overkill

[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.

[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

[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

[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:

"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]

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]

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

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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."

Thanks for that, Fish - I hadn't noticed the mention of a "long & strong instrument" previously. Quite how long a knife has to be to penetrate the sternum is, however, still a moot point.

[The Good Michael]

But Eddy, having had some training in Highland ways, would have likely carried a dirk and a sgian dubh when he was prowling for victims. How he got away with carrying his targe around without being challenged, is another story.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I hadn't noticed the mention of a "long & strong instrument" previously. Quite how long a knife has to be to penetrate the sternum is, however, still a moot point."

Not long at all, I should say, Sam. But that is where I see the moot point myself, since Killeen explicitely SAID that the blade WAS long. And the only way he could have known such a thing would be by measuring its penetration into the body. Which, of course, he had ample time to do at the slab.
We must also consider the fact that the sternum is a tough bone to penetrate. Considerable force must be used at the blow of the weapon. But once the blade has gone through the sternum, the underlying tissues are much easier to penetrate. meaning that if somebody dealt a blow hard enough to shove a sturdy blade through the sternum of Tabram, then after the blade had produced a hole through the bone, the powerful thrust that produced that hole would probably ensure that the blade was sunk deep into the underlying tissues - possibly if not probably all the way up to the hilt. It´s like pressing a pointed weapon against the shell of a hard-boiled egg lying on a table - once the shell breaks, the weapon is met by very little resistance, and it will proceed through white and yolk and stop only as it meets the surface of the table.

I think that we also need to recognize the fact that although Killeen has often been pointed out as inexperienced, and though it has often been suggested that he may have overlooked such a thing as a possible wiggling of the blade, he could actually allow himself to be very certain when he said that two blades were involved if he KNEW that the second blade was of a diffeerent length that the first. Unless that blade was sunk into Tabram at 36 varying depths, he would have known the approximate length of that blade, and after that it would be easy to exclude the possibility that it could have caused the sternum wound.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"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."

Thanks for that post, Frank - it revealed a lack of substantiation on my part about the possible breaking of the first blade if tried at the sternum.
You are correct, as far as I can see - none of the useful sources mention this. And I cannot remember where I first saw it, but that is of very little importance if it is not in the original sources.
We have, of course, passages like this:
"One was a narrow bladed dagger-like instrument. But the other posed more problems. It must have been strong enough to have broken the sternum."

...where Jon Ogan offers his wiew, and it leads the thoughts to the smaller blade not being able to penetrate the sternum, of course. But an original source it is not!

...so I took a look at things, in order to try and establish what to believe - or not believe - when it comes to the subject of penetrating sternums. And, to be honest, I drew a blank, more or less. Well, not a blank, perhaps, but I came up with totally differing bids.
On the one hand, I found a manual for autopsy work, where it was stated that we are able to deliver blows of up to around 2000 N in strength, whereas it only takes 250 N to pierce the sternum. Of course, that does not say anything of the shape and strength required by a blade if it is to be able to travel through that sternum without breaking.
On the other hand, I found a site where it was stated from several sources that not all caliber 22 slugs were able to shoot through the sternum! Then again, slugs are not sharpened.

To me, it is all very confusing. But the lesson I am trying to learn here is not primarily what weapon to use, but instead what sources. And apparently my source on the broken blade thing - for I have read it somewhere - did not belong to the useful ones. At least, like you, I have not been able to retrace it. Probably hidden in some book or other at home.

But when it comes to the depth of that wound telling us that we are dealing with a long blade, there are sources around, Frank.
The Star writes that it was ”certainly much the largest and deepest of any” of the wounds (8.8) and the People of 12.8 writes: "”In the 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 with a penknife.”, only to mention two sources.
And, once again, no matter what we think of Killeens abilities and assessments, when he stated that the blade was long and strong, none of these assertions would be grounded on guesswork. And, also once again, when we establish that we have on the one hand measurements carried out by Killeen telling us that the sternum wound was produced by a long weapon, whereas we have his assertion that the smaller wounds could have been made by a pen-knife, we also have very firm ground to stand on when we say that we are dealing with two blades. Like I said before, even if we open up for the possibility that wiggling could have caused Killeen to make a mistake about the width of blade number two, no wiggling in the world would have LENGTHENED any pen-knife blade. Plus - of course - I think that any wiggling would have been easy to detect from the damage caused to the underlying tissues. It would effectively have erased any image of a clean stab, and we have no indications that the wound was nothing but a clean stab.

