Was it really two blades?

[Fisherman]

"the narrowness of the stairs makes it marginally less likely that two men would have crammed in there with fatty tum-tum Tabram in the first place"

The narrowness of the stairs, Sam? Letīs listen to Elizabeth Mahoney, who actually lived there:

"On neither occasion, either in coming up or going down the stairs, did I see the body of a woman lying there. It is quite possible that a body might have been there, and that I did not notice it, because the stairs are very wide..." (East London Observer, August 11, 1888)

Anyhow, I will not quibble with you any further about all of this, since you are of course perfectly welcome to your stance no matter what you ground it on. And as I have often hinted at in the past, I have grown a useful habit of always asking myself "Whatīs Sams opinion?" in many a case where I feel uncertain, since you offer a combination of rationality and an unbiased approach in most every case.
There is every chance I will use that approach to things in the future too - perhaps not about Tabram and the blade/s though...!

Thanks for the exchange, Sam!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

The layout of the building tells us that it was just the one man with just the one knife...?

No, but the narrowness of the stairs makes it marginally less likely that two men would have crammed in there with fatty tum-tum Tabram in the first place, still less done her over in silence.

Mind you, the comparatively cramped conditions might explain the (solitary) wound by the "second" assailant using a "different" weapon - perhaps he only got one chance to get his arm free

And statistical evidence is exactly that, Sam; statistical.

Yup. It's good enough for me - in combination with the other factors I've mentioned. It all adds up.

"doctors' boggle-eyed opinions"
Do we have any statistics revealing how many medicos would ascribe to this particular defect? I think not - I would suggest that the average doctor knew pretty well how to go about his business.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I give you exhibit A: "Obviously the work of an expert..."; and exhibit B: "Suggests a left-handed killer". I thank you

Iīm perfectly happy to disagree about things here, if that is your suggestion, Sam!

We can do little else, Fish, on this occasion.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"The evidence of the layout of the building, the evidence of the lack of noise, the statistical evidence (gathered over time) that "double assailants" are rarer than solo assailants, the (again statistical) evidence that sternum-piercing knife wounds are rare, the unlikelihood of a man switching to a different weapon to inflict just ONE stab out of 38, and so forth."

The layout of the building tells us that it was just the one man with just the one knife...?
But we do not even have the layout in any detail, do we? What we have is the adjoining St Georges house and a guess that we may have had something similar in George Yard buildings. To state that this amounts to evidence that it was just the one man, Sam...?

And statistical evidence is exactly that, Sam; statistical. The complete reverse to case-specific detailing, something that we DO have, thanks to Killeen, Hewitt and the papers. And what does it add to state that sternum-piercing wounds are rare, once we actually do know that such a wound was around? The statistically comparatively low number of such wounds have no influence over a proven such wound - it wonīt go away because statistics tells it to.
And just as Michael says, who is speaking of one man switching weapons? Both Michael and I are speaking of TWO assailants.

"doctors' boggle-eyed opinions"
Do we have any statistics revealing how many medicos would ascribe to this particular defect? I think not - I would suggest that the average doctor knew pretty well how to go about his business.

"Bear in mind that there is precisely the same amount of evidence at our disposal, whichever argument we decide to advance - it's how we interpret that evidence, as ever, that is the bone of contention here."

Ah - something to agree upon. Good! This is of course right. But it is also correct, and it should also be kept in mind, that the only case-specific evidence commenting on the one-or-two-blades issue is perfectly in agreement on the two-blade scenario. And case-specific recordings and details are always to prefer to statistics. Once the Paddington express derails, it does so in total disagreement with the statistic evidence telling us that such things do not happen. We may argue until we get blue in the face that statistical evidence still has that train on the tracks, but that will not have any impact at all on the case-specific fact that the train actually is derailed. People who are there and document the scene secure the evidence that we need to realize what actually happened. In that respect, it is a copy of the Tabram slaying: It goes against statistics, but it of course does not therefore go against evidence. The statistical deviance is there, and a couple of sources, ranging from a medico over a caretaker to a couple of papers, all document what happened.

I also employ statistics, Sam. But this time I say that statistics tells us that skilled medicos get things like these right more or less all the time. The exceptions are precious few and far between. And if we need to look for such an exception, case-specific evidence only is what counts.

Iīm perfectly happy to disagree about things here, if that is your suggestion, Sam!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"I don't, Fish, and it's because of the evidence - not in spite of it. It's tempting to include Killeen's opinion as part of the evidence - as I believe some folk are doing here - but opinion and evidence are not the same thing"

Now wait a sec here, Sam; To begin with I am having a whole lot of trouble seeing what evidence it is that you feel substantiates your claim that it would have been just the one man with one blade.

