Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

David:

"No Fish, I shouldn't, and you shouldn't either. If Killeen had made the suggestion on the basis of his post-mortem, that would be scientific."

But that was not the question here, was it? The question here, as far as I can remember, was whether it was unscientific or not that the suggestion of a bayonet as a possible murder weapon surfaced after it became known that Tabram had associated with soldiers on the night she died. Answers to questions that have not been asked are normally not called for.

"Once he heard of two soldiers possibly involved..."

And when would that be?

"even if the wound had been truly caused by a bayonet, still Killeen's suggestion would remain basically "unscientific". It's simply not a forensic conclusion."

Wrong again. People who discuss the Big Bang theory wer actually not there when it happened. Does that make the discussion unscientific? No, it does not, since it is conducted by people with a scientific background and competence. The same goes for Killeen, he too was a qualified professional with a useful background. His suggestions would have more behind them after the post-mortem, but they certainly would not have been "unscientific" up to that point. An entrance hole in the sternum gives away a lot even before any post-mortm. The general shape of the blade would have been readily at hand to assess from the outset, the sternum being positioned but millimeters behind the skin. So much for "unscientific", Iīm afraid.

"We know also that Reid and Abberline ( ) finally considered Tabram a JtR victim. Anderson and Dew as well, according to Paul Begg (the ultimate proof)."

Nope, not in Abberlineīs case, and I have shown you why. And donīt just take Paul Beggs words for good, David - go have a look yourself what it is that supposedly ties Anderson to this belief! You may be surprised when and if you find it ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

Bolo:

"On one occasion when I was stabbing away on a large piece of veal with a bone in it, the blade of the small but very sharp and pointy clasp-type knife I used broke just beneath the tip in a 45 deg. angle. The following thrust created a much larger and gaping opening that looked quite different to the other stab wounds. Take that for what it's worth"

The trouble with comparing this to the Tabram case is that the larger hole in her body went through the chestbone. And a broken blade would not have done that. It takes a point.

here is the thing, the tip of my knife broke in a 45 deg. angle (total length of the piece that broke off was about 1 1/2 inch) which resulted in an even more pronounced and very sharp point. In my opinion, it would have been no problem to stab through a bone with it but of course the wound would not have been as deep or even deeper than the stab wounds when the blade was still intact.

By the way, the broken off piece of the tip did not get stuck in the bone or meat but flew away, found it almost ten meters away (the experiment took place outside in our back garden). That's another thing I found remarkable.

All in all, this tempted me to come up with a scenario of only one attacker and knife that broke in a way that a) made it even more dangerous and b) resulted in a lethal wound that looked different to the others.

Regards,

Boris

[DVV]

David:

"Exactly. It doesn't make the suggestion extremely scientific, does it ?"

... and there we go again - paint it out as unscientific, and hopefully, somebody will catch on. You should know better than this, David!

No Fish, I shouldn't, and you shouldn't either. If Killeen had made the suggestion on the basis of his post-mortem, that would be scientific. Perhaps a mistake, but a scientific one. But that was not the case. Once he heard of two soldiers possibly involved, Killeen just added a "bayonet possibility" to his "bigger knife/dagger" suggestion.
In the same way, even if the wound had been truly caused by a bayonet, still Killeen's suggestion would remain basically "unscientific". It's simply not a forensic conclusion.

Do you regard it as strange, David, that, once the police realized that Tabram had been associating with soldiers on the very night she was killed, they actually also realized that one or more of these soldiers may have been the ones who killed her?

No, I don't regard it as strange, and if I would, still that would be a hard fact. We know they tried their best to have the soldiers identified, and we know it led nowhere. We know also that Reid and Abberline ( ) finally considered Tabram a JtR victim. Anderson and Dew as well, according to Paul Begg (the ultimate proof).

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The bayonet suggestion only arose after it became known that Tabram had been seen with soldiers on the night of her death."

David:

"Exactly. It doesn't make the suggestion extremely scientific, does it ?"

