Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

It is by no means clear that Reid himself concluded that Tabram’s murderer – less still “the ripper” – was a military man. The East London Observer reported simply that Reid had noted the nature of breastbone wound. He may well have pondered the possibility of a military murderer (it was very early days after all), but the wording is ambiguous and there is no direct quote attributed to him. I’m not sure quite how the evidence of a strong, dagger-like instrument “proves” that a military hand was responsible, incidentally.

“I think that the pictures Jon posted on this thread shows very clearly that bayonet wounds - and they are not all the same”

They were located as a result of using Google Imaging, and don’t really give us a good idea of the type of weapon most commonly found in 1888. Fortunately, Bob Hinton was able to shed some light on the matter. He observed that the standard issue bayonets – the ones used by actual military men - were of the sword variety, and very unwieldy when removed from the rifle. It was obviously these that created a wound that was “unmistakable”, and I think we can credit the Home Office document annotator with more knowledge of the type of weapons in mainstream circulation at that time. Significantly, the dodgy Daily News even specified that the weapon suggested by Kileen was a sword bayonet.

The only other type of bayonet was the “pig-sticker” variety, not used by military men at the time, not the type mentioned by Kileen, and not the type mentioned in the Home Office document.

There is no reason whatsoever for dismissing the annotation of the Home Office document. If it differs in any respect from the conclusions formed at the inquest, it is because it was written later, in an official capacity, after certain opinions had been revised. Significantly, both Abberline and Anderson accepted Tabram as a ripper victim, and neither of them believed the ripper to have been a military man.

Welcome back!

Ben

[Wickerman]

Incidently, very nice to have you back Fisherman.

Just reviewing this recent issue. It appears to have sprouted from Dave making a comparison between the Sternum bone & a skull.
The skull is very thin if compared with the Sternum which is extremely thick and strong.

Quote:
"The sternum is very strong and requires great force to fracture. The main danger in this type of injury is not the fracture itself, but the chance that the broken bone may be driven into the heart, which lies just behind it."

http://www.innerbody.com/image/skelfov.html

This is probably what caused Killeen to suggest an "ordinary" knife (pen-knife?) would likely break if lunged directly at the Sternum. Whereas, in agreement with Dave, a pen-knife could certainly penetrate a thin skull.

There's no need to interpret Killeen's comment as meaning a small thin blade will break every time. There are always exceptions to every rule. Killeen's conclusions are based on the rule, not the exception.

Besides, another observation supported his conclusion, namely that this chest wound was deeper than all the rest. It is Killeen's responsibility to describe the wounds for the authorities, it is their responsibility to find or suggest the appropriate weapon to fit the wound.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Of course I can, my dear.
Easy."

Ah, good! Let´s see it, then!

"since no other forensic was called in for a second opinion, nobody has "forensically" contested Killeen."

Of course not. Nor have you. What you have done is to throw forward an unsubstantiated guess that Killeen was wrong. And if I am reading you correct, you do so because you have for some reason concluded that he was unfit to judge the shapes and sizes of wounds.
Moreover, it would seem that the best example you can produce here is the perceiced miscalulation he made regarding Tabram´s wounds, which makes your reasoning more circular than the olympic logo.

I could of course argue that it would be far better if you produced something that effectively showed that Killeen was unskilled and unfit to compare wounds, but that would not be a very nice thing to do, since both you and me know full well that there is not a shred of such evidence around. Nothing, nada, rien. So best leave it at that, shall we?

"However, and that is quite telling, bayonet = soldier suspect, and almost ALL investigators involved in the Ripper case soon considered Martha her early victim
You are therefore puting more faith in Killeen's word than they did."

