Ripper Victim?

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Yes interesting, yet either way no suggestion of more than one weapon only the type of weapon

Pirate

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Yes interesting, yet either way no suggestion of more than one weapon only the type of weapon

Pirate

How do you mean, Jeff?

Certainly two weapons are suggested in the East London Observer:

"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."

But I agree The Star's early account is interesting, and although I generally treat their articles with a pinch of salt, it would have been interesting to know their source.
All the best

[perrymason]

Hi all,

As per usual Ill swim against the "doctor couldnt tell" consensus that Fisherman fired up. Not that I disagree with him as "usual" though.

Certified medical men are far better to make a comment about a wound they actually observed and inspected, rather than any here not certified as such who saw nothing first hand.

A bigger wound is the point....call it a shovel if you want rather than a bayonet....or more appropriately a spade....because a "spade is indeed a spade"...and there were wound types differentiated.

Its one thing to suggest and support things that are not in the records, it another to ignore the attending physicians recorded opinion.

But by all means just have some harmony if you want....it is a refreshing change.

Each murder added to the Ripper list.. that is absent the core elements of what we believe were "Ripper murders", pollutes the potential profile just a little bit more. You want a killer who has multiple iterations rather than accepting a likely smaller Canonical Group...with all victims matching those same characteristics...its a choice. Just realize that...its a choice...it is not there in front of you in any evidence that exists about Martha Tabrams death...in fact based on what is known and present, Pearly Poll could have "offed" her for all we know. The point being....prove it had to be a man. You cant. But you can come close to that with some Ripper attributed victims....because he overpowered them and laid them down without evident struggle before he even uses a knife.

Cheers all.


edited to add....frankly a doctor who just takes notes on wounds rather than doing so and making conclusions about the killer... is refreshing too.

[harry]

I agree with those above who propose one weapon only,with the sternum wound,as Tom Westcott explains,requirng a bit of twisting and turning to extract,thereby giving a different appearance.Besides the obvious lack of evidence involving a soldier,his training would ensure any contact with the sternum as undisireable,and something to be avoided.On the other hand,an unemployed labourer,for example,might well be ignorant in such matters.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:

"Exactly, Fisherman. I was re-reading Sugden on this point and he states the same. Not so sure about broad though ?

In fact, that wound could have been made by the knife that was used on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly."

You´re right, Jon - there can be no certainty in the blade being broad. It´s just that I have always felt that the difference between the "pen-knife" wounds and the wound to the sternum was a very marked one, in order to allow for Killeens certainty. But care should be taken when trying to assess just HOW broad it was, of course.
Keeping that in mind, I find it hard to say whether the sturdier weapon used on Tabram really could have been the same that killed the other canonicals. In fact, I think a fair case could be made for it all being the other way around; that the "pen-knife" could have been what was used in for example Chapmans case. We know that the "pen-knife" would have had a smallish blade, but we also know that this blade had a length that allowed it to penetrate deep into the body of the voluminous Tabram. So, it would reasonably have been a long, sharp, pointed, thin blade.
And how does Phillips, at the inquest, describe the blade that cut Chapman up? ”It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer. ”

Jeff writes:

”Despite the fact that our Scandinavian friends often drive me insane....”

I´m fond of you too, Jeff! But I´ve already had all the children I can manage!

Glenn adds:

”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.”

Yes, Glenn – he was obviously very certain, and we must remember that he chose the hard option as opposed to the much less controversial ”I guess it could have been the same blade with some wigglin´added”.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Shelley]

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

Point taken Sam,
My lenghthy info about Eddowe's was to describe a different blade used on her
( could even be a homemade fashoned knife rather than Hunter's knife), also on Nicholls to that of the weapon used on Martha Tabram, as described as a weapon that was a Dagger or Bayonet. The fact is looking at weapons in Dagger and bayonet and the extent of the inches depth there is no difference to a dagger or bayonet, so it's possible to assume it being one weapon used such as a dagger, on the other hand also a bayonet that has been taken of it's handle, speculation that Police have leaked information to doctor Killeen as the possible killer of Tabram was a soldier and maybe that the soldier police suspected could have been carrying a weapon such as a bayonet and possibly came from Pearly Poll, is in my estimation ' Clutching at straws ', as the police may not have told the Doctor, Killeen that they suspected a soldier as the killer, the Police may just simply have asked the Doctor ' In your opinion could a bayonet have been used Doctor ' , in which case with both blades of dagger & bayonet are similar, the Doctor also stated ' Dagger ' first, in which i would have thought that had the police told the doctor we think it's likely a soldier, the doctor would have said bayonet first if he went by police and what they had said, it is possible to attribute 1 weapon to have been used on Tabram, not two weapons and therefore 1 killer, not two men with one administering some punctured wounds then one finally stabbing at her heart and death ensues as a result, and the heart is the largest of the woundings produced in other areas of Tabram's body, as a result the two weapon theory, however the heart is a more robust and difficult organ to puncture, so it is common sense to apply the reasoning that the weapon was used in a moving motion of left & right swings to retrieve the weapon and take it out of the body, thus producing a widening and bigger wound to that of the other organs.
A different weapon enirely was used on Nicholls & Eddowes to that of Tabram, as in my earlier post both weapons of dagger & bayonet are used for ' Stabbing ' where as a knife is used for cutting, and so a jagged blade side of a knife is used for cutting bone. Stabbing and cutting is different, on Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes cutting is evident.

