Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Exactly, David.

We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too. But he didn’t, despite the signs of suffocation having been present. An easy an understandable mistake for a young and inexperienced doctor to make, I would have thought, and nothing – I think you’ll agree - to do with “malpractice”. As you also note, Phillips didn’t shy away from discussing evidence of suffocation, even if it wasn’t the direct cause of death. It was related to the death, as the head injury was in Tabram’s case, and was thus worth mentioning to for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

I certainly agree, Ben. Clearly the doctors had to speak of anything related to the murder, and indeed, Phillips described the killer's MO : suffocation-puts the victim to the ground-slashes the throat.

[Ben]

That’s just more repetitive filibustering, Fisherman.

I can’t believe you’re still not appreciating the extent to which you’re applying double-standards. It works like this:

You have a document that contains errors of fact – the Dew Spew.

I have a document that contains errors of fact – the Home Office document.

You suggest that we should uphold the former as reliable in spite of its errors of fact, but discard the latter in its entirety because of its errors of fact. That’s a ludicrously inconsistent, double-standards approach, and your endless, pointless repetition makes it so much worse. It’s no use saying you “don’t use” anything presented as fact in the Dew Spew. You’re still “using” a document that you know full well is “riddled with mistakes” in spite of your own advice to discard such a document and not “use” any of it. At least pretend to be consistent. If you can use a document that is riddled with mistakes, so can I.

“For IF you were to dismiss the errors, then you need to dump the bayonet thing. For the exact sentence that you use, IS erroneous, is it not?!”

Whoops, there’s that dreadful repetition of previously challenged points, so that’ll be a copy and paste, I’m afraid. Here we go: Yes, we know full well that the Home Office confused the number of wounds initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they confused the type of weapon suspected of causing them, or it. You’re still perpetuating the fallacy that if a document contains errors, the rest of its content must be erroneous too. You know this mantra is ludicrous, which is presumably why you don’t apply it to other documents which contain errors, such as the Macnaghten memoranda, the 1903 Abberline interview and the Dew Spew, and yet for some reason you make an exception for the Home Office document - a document that respected authors accept a an strong indication that the bayonet idea was discredited.

There is nothing to contradict the Home Office statement that the bayonet had been dismissed owing to the “unmistakability” of the wounds they create. Nobody invented this detail out of nowhere, and you may rest assured that no minor Home Office functionary made that determination. They were passing on the accepted wisdom of the police, who considered Tabram a ripper victim but didn’t consider the ripper a soldier (there's another clue!). I don’t need extraneous corroboration. The detail appeared in an official Home Office document, with nothing to contradict it (and no reason to suspect outright invention). That’s good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone.

The detail that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable” cannot reasonably be chalked up to miscommunication. It is an unambiguous statement that is not vulnerable to misinterpretation. It is far easier to accept that the number of wounds were confused as a result of miscommunication. It’s an understandable error, and was repeated by Macnaghten, who wasn’t a Home Office functionary but a senior police official.

“Ben, the doctor in charge, Killeen, actually stated his firm belief that there WERE two weapons involved.”

He offered an opinion. There’s no reason to think it was a “firm” belief at all. He offered a reason for suggesting a two-weapon hypothesis, and that reason was not of a nature to allow for any firm conclusion. If you think Mike’s so discerning, why did you accuse him of “repeatedly fail(ing) to understand”, “ironizing things” and reading your posts in a “very strange manner”?

“I wish you would use a more mature approach, Ben. You very well know that Sugden ALSO says that Tabram WAS slain by two weapons”

Not even Kileen was that confident, so Sugden cannot possibly have been. We may safely conclude instead that he meant the two-weapon theory was the conclusion at the time. I realise that “ripperologists” aren’t always right, and in this case, it is clear that Sugden is, and you’re not. In fact, I regard your complete wrongness on this issue to have factually established. Abberline most assuredly considered Tabram a ripper victim, or else his comments in the 1903 interview make no sense whatsoever. The fact that you waste your presumably precious time fruitlessly arguing otherwise is immaterial. Keeping repeating yourself on that score, though, and we’ll see whose stamina holds out. Guess who my money’s on?