Oh, yes, David! Killeen did the measuring of the wounds, thus making him the one person on planet earth best suited to decide what had caused them. All the rest of the people involved are secondary in that respect, as you will surely admit and appreciate!
Furthermore, why on earth would Killeens ruling about two weapons in any way argue against Tabram being an early Ripper victim? You tell me, David! I trust you will remember that Killeen did NOT suggest a bayonet for the chest plate - he only accepted that such a weapon belonged to the array of possible weapons that COULD have caused the wound. Plus, as you will surely realize, there was no law ruling against Rippers using bayonets. So, Davis, any which way you look at it, your argument is more useless than weak.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is by no means clear that Reid himself concluded that Tabram’s murderer – less still “the ripper” – was a military man. The East London Observer reported simply that Reid had noted the nature of breastbone wound. He may well have pondered the possibility of a military murderer (it was very early days after all), but the wording is ambiguous and there is no direct quote attributed to him. I’m not sure quite how the evidence of a strong, dagger-like instrument “proves” that a military hand was responsible, incidentally."

There is no direct quote, I´ll give you that much. But let´s take a look at what we´ve got, by all means:

“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."

So. Inspector Reid has noted something. And what has ne noted? He has noted that the wound on the breast bone of the woman (Tabram) seems to prove that the murderer was a military man.

Now, just like you say, and I quote: "I’m not sure quite how the evidence of a strong, dagger-like instrument “proves” that a military hand was responsible".
Spot on - it does not!

Therefore, if Reid thought it proven, then he must have had another reason for saying so. The wound as such must have led him to the conclusion that it hade come about by means of a bayonet. I would suggest that this is the most reasonable explanation to his stance.
Moreover, if he later on did NOT feel as sure about as he had done on the 18:th, then I think that the most viable explanation would be that he had changed his mind on this point, perhaps after having realized that what he originally saw as the mark of a bayonet, could actually have been the mark of another weapon. A dagger, perhaps, giving an imprint that much resembled that of the bayonet Reid seemingly had in mind on the 18:th of August.

"They were located as a result of using Google Imaging, and don’t really give us a good idea of the type of weapon most commonly found in 1888. "

I will take your word for that, Ben. But why would we only accept the most commonly used type? Any bayonet that was around back in 1888 must surely be allowed as the potential weapon? Let´s not make the same mistake as the Home Office did, and lock us onto just the one model!

"The only other type of bayonet was the “pig-sticker” variety"

The only one? There were only two types of bayonets in existance throughout the world back in 1888? Surely not, Ben. It may well be that these two represented the most common types around, but who told Tabrams killer that he could not use any other type, should he have the opportunity to? Nobody, I should think.

I do not claim to be knowledgeable in these matters, and I can therefore not tell which types were common and which were not. But I do know that London was the capital of the world in 1888, harbouring people hailing from all countries and corners of the planet, and receiving visits from ships from all the seven seas of the world. My humle guess is that London would be the most likely place on earth to house more different types of bayonets than any other venue back in 1888.

It´s all good and well to speak of statistics, as long as we keep in mind that they are nothing but that. And that applies very much here. Whether Killeen knew much or little about bayonets would be extremely hard to prove, but I think that if he belonged to the general public in this respect, he would think of a bayonet as a long, strong instrument. But that is of course just a guess on my behalf!

"There is no reason whatsoever for dismissing the annotation of the Home Office document. If it differs in any respect from the conclusions formed at the inquest, it is because it was written later, in an official capacity, after certain opinions had been revised."

Well, Ben, you see the trouble with that assertion is that if we are to accept the Home Office annotation as truth, then it follows that we must write Killeen off as being wrong. We can´t have it both ways. Therefore, we have to make a choice between first-hand information, given by a medical man who saw the wounds, measured them and gave his view at the inquest, and second-hand ditto, taken down by Home Office officials who never saw Tabram, let alone did her post-mortem, and who produced a document that differs totally from what we have recorded at the inquest.
So it´s Killeen or the Home Office. It´s first or second hand. It´s the doctor in charge or a dusty Home Office official. It´s having seen or not having seen. And much as I firmly believe that the Home Office did as well as they could, I have no problems making my choice!

"both Abberline and Anderson accepted Tabram as a ripper victim, and neither of them believed the ripper to have been a military man."