The evidence of the layout of the building, the evidence of the lack of noise, the statistical evidence (gathered over time) that "double assailants" are rarer than solo assailants, the (again statistical) evidence that sternum-piercing knife wounds are rare, the unlikelihood of a man switching to a different weapon to inflict just ONE stab out of 38, and so forth.

We aren't confined to what was written in the papers at the time, Fish. In point of fact, I sometimes feel that we're better off without some of it - doctors' boggle-eyed opinions and drunkards' testimony being amongst the worst offenders.

Bear in mind that there is precisely the same amount of evidence at our disposal, whichever argument we decide to advance - it's how we interpret that evidence, as ever, that is the bone of contention here.

Why only one stab with the dagger, though, and thirty-eight with a penknife? It just doesn't compute. This is still a big issue, for me, with the "two knives" idea - and it extends, for the same reason, to the "two men" idea.

Hi Sam,

I dont believe its plausible either that one man used 2 knives. I was hoping I was clear about that much.

Ergo....if we do have 2 knives being used as the good doctor stated was his opinion, and its implausible to imagine that one man used 2 knives to kill Martha Tabram, then we most probably have 2 men with one knife each.

Then the single wound has context....it was to end life with a single stab....even if that life had been almost drained away from the 38 stabs with a smaller knife that preceded it.

It was a single final action, not a repeated action that culminated in a failed attempt to kill. My bet is if Martha lived through the 38 stabs, technically speaking....heart beating, lungs breathing, semi or unconscious, then we would have a tired pen knife stabber who didnt kill his victim. The dagger carrier wasn't so emotional or unfocused.

That for me ties in with the notion that the individual stabs were more revealing of the killers frustration and anger than any desire he may have had to kill at all.

Cheers again Gareth.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I don't, Fish, and it's because of the evidence - not in spite of it. It's tempting to include Killeen's opinion as part of the evidence - as I believe some folk are doing here - but opinion and evidence are not the same thing"

Now wait a sec here, Sam; To begin with I am having a whole lot of trouble seeing what evidence it is that you feel substantiates your claim that it would have been just the one man with one blade. Many a year of looking into the Tabram slaying has not offered me any such evidence at all!

Furthermore, you not only claim that there is evidence for just the one man with one knife having perpetrated the killing, but you also tell me that I cannot use Killeens "opinions" as evidence...??

Is it not true, Sam, that the report presented in court by the medico in charge after a killing - the first medico to see her body, the man who made the initial examination and established time of death, and the man who carried out the post-mortem - is more often than not the most important part of the - exactly: evidence? I totally fail to see why we should grade Killeens findings down to an "opinion".

Are we to do the same with the other medicos estimations of the weapon used? Phillips? Blackwell? Etcetera, etcetera? Were their assertions that just one weapon had been used nothing but "opinions"?
We have on record their estimations of the approximate length and width of the blade, and rest assured that such an estimation was at hand in the Killeen report that we no longer have - that one too would have displayed his finds and measurings - not opinions! - of the differing blades. And these measurements would have formed the firm base on which he relied when he expressed his certainty that two blades must have been used in George Yard.

If you want to dub that an "opinion" only, so be it. You may even call it a hunch or guesswork if you feel like it.
But claiming that this was all it was and that you instead have evidence pointing to Killeen being wrong - is that not a tad presumptious, Sam?

To make bad worse, Mike writes:

"Yet, experience, or lack thereof, creates much surmise. This was I'm fairly certain, the case here."

And, out of the blue, you are suddenly "fairly certain" that Killeen would have gotten things wrong, Mike. "Fairly certain"! Bordering on certainty, as it were.
Based on what?
Obviously, you and Sam have access to at least some caserelated detail that I have completely overlooked, something that apparently makes it almost certain that just the one blade was used.

But what exactly is that detail? It is certainly not common sense or logic, for logic dictates that skilled medicos more often than not know their way about these things, and - as has been pointed out - measuring depth and width is not rocket science.
So just what is it that urges us to dismiss Killeen, Hewitt, The Star and the Eastern Argus? Which little bit is it that tells us that we have reached near certainty (!) that these "opinions" and press-pointers were desperate and uneducated shots in the dark? Enlighten me, gentlemen, please!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

The only way I personally could see that is if he takes the pen knife from Martha,..and brought his own dagger with him.

Why only one stab with the dagger, though, and thirty-eight with a penknife? It just doesn't compute. This is still a big issue, for me, with the "two knives" idea - and it extends, for the same reason, to the "two men" idea.