“IF the Dew book had been riddled with mistakes, then yes, it must be discarded. It is of course not”

Well you’ve changed your tune!

“Riddled with mistakes” was the precise expression you used to describe the Dew Spew. Here we go:

"And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

Those are your words, which you now denounce. Suddenly it’s an “impeccable source”! Good grief. This is the problem with the bombastically argumentative approach – people end up cornering themselves in a wash of contradictions out of an ill-starred attempt to prove their debating combatant swrong. And please, I have absolutely no intention of discussing your controversial, unpopular theories. You know full well my feelings on those. Given the speed with which you do a complete U-turn on certain topics, I doubt you’ll be subscribing to them for very long anyway. I’m talking about the Dew Spew in general, and the fallacy of the argument that if a document contains errors, it must be discarded in its entirety UNLESS its the Dew Spew.

Dew, despite the Spew, might well have been a fine detective, but there’s no reason to think he was Britain’s “finest detective ever”.

As for your wholly unnecessary “short version” (which we could have done with instead of the excessively long one), I think someone just wanted his post at the top of the new page.

“You make a choice of a source we know has damning errors. I make a choice of a source which has itīs flaws and errors too.”

That’s a silly distinction for a start. The errors that appeared in the Dew Spew are no less "damning" than those that appeared in the Home Office document, and the latter was at least contemporaneous with the murders.

“You claim that this detail MUST be correct, and present no corroboration or underlying work on your behalf that has gone to substantiate or negate it.”

No, I say the detail is almost certainly correct in the total absence of any indication to the contrary, coupled with the sheer unlikelihood that the detail was either a miscommunication or an outright invention.

“I present a long list of details that goes to corroborate this assumption of mine. I also look after things that would negate it, but fail to find anything at all.”

You might convince yourself that’s what you’re doing whenever you construct one of your theories, but the reality is often very different. I find that quite a number of your brand new, interesting, controversial ideas are replete with “negation”, but very light on “corroboration”. Patting yourself on the back and complimenting the perceived merit of your own theory doesn’t get you anywhere. I suppose it doesn't bother you that your ideas don't enjoy anything like as much support as the one-knife/Tabram ripper victim does.

“It still applies that a stabber may well also be a potential cutter, so Iīm much with you on the necessity not to rule Tabram out as a Ripper victim on that particular ground.”

Thanks, Fisherman. I’m reassured by this. It’s perfectly acceptable for anyone to have a hunch that this particular killer would not have converted from stabbing to cutting, but as you note, it wouldn’t be based on anything we’ve learned from other serial killers, whose criminal histories reveal a completely different story. Even those serial killers who maintain a very consistent MO started out using a completely different weapon (in Sutcliffe’s case, I believe it was a stone-filled stocking!). Moreover, most early offences will appear more haphazard and “frenzied” that their later, more polished, efforts, and may often result in total failure (Wilson?). If the ripper killed Tabram, it would constitute a near textbook example of a serial killer's earlier phase, before he become more proficient through experience and exploration, discovering what he “liked" as he progressed.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram. But apparently there was some.”

Exactly, David.

We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too. But he didn’t, despite the signs of suffocation having been present. An easy an understandable mistake for a young and inexperienced doctor to make, I would have thought, and nothing – I think you’ll agree - to do with “malpractice”. As you also note, Phillips didn’t shy away from discussing evidence of suffocation, even if it wasn’t the direct cause of death. It was related to the death, as the head injury was in Tabram’s case, and was thus worth mentioning to for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

To begin with, we donīt even KNOW that whatever signs there were, were signs of suffocation. So once again, it applies that you accuse Killeen for something that you donīt even know existed.