I also accept her as a very probable Ripper victim. And I don´t think she was killed by a military man. But that does in no way preclude that I follow the evidence as presented by Killeen. I think the large weapon was a heavy dagger, but I do not - cannot, actually - rule out that it was a bayonet, given the many shapes and forms of that particular weapon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Incidently, very nice to have you back Fisherman."

Thank you, Jon - good to hear!

"There's no need to interpret Killeen's comment as meaning a small thin blade will break every time. There are always exceptions to every rule. Killeen's conclusions are based on the rule, not the exception."

This is correct. The angling of the blade, the applied force, the quality of the material in the blade, the connction to the handle, the individual variance inbetween breast-bones, the exact spot where the blade strikes the sternum, the position of the victim ... all of these things will have an impact on the strain applied to the blade, and thus to its propensity to break. To repeat myself, this is not rocket science. It is important, however, to ponder the fact that the suggestion on Killeens behalf that the blade would break, points to a knowledge on his behalof that the blade as such was narrow and thin. And just like I wrote before, the narrower and thinner it was, the better it would tally with Killeens suggestion.

"Besides, another observation supported his conclusion, namely that this chest wound was deeper than all the rest."

We really have the easier task here, Jon, have we not? Trying to find reports that stated that the chest wound was similar to the 37 other stabs is not something I would willingly embark on ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Dr Killeen

Was 23. Whether he was right or not in his estimation, who can now say - but he cannot be taken as an experienced doctor however you look at it - he was simply too young.

[Wickerman]

How old do you need to be to measure a wound...

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Moreover, if he later on did NOT feel as sure about as he had done on the 18:th, then I think that the most viable explanation would be that he had changed his mind on this point

Quite possibly, yes, and this may account for the implication in the Home Office document that the bayonet idea had been revised. If, as you suggest, Reid or another senior investigator had reconsidered a previously held opinion that a bayonet was one of the weapons responsible, it wouldn't be surprising to find a mention of this in an official HO document such as the one we're discussing. As such, the precise wording - that a bayonet was "first" suspected - would tend to support your proposal that Reid came to a different conclusion upon considered reflection.

There were only two types of bayonets in existance throughout the world back in 1888?

Broadly speaking, yes, I believe so. While there will always be minor variations in style, length, manufacturer etc, all bayonets fall into the sword or spike variety, and the latter were not in use by the military in 1888. The sword type was specified in the Daily News, but as far as I'm aware, no other source attributed to Kileen the suggestion of a bayonet's involvement in the Tabram murder, and the Daily News were one of the worst newspapers for misreporting throughout the case. Thus, if the bayonet suggestion did not originate with Kileen, as I tend to suspect, there need not be an "either/or" choice between the good doctor and the HO document.

I also accept her as a very probable Ripper victim. And I don´t think she was killed by a military man.

Agreed on both counts!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

How old do you need to be to measure a wound...

I think what Sally means, Jon, is that it would be folly to champion Kileen's opinion on the grounds of his alleged "experience". If he was only a recent entrant to the medical profession, it is even more difficult to rely on his judgement regarding knife-snappability etc. Yes, he might be able to measure a wound, but then puncturing human skin isn't exactly a dainty affair, and precise measurements aren't always easy to garner, especially if the knife moved about somewhat within each wound upon each blow. There was nothing to prevent a clasp-knife from injuring the breastbone, for example, and yet it wasn't so far removed from an "ordinary" knife that was apparently responsible for the other wounds.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Dunno..

How old do you need to be to measure a wound...

Can't say I've ever had occasion to try. But no, that wasn't the point.

[Wickerman]

I think what Sally means, Jon, is that it would be folly to champion Kileen's opinion on the grounds of his alleged "experience".

Being a Licenciate of the Royal College of Surgeons means he was sufficiently qualified, regardless of his age.

Knife wounds are disected to facilitate measuring the blade width and length, and muscle tissue keeps its form which leads to a somewhat precise estimate of the implement used to penetrate the body.

Given that he knew the breastbone wound was larger and deeper than the other wounds, then he knew a short-bladed weapon like a folding clasp-knife could not cause such a wound.