Hi all,

The fact that Killeen named the 2 possible weapons that he believed were capable of causing the single wound should be enough for some to be fairly comfortable with the fact that there were indeed.....differences.

How we (collective) perceive the differences isnt really germane, since none of us saw any wounds. Our opinions aren't relevant in this matter either. What we can critique is what that evidence reveals....and as is the case in most of these issues, there are many different interpretations.

Mine is that the recorded differences in the wounds suggest 2 weapons of varied length and breadth, and that in and of itself reasonably rules out for me that one man was responsible. The only way I personally could see that is if he takes the pen knife from Martha,..and brought his own dagger with him.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

My way of looking upon it is that you seemingly WANT it all to be a one man, one knife deed in spite of the evidence.

I don't, Fish, and it's because of the evidence - not in spite of it. It's tempting to include Killeen's opinion as part of the evidence - as I believe some folk are doing here - but opinion and evidence are not the same thing.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

I agree with you. I've said as much about Killeen as well, and no disrespect to that man at all. Obviously he would know more about his business than I would. Yet, experience, or lack thereof, creates much surmise. This was I'm fairly certain, the case here. The realm of logic didn't appear to play a part in his findings. Again, if he was right, the two soldiers story would seem to be the best fit. If it was all surmise based upon situations he had never encountered, and I'm betting that was the case, logic dictated that one man with one knife did it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Common-sense and logic"... "they've served me well enough in the past"

...which is why I always listen to your wiews and points, whenever they are about. Rationality is something it seems you hold high in regard. And sure enough, when we ask ourselves what would be the most logical, rational and common-sense-rules scenario when we need to understand what and who caused the death of a prostitute under the general circumstances we have at hand in the Tabram case, our starting point should always be to look for the simplest and statistically most common answer: that of one man with one knife. Canīt fault you there, Sam.

But when we have a clear-cut testimony of a medico who even performed the autopsy, and when the only existing evidence in form of testimonies and press report all corroborate that medicos wiew that two blades were used, then it is not rational, logical or commonsensical at all not to recognize the impact of this. The appearance of a large wound in the chestbone was obviously there, and I think we both agree on that. After that, it is all a question whether this was only an appearance or if it was a true image of a larger blade. And whichever way we cut things here, if we can have a trained medico examining it, measuring it, looking at both the entrtance hole and the underlying tissues, then we cannot possibly ask for more! After that, all the logic in the world, all itīs common-sense and rationality really should urge us to accept that medicos verdict, realizing that it was a verdict that was passed by him in spite of going against statistics.
Killeen was just as aware as you and me that his decision was a controversial one. That, though, did not make him word it "There is a possibility that two blades may have been involved", did it? Instead he took it beyond any doubt by stating categorically that the wound in the sternum could not have been inflicted by the smaller blade.

After that, Sam, if you still think it logical and common-sensical to say that it would have been one man with one knife, then thatīs your prerogative, of course. But does that mean that you think I have chosen a less logical, and less commonsensical wiew, by listening to Killeen and by attaching great value to the fact that the surrounding evidence speaks for a two-blade scenario?

My way of looking upon it is that you seemingly WANT it all to be a one man, one knife deed in spite of the evidence. But to take that stance any further than a statistically bolstered hunch, in my wiew it will take at least some sort of evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

And if your suggestion is not bolstered by a shred of specifically case-related evidence and the reports we have on the matter, Sam - then what else do you lean against?

Common-sense and logic, Fish.

And why?

Because they've served me well enough in the past.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam I believe thats where you are dead wrong....you have no grounds or basis for assuming he was incapable of recognizing the differences in the wound types

I said no such thing, Mike. I said that it was highly unlikely that Killeen would have seen many knife-wounds that had penetrated the sternum, because such wounds are very rare. I stand by that. If you really want me to state an assumption, it's this: I reckon Killeen had never before seen a knife-wound that had penetrated the sternum. I'd be happy to put money on it.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"just because a wound looked like it might have been caused by a different weapon does not mean that it was."

That is absolutely correct, of course! But in the case at hand, I see no reason at all to question Killeens finds. We must keep in mind that Killeen not only established what that wound looked like; he also performed the autopsy. As he got his tools out and prepared to do that, one of his top priorities would have been to confirm the suspicion that two blades had been at work. And up to the moment when he set about it, I think you make a good point, Sam - he would - up to that very point - have been dealing with "appearances", forming an initial meaning about what he saw using only his eyes.

But once he set about things at the slab, he went from looking at appearances to establishing facts! And since the suggestion of a second blade would have been statistically controversial, Killeen reasonably must have made sure that what appeared to be a hole inflicted by a large weapon, in fact also was exactly that. And he would have had all the material he needed to do so right in front of him!