... and there we go again - paint it out as unscientific, and hopefully, somebody will catch on. You should know better than this, David!

Do you regard it as strange, David, that, once the police realized that Tabram had been associating with soldiers on the very night she was killed, they actually also realized that one or more of these soldiers may have been the ones who killed her?

I donīt.

When the word got out that there was a potential soldier connection, do you think it strange that the police asked themselves whether the stabs potentially corresponded to weapons carried and used by soldiers?

I donīt.

We know that Killeen offered the view that the large wound could have been bayonet-inflicted. Do you think that this was because the police told him to agree with the suggestion, or because he was of the meaning that this was the case?

Do you think that there was a conspiration on behalf of the police to nail soldiers for the deed?

Or do you think that they were so narrowminded that they forgot to check whether a bayonet would fit the bill or not?

Do you think that Edmund Reids stance, as reported in The East London Observer, that the sternum wound was useful proof of a military connection means that he had decided to pin the murder on a soldier, although he felt that it was NOT a bayonet that had done the deed, or do you think that he followed his conviction and stayed true to what he had seen?

Do you think that the police of a country such as the late 19th century Britain were interested in whipping up a public hatred against the military?

"Not very scientific", was it? Then take a look at where your musings may lead us. How "scientific" would that be?

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That’s because you keep regurgitating your weak criticisms of the Home Office document, despite my having made it clear “time and time again” that I disagree. Just leave a thing for once, and then maybe I’ll avoid bringing the Dew Spew into the thread. In fact, that’ll have to be the deal here from now on."

I dread to think, Ben, where it would take us if you were to make the calls about what deals would benefit the discussion!

"The problem with the Dew Spew, besides containing off-the-wall opinions seemingly shared by none of his colleagues, is that it also contained significant errors of fact"

That is not any problem at all, as long as we donīt USE any of the facts coming from it. It should be very, very easy to understand. I will spell it out to you, and weīll see if you catch on. But before I do so, letīs just establish that the suggestion that none of Dewīs colleagues shared the "off-the-wall" opinion that Hutchinson was a day off, is something neither you nor I could establish or refute. They either did or they didnīt, and since none of them commented on it in a way that ensured that we could take part 124 years later, the question remains open. Not having any evidence does not mean that option A applies - it means that options are kept open.

Now, hereīs the listing of our work and itīs respective qualities:

A/ Benīs theory of just the one weapon having been used on Tabram.

Origin: Idea thrown forward by contemporary ripperologists.

Fact basis: No contemporary evidence at all speaks in favour of it. The two "pillars" that are supposed to carry it all is the knowledge that doctorīs sometimes make mistakes, and the statistical fact that most stabbings are carried out with one weapon only. There is no other support at all for the thesis.
Also in use has been a Home Office report strewn with errors, but this has nothing whatsoever to say about whether one or two weapons were used.

B/ Benīs theory that Abberline believed that Tabram was Ripper victim.

Origin: A 1903 newspaper interview in the Pall Mall Gazette.

Fact basis: The paper only. In it, it is not in any way conclusive that Abberline did regard Tabram as a Ripper victim. Exact wording: "The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious". As anybody can see, it says absolutely nothing at all about to what (if any) specific degree Abberline regarded the Ripper responsible.

Fishermanīs theory on a mistaken day for George Hutchinson:

Origin: A statement in Walter Dewīs memoirs, where Dew says that his conviction is that Hutchinson mistook the days. Dew worked the case as a detective back in 1888.

Fact basis: Official police sources from 1888 - The police interview with George Hutchinson, the police interviews with Sarah Lewis, Elizabeth Prater and Mary Ann Cox, the inquest testimony from the Kelly inquest, contemporary weather reports and interviews with meteorologists today.

This, Ben, is how you and me, respectively, have chosen our sources. This tells us how YOU do YOUR homework, and how I do MINE.