Yet, when one offers an argument which questions the ability of a "professional" surgeon to conduct such a simple task as measuring the width & depth of a wound within a disected muscle, then the "inexperience" so obviously rests with the one raising the question.

Killeen's age has nothing to do with it.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Given that he knew the breastbone wound was larger and deeper than the other wounds, then he knew a short-bladed weapon like a folding clasp-knife could not cause such a wound

But a clasp knife definitely, definitely could cause such a wound, unless Tabram's breastbone was made of granite. And no, measuring a wound is not nearly so simple as you appear to envisage, and it certainly doesn't result in a "somewhat precise estimate". If a knife moves around within a wound, it becomes impossible to gauge any precise measurements as to width. Length you can forget. Unless the doctor was in a position to prove that the entire blade entered the body, i.e. all the way up to the handle, he was in no position to ascertain its length. A knife can obviously be thrust with as little or as great a force as the wielder desires, and if s/he's stabbing more superficially, there is simply no way to determine blade-length.

Killeen's relative youth has a great deal "to do with it", since he hadn't the real life experience that many of his medical contemporaries possessed. I doubt very much that weaponology and post-mortem mutilations were explored in any real depth at the Royal College of Surgeons.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

A bayonet is a weapon used in conjunction with a rifle.It is an extension of such.Used simply as a hand weapon,there would be no means of telling what type of person used it.As there were no persons,military or otherwise,observed carrying a rifle in the vicinity of Tabram's murder,then it lessens the chance of a bayonet,being used in the niormal military manner.So how could the wound to Tabram be compared to a bayonet wound,How many known hand held bayonet wounds had each medical officer experienced to compare the wound to that inflicted on Tabram?Another factor.military persons would not directly,with intention,attack the Sternum with any kind of dagger.While a Bayonet or dagger might enter with reasonable force,it needs greater force to withdraw.Military training was an upwards thrust just below the ribcage.

[Wickerman]

But a clasp knife definitely, definitely could cause such a wound, unless Tabram's breastbone was made of granite. And no, measuring a wound is not nearly so simple as you appear to envisage, and it certainly doesn't result in a "somewhat precise estimate". If a knife moves around within a wound, it becomes impossible to gauge any precise measurements as to width. Length you can forget. Unless the doctor was in a position to prove that the entire blade entered the body, i.e. all the way up to the handle, he was in no position to ascertain its length. A knife can obviously be thrust with as little or as great a force as the wielder desires, and if s/he's stabbing more superficially, there is simply no way to determine blade-length.

Killeen's relative youth has a great deal "to do with it", since he hadn't the real life experience that many of his medical contemporaries possessed. I doubt very much that weaponology and post-mortem mutilations were explored in any real depth at the Royal College of Surgeons.

Regards,
Ben

You're getting out of your depth Ben, the more you write, the more apparent it is that the less you know.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

A bayonet is a weapon used in conjunction with a rifle.It is an extension of such.Used simply as a hand weapon,there would be no means of telling what type of person used it.As there were no persons,military or otherwise,observed carrying a rifle in the vicinity of Tabram's murder,then it lessens the chance of a bayonet,being used in the niormal military manner.So how could the wound to Tabram be compared to a bayonet wound,How many known hand held bayonet wounds had each medical officer experienced to compare the wound to that inflicted on Tabram?Another factor.military persons would not directly,with intention,attack the Sternum with any kind of dagger.While a Bayonet or dagger might enter with reasonable force,it needs greater force to withdraw.Military training was an upwards thrust just below the ribcage.

All very true Harry, but there is no way of telling, today, where the suggestion of "bayonet" came from. Killeen suggested a dagger due to the size (width & length?) of the wound.
It is not the responsibility of the surgeon to identify the weapon used, that is the responsibility of the police. It is quite sufficient for the surgeon to describe the wounds as "consistent with, both a pen-knife, & dagger".

Had Killeen been asked by the police if "a dagger might include a bayonet?", then for him to agree is all that was required for the press to run with the story.
Killeen did not specifically suggest a bayonet was used. However, there were two "dagger-type" bayonets issued to the military and available in 1888.

Regards, Jon S.