picture, sees the situation...and if the first man is still there, he may do this to help make sure that no-one is going to testify against his pal.

Military allegiances are incredibly strong....if need be, they will protect each other the rest of their lives.

All the best Frank

[FrankO]

In my opinion based on the descriptions, photos, histories and status at the time of their deaths, I dont think its reasonable to assume that Martha Tabram, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman would have had pimps.

Good point, Michael. For a change, I fully agree with you.

I believe its very fair to assume that there were 2 weapons. Assuming 1 man wielded both would be hard to explain.

It’s fair to suggest that 2 weapons were used, but to assume it, would go a little too far in my view. To assume that 1 man used both knives is not so hard to explain, although I admit that perhaps it is a little hard to imagine. But 1 man administering 37 stabs and that the other only inflicting 1 stab (leaving the cutlike-wound to the private part aside for the moment) doesn’t seem feasible either.

Cheers, Mike!
Frank

Hi all,

In my opinion based on the descriptions, photos, histories and status at the time of their deaths, I dont think its reasonable to assume that Martha Tabram, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman would have had pimps.

We know Martha picked up at least one client on her own, with Poll, we know that Polly was earning and drinking it right away which doesnt sound like any pimp could have collected any "commissions" or that she was concerned about such circumstances, and Annie stayed out even when sick because she had to earn on her own, without anyones help or "marketing". Pimps do bring or send clients to the women as well.

And I say this with respect for the women, but all three of these women were not attractive in the conventional, marketable sense. Physically, and by their age. By that information though it would seem that Martha fits quite well into the group. Its when you look further into it that you see this was no solo mutilator that killed her.

I believe its very fair to assume that there were 2 weapons. Assuming 1 man wielded both would be hard to explain.

Best regards all.