No, Fish. I have the Illustrated Police News and Martha pic.
I don't think the journalist did suggest suffocation out of thin air.

And you see, the IPN didn't make the suggestion after having heard of suffocation in the Nichols and Chapman cases (contrary to Killeen who changed the dagger into a bayonet after he heard of Pearly Poll and PC Barrett).

[Fisherman]

To begin with, we donīt even KNOW that whatever signs there were, were signs of suffocation. So once again, it applies that you accuse Killeen for something that you donīt even know existed.

Did it enter your mind that this may be so - that Tabram did not evince any such true signs? Could it be that Killeen checked for discolouration and petichae, the way one would expect at least all other doctorīs than Killeen to do, without finding any such signs?

You are "inclined" to believe a whole lot of things that has nothing going for them evidencewise, it would seem. It must be an ongoing frustration.

I am inclined to stay by the useful knowledge that evidence that was not there and evidence about caserelated damage to Tabram that did not affect the cause of death, was left to the postmortem report.

The best
Fisherman

PS. Have you found Andersonīs reason for believing Tabram was Jackīs yet? I would appreciate to discuss it with you! But not today - Iīm off for now.

[DVV]

Hi Fish, Phillips did mention signs of suffocation in other cases. And indeed, it has something to do with the victims death, it was thus his job to do so. HIS job, Fish - somewhat different than Killeen's, as you know.
The IPN criticized Killeen in respect to the (possible) suffocation, and I'm inclined to believe they were right.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram.
But apparently there was some.
That may be another mistake."

Ah, I notice that you have once again managed to mistake what an inquest sets out to do! It sets out to ... Yes...?

EXACTLY, David! It sets out to determine the cause of death! And believe it or not, Killeen, worthless doctor that he may have been, made a connection between the 39 holes in Tabramīs body and her demise! He voted, incredible though it may seem, for these punctures being in some manner connected to her death.

Who would have thought it?

Next forgotten item: The post-mortem report. In THAT one, David, MORE information would have been at hand about Tabram. And who knows, if there were signs of suffocation about Tabram, then maybe Killeen had devoted the odd line or two to this there. Stranger things have happened!

Do you by any chance remember the blood effusion on Tabramīs head? You know, if you knock people on their heads, they may even die from it. And when they do, then the medicos revealing such blood effusions, will say so at the inquest.

If they do NOT die from it, then the medicos may safely avoid mentioning it at the inquest, since an inquest is held to establish the death reason. And amazingly, we can see this very thing happening at the Tabram inquest! Lo and behold!

Could it therefore be, that Killeen concluded that whatever signs there were about of suffocation, carried the exact same weight as the blow to Tabramīs head when it came to her death reason: None whatsoever?

What do you think, David? Shall we haul Killeen over the coals for not mentioning EITHER effusion or (potentially) suffocation?

Or shall we give the alternative a fair chance: that he restricted himself to what the coroner and inquest asked for: the death cause? And the rest was in the post-mortem report?

If you opt for the latter, then I believe it will be a relief for Killeen. Dead or not, it cannot be very funny to be castigated for alleged mistakes and unexperience. It borders on accusations of malpractice, though nobody has so far felt at ease to use that term. It may still come, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Oh, and while I'm here, don't tell me she was just fat. I've heard this counter-argument already and it doesn't counter anything, imo.

[DVV]

Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram.
But apparently there was some.
That may be another mistake.
And another evidence of an early Ripper murder.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it's an argument that crops up from time to time, and is a horrible reason for excluding her."

Statistically, it is not a good reason, no. But practically it may still have applied. Maybe the killer WAS someone who would never have come up with the idea of cutting and slashing. It is a much more focused way of damaging the body, and most people feel very much repulsed by the mere thought of doing such a thing.

Stabbing is another thing. It does not necessarily include an element of a wish to inflict bodily damage, but instead just a wish to get rid of somebody.

