Ripper Victim?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not convinced that two knives were used on Tabram. We have a doctor so inexperienced in these matters that even he doesn't have much confidence in himself, and then the ONE wound that stands out as larger happens to be over the heart. It might just have appeared larger because the killer had to wiggle it left to right to work it out after it became lodged in the breast plate. Just like stabbing a knife into a table or log. And I agree with Fishsticks that there's nothing in the whole bayonet idea.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Shelley]

I think i am inclined to be convinced for what Tom Wescot has said, as the heart is a tough organ, and other organs around it are quite soft.

[Sam Flynn]

Jon,
I did notice the facial wounding on Eddowe's...

Please, Shelley - and everyone else! - this is a Tabram discussion. Any speculation about Eddowes should really be on an Eddowes thread

[Jeff Leahy]

Ben writes:

"The observation about the weapon type was in fact "a dagger or bayonet".

This is important to realize - there is good reason to believe that Killeen would never have touched on the bayonet suggestion, had it not been for the theory of a soldier killer. The press, and indeed the coroner, would in all probability have been very keen to know if that large wound could have been made by a bayonet, and realizing just how fresh Killeen was as a medico, it can be argued that he had never seen bayonet wounds to bone structure before, and so, when asked, he just offered the guess that a bayonet could have been the weapon.
If we turn to the inquest files as recorded in the Times, though, it only says that "his (Killeens - my remark) opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them were caused during life." My contention is the there was nothing in the appearance of that wound that gave away anything but a broad, sturdy blade - as that of a big dagger.

The best,
Fisherman

Despite the fact that our Scandinavian friends often drive me insane. There really are times when I could kiss you and ask to have your babies. This post simply sums everything up really...thank you Fisherman. XX

[Ben]

Yes, excellent point there, Fishcakes!

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd say Fishfry hit the nail on the head.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And I actually agree with Fishy Boy on this.
However, that Killeen might have been 'inspired' by the talk about the soldier suspects is nothing new - it has been suggested several times - and I have no doubt that this was the case.

In addition, since Killeen wasn't a police surgeon and probably with little experience of analysing wounds connected with crime from a forensic point of view it is only natural to treat his talk about a 'bayonet' with caution. Most likely Killeen made a qualified guess about the murder weapon and his choice could very well have been influenced by the news of the soldiers.

However, it doesn't change the fact that PC Barrett did encounter a soldier waiting at the corner of Wentworth Street-George Yard just outside the house in question and at the right time for the murder to occur, himself claiming his collegue had gone off with a girl.

We should also remember that although Killen may have been theorising without real medical basis when he mentioned 'bayonet' he appears to have been very confident and clear on the matter of two different weapons being used, not to mention saying this under oath at the inquest.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

F..ing….hell we actually all agree on something. I hope, if I should ask if you were willing to say that exact point to camera, you would agree to do so Glenn ??

Jeff xx

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I definitely would, Jeff.
But as I said, the 'bayonet' thing is of little importance for the soldier concept as far as I am concerned. The - in my view - likely possibility that the suspect(s) may have been one or two soldiers is not based on Killeen's suggestion.

All the best

[Tom_Wescott]

Just to reiterate the point Fishscales was trying to make...which Glenn managed to muddle...Dr. Killeen never suggested a bayonet. He suggested only a dagger. A juryman then asked if it could be a bayonet, and since there's no reason it COULDN'T have been, Dr. Killeen said it could have been. The juryman's inquiry was a valid one because he'd just been presented with the possibility that a soldier had killed Tabram. But in the scheme of things, there's absolutely no reason to suppose a bayonet was the murder weapon, and there's even reason to doubt that a dagger was used. The wounds may ALL have been inflicted with a penknife/pocket knife.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I think the interesting fact is that opinion can, and is, divided on the subject.

And I don't think this is an agrument about right and wrong , but more of professional opinion, looking at the known facts and reaching differing opinions.

As always I value your reasoning and opinion and will contact you soon

Trusting you are well Glenn

Yours Jeff

PS Tom: or a small clasp knife, yes

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I stand corrected. Tom is quite right on this.
I did muddle Fishy's point a bit.
Although I can't find it in the sources at the moment, it is quite possible it was one of the jurors or someone else at the inquest may have been 'influenced' about the latest developments and asked about a 'bayonet'. Agreed.

Killeen certainly only mentions 'knife' for the 38 wounds and 'some kind of dagger' for the 39th.
fact remains, however, that he is quite clear on the matter that he believes two weapons were being used:
"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generelaly could have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-wound."

So Killeen appears very confident in his opinion that two weapons were used, only that he can't establish with certainty of which type they were.

But as I said, these medical opinions don't really affect the possibility of one or two soldier(s) being the perpetrators - that's based on other facts or indicators.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

I stand corrected. Tom is quite right on this.
I did muddle Fishy's point a bit.
Although I can't find it in the sources at the moment, it is quite possible it was one of the jurors or someone else at the inquest may have been 'influenced' about the latest developments and asked about a 'bayonet'. Agreed.

Killeen certainly only mentions 'knife' for the 38 wounds and 'some kind of dagger' for the 39th.
fact remains, however, that he is quite clear on the matter that he believes two weapons were being used:
"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generelaly could have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-wound."

So Killeen appears very confident in his opinion that two weapons were used, only that he can't establish with certainty of which type they were.

But as I said, these medical opinions don't really affect the possibility of one or two soldier(s) being the perpetrators - that's based on other facts or indicators.

All the best

No, but it also dosnt rule out the posibility of one knife being used in two different ways.

Pirate

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

That's true, Jeff.
My only crux with that is, that Killeen, who actually saw the wounds, doesn't reach that conclusion - he states with quite a bit of certainty that two weapons were used. If he thought the same weapon could have inflicted them all but in different ways, he would have said that, but he is quite clear on the opposite.
Establishing the type(s) of weapon(s) is of course another matter, since that probably required the specialised forensic experience that Killeen didn't have. But he is very clear on that the same weapon couldn't have inflicted all the wounds.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Interestingly, the Star of the 8th August - the day after the murder - had this to say:

"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."

If I recall correctly, this was before the details of Tabram's picking up a soldier was known - indeed, she hadn't even been identified at the time the Star wrote this. Granted, there's no mention of a bayonet, but the "sword" bit is intriguing. Where did the Star get this information from, I wonder? Was it a "leak", perhaps from Killeen himself, or was it a bit of hyperbole that tainted the rest of the enquiry?

On another tack, the East London Observer of the 11th August has the good doctor saying:

"The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger."

The "ELO" transcript is rich in detail, and written as direct speech, so it strikes me that, had Killeen actually volunteered the information about the "sword bayonet" himself, they might well have included it right there. They didn't though.