Added bit: Also a killer that practises a possibility of a ' Chokehold ' on his victims to render unconciousness as with Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes, is different to Tabram's stabbing to death even if there are neck stabbings included, also some bayonet's are like spikes, with a round cylinder and a spike at the top. In my estimation The police asked Dr Killeen could it have been a weapons such as a bayonet, and the Doctor knowing some weapons to cause such injuries said yes a dagger or a bayonet as to establish which type of bayonet was used so that the police could follow or discard which bayonet.

[Shelley]

Also,
a ' Chokehold ' in making victims unconcious as with Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes then bruising appearing on the jaw, cheek and holding the neck to place victim down is different with a blow to the head and stabbing the neck as with Martha Tabram.

[Chava]

Shelley, please forgive me, are you posting on your phone and texting in? If so,could you slow down a bit when you're posting so that you get the spellings and grammar right? The problem is that a lot of what you say is interesting and relevant, but I get lost in the words and can't make out what points you are making. I hope you don't mind me saying this. I'm not trying to sound like a schoolteacher, but if I can't follow your arguments I can't give them due consideration!

[Shelley]

Chava,

Sorry, i have a bit of a sticky keyboard......Also a bit tired due to lack of sleep over the last few days. So no phone in and texts etc. Still, i do give valid arguments with some of my posts.....Also i believe that one weapon was used on Tabram, thus 1 killer.

Once again, Sorry.
Regards
Shelley

[Chava]

Thanks so much, Shelley!

And I agree. One weapon was used. I just don't think it was a bayonet! I don't see how someone goes out with two knives on his person. That's a bit overkill-ish for me!

[Jon Guy]

Keeping that in mind, I find it hard to say whether the sturdier weapon used on Tabram really could have been the same that killed the other canonicals. In fact, I think a fair case could be made for it all being the other way around; that the "pen-knife" could have been what was used in for example Chapmans case. We know that the "pen-knife" would have had a smallish blade, but we also know that this blade had a length that allowed it to penetrate deep into the body of the voluminous Tabram. So, it would reasonably have been a long, sharp, pointed, thin blade.
And how does Phillips, at the inquest, describe the blade that cut Chapman up? ”It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer. ”

Hi Fisherman

I`ll have to disagree here. If the knife described by Phillips, Llewelyn, Brown and Bond was or might have been a pen knife they would have said as much.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

You write:

"I´ll have to disagree here. If the knife described by Phillips, Llewelyn, Brown and Bond was or might have been a pen knife they would have said as much."

Jon, you cannot disagree with something I´ve never said, can you? Sure enough, such a suggestion was never thrown forward by any of the doc´s you mention - but I think we can safely rule out that a pen knife was used in ANY of these murders - Tabram included.

Killeen spoke of such a weapon, but he was referring to the 37 smaller stab-wounds in Tabrams body, and since we know that her stomach, her lungs, her spleen etcetera were pierced, we can safely deduct that Killen was NOT referring to the LENGTH of the blade when he spoke of a pen-knife resemblance. Such knives have short blades, and the blade that did the damage mentioned to Tabram must have been many an inch long.

And heres the ten-thousand dollar question; if Killeen did not come up with his pen-knife suggestion using the length of the blade, then what was it that produced the idea...? Exactly - the WIDTH of the blade! The entrance wounds would have given away a blade that was penknifishly thin and narrow! And we KNOW that it was longish ad pointed too - meaning that we end up with the exact same description that Phillips used trying to describe the blade that mutilated Annie Chapman: "a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer"!
And the Chapman murder and Phillips description is all I´m referring to here.

Now, let´s see you disagree with THAT, Jon!

All the best, my friend!
Fisherman

[Shelley]

Thanks so much, Shelley!

And I agree. One weapon was used. I just don't think it was a bayonet! I don't see how someone goes out with two knives on his person. That's a bit overkill-ish for me!

Hi Chava,
Yes, i think one weapon too.....However, we don't really know if it was a bayonet that has a blade much like a dagger blade. Personally i think a policeman said ' Could a bayonet have been used?' and Dr Killeen with this has said a dagger or bayonet, but my asumption is that Police asked Dr Killeen his opinion as to the type of weapon could have been used, Killeen said dagger first, the the police asked about possibility of a bayonet and Killeen has said yes, so in the inquest Dr Killeen said his theory first ' Dagger ' but also with the question asked from Police he has supported this ' Bayonet ' and added it after his first assumption, depending on the type of bayonet used, as thier are more than 1 type of bayonet, so it was, if a bayonet one with a blade like a dagger blade. So Chava you can't rule out ' bayonet '. So Dr Killen has stated Dagger or bayonet, to emphisise if a bayonet one that that has a blade like a dagger.

So Fisherman's idea that Dr Killeen was a young into the game Doctor and didn't know what he was talking about, is a bit lame.

[Chava]

Shelley, I never rule out anything! But I don't believe a couple of soldiers out on the ran-tan would take anything as cumbersome as their bayonets with them! Knives, yes. For protection and for cutting up their fish and chips. But bayonets? That's a very specific type of weapon. I agree, given the evidence that Tabram had been with soldiers, the police might have asked Killeen if the weapon could be a bayonet and he said 'yes'. But for me, a bayonet is a stretch...

[Fisherman]

"Fisherman's idea that Dr Killeen was a young into the game Dr and didn't know what he was talking about, is a bit lame"

Ehrm, Shelley... Fisherman is NOT ruling out a bayonet. What he DOES rule out though, is that the wound gave away a bayonet SPECIFICALLY in any way - if it WAS such a blade, then it was one that produced a hole that did not in any way differ from what a dagger would produce. And that would have been the exact sentiments of Killeen too.

Fisherman
unlame