Putting it differently, my hunch is that most frenzied stabbers do not focus where they want to hit the body, other than in a very superficial way (in the middle of the body, justaboutish). I can even imagine that some stabbers will stab away with their eyes closed.

But a cutter will NOT close his eyes. And he will normally be a lot more focused and choose his areas of cutting.

The difference will of course increase if the body is not moving. Then a cutter will be very precise, whereas a frenzied stabber will still just fire away, more or less.

Just wanted to make this distinction, Ben. It still applies that a stabber may well also be a potential cutter, so Iīm much with you on the necessity not to rule Tabram out as a Ripper victim on that particular ground.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"Given that the numerous stabs to the torso were not in themselves life threatening, and obviously not in themselves able to render her unconscious. Why was she not screaming her head off?
She was apparently alive throughout most of the attack. Certainly she may have been choked in the beginning, but surely while stabbing her 38 times the pain alone would bring her out of unconsciousness.

Who was holding her down, keeping her mouth shut, while someone else stabbed her?

It strikes me that with this murder there are good reasons to see more than one attacker here."

I was merely alluding to statistics, Jon - people who change weapons during a knife attack are quite uncommon, and therefore two killers is a better suggestion. I see what you are saying, but I think one must not forget about the blood effusion - she may have been knocked unconscious. If she was NOT, then you would be on the money, no quibble there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I will offer a short version too, Ben, about the difference between us in source approach and -substantiation.

You make a choice of a source we know has damning errors.

I make a choice of a source which has itīs flaws and errors too.

You pick out one detail.

I pick out one detail.

You claim that this detail MUST be correct, and present no corroboration or underlying work on your behalf that has gone to substantiate or negate it.

I claim that this detail MAY WELL be correct, and I present a long list of details that goes to corroborate this assumption of mine. I also look after things that would negate it, but fail to find anything at all.

Suggestion - research - corroboration/negation.

Thatīs how it works.

Not suggestion - acceptance.

The research/corroboration part is too vital to leave out, I think. But hey, maybe thatīs just me ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Donīt talk about repetition, Ben, when you donīt understand what I am saying. You just provided good proof for that, by the way. Here it is:

"about the Dew Spew, which, incidentally, isn't new spew. You’re now suggesting that we should consider it a reliable source despite it being “riddled with mistakes”, and here we’re taking about mistakes of fact, not just ludicrous unsupported opinions that enjoyed no contemporary support from anyone vaguely worth listening to. No problem, you say, you just “don’t use” the erroneous non-facts that were presented as accurate by Dew. Gloss over them, dismiss them as errors, but still treat the document as accurate."

I am not suggesting any approach at all when it comes to Dewīs book. Of course, I am aquainted with the fact that it is regarded as a very good source by most Ripperologists, but that does not enter this particular equation. I am not glossing over anything at all from the book, and I donīt have to, since I DO NOT USE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL PRESENTED AS FACTS FROM IT!!!

Is this really so hard to understand? Or do you just feel the need to misrepresent my theory on Hutchinson by giving a false representation of how I choose my sources? Are you in any way of the meaning that this would help to cover up your own, quite questionable, approach to source material?

Then you need to think again, Iīm afraid.

"Great. Well maybe I’ll just adopt that precise approach to the Home Office document, then? I’ll accept the stuff that cannot be contradicted, and simply “don’t use” the errors."

Ah, Ben, but that is where you get lost. For IF you were to dismiss the errors, then you need to dump the bayonet thing. For the exact sentence that you use, IS erroneous, is it not? Moreover, you have voiced your acceptance of this yourself, acknowledging that the Home Office did not get things right when it comes to the Tabram wounds and bayonet business! So please, go ahead and use the CORRECT parts of that Home Office report as much as you like. They say nothing about the bayonet/wounds detail, however, so how it would benefit your reasoning, I donīt know.