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

We must also consider the fact that the sternum is a tough bone to penetrate.

Comparatively, maybe - but the sternum is not particularly tough compared to, say, the bones of the limbs. Note that the sternum comprises smaller bony units which, in females, might not fully fuse until the 30th year. I guess that the low-grade diet of the likes of Tabram might have delayed this process somewhat, such that a well-aimed blow at a partially ossified sternum might fracture and penetrate it more easily. Even if this weren't the case, I shouldn't say that the force required would be "considerable" anyway, as the sternum is a relatively thin bone, and it's not uncommon for stab-victims to sustain such sternal puncture wounds.

I think that we also need to recognize the fact that [Killeen] could actually allow himself to be very certain when he said that two blades were involved if he KNEW that the second blade was of a different length that the first.

I'm still not sure why he picked up on the length of the blade, apropos the wound to the sternum - unless it came out the other side of the chest! It's perfectly possible, given the depth of the thorax, for a 5" long knife to enter the breastbone and puncture the heart to a reasonable depth.

[FrankO]

Thanks for that post, Frank - it revealed a lack of substantiation on my part about the possible breaking of the first blade if tried at the sternum.
You are correct, as far as I can see - none of the useful sources mention this. And I cannot remember where I first saw it, but that is of very little importance if it is not in the original sources.

Hi Fish,

I have found the article presenting Killeen’s opinion that an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the chest bone!

It is in the East London Observer of 18 August. Here it is:
“There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman. It will be recollected that at the inquest, when asked his opinion as to the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, Dr. Keeling [Killeen] replied that they were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife - all except the wound on the breast bone. As to the instrument with which that had been caused he could not say with any degree of certainty, but of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”

So you were correct after all. However, the snippet holds another interesting point: “As to the instrument with which that had been caused he could not say with any degree of certainty, but of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument,..”

Killeen says he couldn’t be sure about the instrument that caused the wound to the sternum, he was just sure it must have been a heavy, dagger-pointed instrument. He doesn’t mention that it was a long-bladed instrument. And, more importantly, the reason for brining up a heavy, dagger-pointed instrument wasn’t the depth of the wound, but the notion that an ordinary knife-blade would have broken when coming into contact with the sternum.

Then, I’ve gone through all the newspapers in the ‘Press Reports’ section from 7 till the end of August 1888 and found 12 newspaper articles containing Killeen’s testimony. Seven of them, among which the People of 12 August, almost certainly used a single common source. In other words, it seems that those newspapers didn't actually have a reporter present at the inquest. All of these mention a ‘deep wound’ and a ‘long & strong instrument’.

Then there are the Times of 10 August, the East London Advertiser and the East London Observer of 11 August. From the inquest coverage, it seems that especially the ELA and ELO reporters were actually present at the inquest. Yet, they don’t mention 'deep' and explicitly 'long & strong instrument'.

This taken together suggests that it’s not all that close to a given that the wound to the sternum was actually deep.

Even, when reading the Start report of 8 August, I get the feeling that the ‘deepest’ that is mentioned there (see below), isn’t necessarily deep. The reporter obviously visited the mortuary and actually saw the wounds to Tabram’s chest, but I doubt whether he was able to see how deep the ‘largest’ wound actually was. It may well just have been that the horrific sight it must have been influenced him.

Here’s the snippet from the Star of 8 August:
“The wounds on the body are frightful. There are about eight on the chest, inflicted in almost circular form, while the probably fatal one - certainly much the largest and deepest of any - is under the heart. The wounds appear to be the result of sword or dagger thrusts, rather than that of a knife. No arrest has yet been made.”

All the best, Fisherman!
Frank

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I fail to see the productive value of throwing the good doctors opinion out the window, unless of course we have reason to believe he was incapable of determining the wound differences that made him state that a larger blade was used once.

Does anyone have evidence that his opinions were generally discarded, thought to be inaccurate or illegible....is there any reason to suspect that he would not know a wound where a pen knife......(again since everyone seems to miss this, a folding knife by definition and incapable of penetrating bone without risking finger loss),......got "stuck"?

Without acceptance of the facts as they are, or reason to question them cited, what is being done by posting something like he "misread a wound and actually it was only one knife used" is setting that posters opinion above that of the contemporary attending physicians'. In this matter Ill still side with his opinion on how many weapons were used at this point in time.....so should everyone without evidence to question Killeens abilities to make such statements.

Best regards all