One thing to keep in mind here is that if there had been what appeared to be a hole inflicted by a larger weapon in the soft tissues only, then we would have been faced with a little bit more of a problem, since soft tissues and knives in combination make for messy scenarios that will not facilitate establishing the shape of the blade once there is wiggling of some sort involved. Not so with the sternum, though! When we are dealing with that kind of material, a clean, single stab will set of a print that enables you to report a very clear picture of the type of blade used. And that is what I think we have in the Tabram case, which is why Killeen spoke of a long, strong daggerlike instrument.

What you may be suggesting, Sam, and what others have suggested before, is that there was wiggling involved, a wiggling that changed the small entrance hole that would have been caused by the blade that inflicted the 37 stabs, into resembling a hole caused by a long, strong dagger. Myself, I think this is a suggestion that is easily dispelled by at least three factors:

1. The difference in scale; we know that Killeen judged the smaller blade to be pen-knife like and we also know that he suggested that it would have broken at the sternum if tried there. That means that he believed it to be a comparatively frail blade. We also know that he believed the hole through the sternum gave away a long, strong, daggerlike instrument. That means that we must add LOTS of size in both width and thickness before we reach the intended goal of the "wiggle-thinkers".

2. ...and why would wiggling of the smaller blade have been carried out to such an extent? If the blade was jammed in Tabram, then what would have been required would primarily have been wiggling that worked counterwise to the pressure from the sides of the wound. That pressure would not have slackened by wiggling so as to portray a wider blade.
Then again, maybe our stabber did not realize this, and so perhaps he could have produced a wound that seemed to speak of a wider blade. But no matter how he wiggled, the impression of a THICKER blade would not have come about! And IF he wiggled sideways, using the surface of the blade to push against the sides, and IF he had before that created the impression of a wider blade, he would still not apply that pressure along the whole width of the wound!

These two points are enough for me to completely dispell the notion of wiggling creating the impression of a long, strong dagger having been used at the sternum. But there is an even better point to make, if we need to show why a wiggling blade is not viable:

3. Killeen saw what lay underneath the sternum! And a wiggled blade would have been given away immediately by the mess it would have caused in the underlying tissues!

Letīs admit that Killeen would have made very sure that he was on the safe side before he offered his wiew. Letīs also admit that he was the one who had all opportunities to establish the exact shape and size of the sternum wound, millimeter by millimeter. Finally, letīs admit that of all the tissue types of the human body, no other type will be as revealing when it comes to establishing knife blade shape as bone structure.

Anybody who thinks they have plenty of room to manouvre when it comes to offering radically differing suggestions relating to the differences on record inbetween the sternum wound and the smaller stabs, are of course free to do so. But if we allow ourselves a minimum demand of at least some sort of case-related evidence speaking for dismissing Killeens adamant pointing out of two blades, then these theorists will find themselves at a complete loss. For there is nothing nowhere in the case evidence recorded that speaks for just the one blade. Nothing, Sam!
Therefore, we can firmly establish that your reason for suggesting just the one blade and just the one killer has no covering at all in the specifically case-related details. Instead, ALL the material that offers any sort of comment on the internal relationship inbetween the sternum wound and the stabs, actually speaks loudly and clearly of two blades - the Star, the Eastern Argus, Francis Hewitt and last, but in no way least, the man that knew EXACTLY how those wounds looked, and who reasonably would have made every effort to establish how the sternum wound would have come about and what kind of weapon could possibly have inflicted it; Killeen!
And much as he did not say - and, of course COULD not say - what exact type of instrument it was that pierced Tabrams sternum, he DID actually say what blade could NOT have done so - the stabbers smallish, frail, pen-knife-like weapon.

And if your suggestion is not bolstered by a shred of specifically case-related evidence and the reports we have on the matter, Sam - then what else do you lean against? And why?

The best,
Fisherman

Sam I believe thats where you are dead wrong....you have no grounds or basis for assuming he was incapable of recognizing the differences in the wound types, and he does as his declaration of the facts as he knew them, do so. He singles a wound out. He doesnt say that looked bigger, or that was some kind of weapon or tool,......he says that it was like a dagger or bayonet wound.

Considering we have servicemen handy in the area and training regimens that usually often require firearms and bayonets....he may have been far more experienced at that type of wound than we can imagine, just by treating some accidents. People carried bayonets on Bank Holidays....it was allowed. I dont think they were foreign to him or anyone else.

This guy deserves his creds unless provably unreliable...and Ive seen no literature that says thats the case here.

My best to you Gareth