Letīs further elucidate your approach to source material and your reasoning. The sentence you so adore in the Home Office annotations is this one (I use Wickermans post from the Home Office annotations thread):

"Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

Now, why have you taken to this so much? Because, I believe, you try to make a case for Tabram having been slain by one man only - the Ripper - and ABSOLUTELY not by a soldier (or two). Therefore, you would dearly like to be able to rule out a bayonet as the murder weapon. And this, little, error-ridden and unsignificant as it is, is the closest anybody is going to get with such an effort!

The problem is that the sentence contains an obvious error - or so you say yourself, at least. I have offered an alternative explanation, but this you have dismissed on very shaky grounds.
Be that as it may! It leaves us - if you are correct - with one part (Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon) that is wrong (we know that it was the larger wound that was suggested as a bayonetinflicted one) and another part (but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable) that you claim must be correct.

As I have stated before, there is NO other hard evidence whatsoever that comes even close to clinching that there was ever a discarding of the suggestion of a bayonet as the Tabram murder weapon. So one can easily understand the fling between you and the Home Office report.

But how do these things work? How much faith can we put in the second part of a sentence where we KNOW that the first part is wrong and the second part lacks any corroboration? Letīs look at a faked example and compare things:

The former British Prime minister Tony Blair was a bald man with a foreign accent and a wife who had once studied zoology.

Now, we KNOW that this sentence does not speak of Tony Blair, since the description does not match him. But what about the suggestion that his wife had studied zoology? That can be right or wrong. The crux of the matter, though, is that we can tell from the description of Blair that the one who wrote it was misinformed about the facts attaching to the subject. Therefore, it applies that we cannot accept statement number two at face value. On the contrary - given the knowledge about the originators ignorance, we must work from the assumption that the zoology bit may very well be wrong too. To be able to invest in it at all, we MUST research it and find corroboration for it in another source. And up til we do, it is information that is not viable as useful evidence.

This is why your assumption is completely unviable as it stands, Ben. You are welcome to challenge MY sources too, and if you can make a case for them being faulty or chosen in an unscientific manner, then do so. But Dew is not amongst them, when it comes to the fact collection. The only thing I use from his book is his SUGGESTION that Hutchinson would have gotten the days muddled, and I really do not need his book at all to make the same case - anybody who reads the evidence will see that Hutchinson is not speaking of a dreadful night, weatherwise. The built-in anomalies are there, Dew or no Dew. The reason that I mention Dew lies in the fact that he worked the case, wrote a book about it, and offered an explanation that corroborates the suspicion that arises when reading about all the things that did not tally with Hutchinson being in place on the right night.

So, my friend, MY sources are as impeccable as ever. Itīs YOUR sources that lack sorely in this department. And no twisting and turning will alter that.

"The “two weapon” absolutists can’t bear the fact that this was the reason provided, which is why they conjure up imaginary “better” reasons"

Oh-oh! I realize now that you have missed out on something. Ben, the doctor in charge, Killeen, actually stated his firm belief that there WERE two weapons involved. So you see, the ones speaking for this do not NEED to conjure anything up. It is the ones who speak of one weapon as the solution that deal in conjecture, One such poster, is Mike, who very sensibly says this right out - it IS conjecture. Not necessarily wrong as such, but still conjecture. You should read his posts, they are very discerning.

"It’s a fact, and is accepted as such by Philip Sudgen, whose experience with source material analysis is unquestionably superior to yours "

I wish you would use a more mature approach, Ben. You very well know that Sugden ALSO says that Tabram WAS slain by two weapons, and his insights are - I gather, without being certain - superior to yours too...?

Ben, I will let you in on a secret. Come closer, and lean over and I will whisper it in your ear: Pssst - not all Ripperologists can be right!

Shocking, I know, but there you are. You see, these Ripper writers, commendable though their efforts are, do not agree on all things. Not at all, in fact. Therefore, some - or all - of them will be wrong on different matters. You see what I mean?
And you know what? Sugden may ALSO be wrong! He may be right about Abberline - please post where he says that Abberline DID believe Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, by the way, I have failed to find it and would very much like to see it! - and he may be wrong about the two weapons. And that would be a very useful solution to things for you, one must say!

Sadly, though, it also applies that he may be RIGHT about the two weapons and WRONG about Abberline! And that would make your day gloomy and barren, I know - but such is life, Ben.

Now, can we try and lean against YOUR views contra MINE, instead of trying to give the impression that scores of insightful Ripperologists fight on your side? I donīt see it that way, as exemplified above. Not at all, actually.

"My wording: “Putting it otherwise, any flaw or mistake will detract from the value we can ascribe to such a document on the whole. And the more flaws and mistakes, the more detraction.”

Your wording: "So again, the Dew Spew, which is “riddled” with mistakes, must be dispensed with then, according to your inconsistent logic?"

IF the Dew book had been riddled with mistakes, then yes, it must be discarded. It is of course not - the general view is that the book HAS flaws, but insignificant ones, and remains a remarkable feat - but it is of course subjected to the same demands as any other source.

But letīs listen to YOU this time over, Ben! Just for the sake of clarity, let us condemn Dew as totally useless as long as we are having this particular discussion about sources. Letīs do just that; it will be great fun! We snap with our fingers and tell Dew to go away, and we forbid anybody to use him, not only as a fact source - which I never did, of course - but we actually take the drastic measure to forbid anybody alluding to anything at all written in his book. Away, foul Dew Spew, begone!

And what happens? Does the impression that Hutchinson spoke of another night than the weatherwise dreadful on go away? No, it does not.

Does Lewis magically appear in Hutchinsonīs testimony? No, she does not.

Does Hutchinson somehow retract his statement about having walked the streets all night? No, he does not.

Do the weather reports I used change? I would not think so.

Does any little piece of the facts I use to show that Hutchinson may have muddled the days go away? Is one single such detail derived from Dewīs book? No, ALL my material has other provenances. And taken together, they very clearly suggest that Hutchinson may have muddled the days - without Dew.

You see, even if we forbid Dew, the exact same scenario is still there. It wonīt go away because we dismiss him, Ben. He is interesting only as CORROBORATION of the implicated day-muddling, taken together with his status as an 1888 East end detective working the Ripper case and his reputation as Britainīs perhaps finest detective ever.

If he had substantiated WHAT it was that made him think that Hutch got the days wrong, then I would have made myself guilty of using a fact from Dew, you may rest assured of that. But he did not, did he?

It is another thing altogether that one must assume that he had a reason for his suggestion. There would have been something Hutchinson said that did not tally with the murder night scenario but instead with the night before. Anybody who suggests a mistaken day, would arguably do so because one or more details did not fit in, not because he thought it a jolly idea at the time. To me, that seems common sense.

All the best, Ben! And forget about Sugden, please!

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

It was accepted by the contemporary police that Tabram was a ripper victim,

Yes, but on what evidence?
There has always been contention as to whether Nichols was the first, or Tabram.
The argument for Nichols is self evident. Not so for Tabram, her inclusion is mere guesswork given the notorious gangs that were known to prey on these women.

Time, location and victimology all speak immeasurably in favour of Tabram being murdered by the same individual responsible for the later murders.

Which would also then include the Torso murders, but no-doubt thats when "the immeasurable argument changes".

By the way, "immeasurable" = impossible to measure. Your use of the hyperbolic continues to astound, how do we interpret "impossible to measure" in this case?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

"Why was she not screaming her head off?"

Stunned perhaps by the bang on the head she'd received?

Dave

She could easily have knocked her head on the ground as she fell, or perhaps against the wall.

Carrying a truncheon(?) seems to be a bit redundant when you have a knife or two in your pocket.

Regards, Jon S.