The more interesting thing here is that you - for some unfathomable reason - go on about how poor a source Dewīs book would have been. Apart from the fact that people normally would not agree with this, it also applies that you cannot criticize me for using it to build my case - for I have not done so to any extent at all. Of all the facts I use in my theory about Hutchinson, not one of them comes from Dewīs book.
I DO present facts, though, from the best sources available to use. That stands in glaring opposition to your own approach, Iīm afraid. For you do not present one single fact from the contemporary sources, bad OR good, when it comes to your one weapon suggestion. And the only source you have managed to find trying to establish that Abberline believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim, does not substantiate more than a relatively high degree of credibility that Abberline at least recognized that Tabram COULD have been slain by him.

So, Ben - whatīs your beef here? Why do you accuse me for using Dew as a risky source when it comes to the facts? I have shown you very clearly that I do not use Dew at all in this respect. Not a word from his book enters the factual ground I use.

So once again, whatīs your problem? Why lament over the poor quality of the Dew Spew, when you know perfectly well that itīs quality never had anything at all to do with how I bolster my case? Why are you trying to defend your own deplorably low demands on sourcework and fact-collection by claiming that I meet the same low standards by getting my facts from Dew, when this is not true?

Once you realize how these things work, I trust that we will not have to see things like this again:
"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"

Two things, Ben:

A/ When we know for certain that the originator of a source have gotten things wrong, then it applies that we must look upon all of the material coming from such a source as POTENTIALLY faulty. 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. In the case at hand, we can even see that the two parts you mention, the A/ mistake on what wounds were examined and the B/ bayonet discarding, actually belong to the very same sentence, further calling upon us to be extremely cautious.
It applies, just like you say, that any knowledge of a fault on one point, does not automatically mean that another point must also be wrong. That would be applying a strict guilt-by-association-perspective, and such a thing would not be good. The bayonet thing may or may not be correct - but the rest of the document calls upon us to treat the suggestion as being of much less value than we could have ascribed to it if we had been dealing with a factually impeccable document.

This is how basic source evaluation functions. There can be no questioning it, and I am sure that you will agree, Ben.

B/ In spite of this, you have claimed that "we know" that the bayonet suggestion was dismissed ON THE WHOLE, and not only in relation to the narrow stabs mentioned in the Home Office report.
It goes without saying that if we accept what is laid down in paragraph A above, then a statement like this is untenable. All we can say is that there exists a Home Office report that to some extent implies that the suggestion of a bayonet was at some stage and to some degree discarded. We must also hasten to add, however, that the document as such is of very uncertain value, since it has a good deal of mistakes attaching to it, and since it is obvious that the ones who compiled it had not taken in the development of the case to a full degree.

This is how sourcework should be done, and how the value of given facts must always be assessed in accordance to the quality of the sources used. If you have any objection at all about this, then please go ahead and say so!

"I don’t think that’s very likely, personally, although it can’t be ruled out."

Exactly so, Ben. This is good work on your behalf. No calling it the stinking fish dish, no exaggerated objections, just a cool and composed, "I donīt think so myself, but you may be correct." This is the kind of thinking that I accept and respect. Thanks for that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"On one occasion when I was stabbing away on a large piece of veal with a bone in it, the blade of the small but very sharp and pointy clasp-type knife I used broke just beneath the tip in a 45 deg. angle. The following thrust created a much larger and gaping opening that looked quite different to the other stab wounds. Take that for what it's worth"

The trouble with comparing this to the Tabram case is that the larger hole in her body went through the chestbone. And a broken blade would not have done that. It takes a point.

"If there were two weapons involved in Martha's case, I think there must have been at least two assailants involved as well."

That is the better guess, yes.

The best, Bolo! And welcome back!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Ben

The bayonet suggestion only arose after it became known that Tabram had been seen with soldiers on the night of her death.
Ben

Exactly. It doesn't make the suggestion extremely scientific, does it ?

[Ben]

Good post, Bolo. I agree with much of it.

Hi Fisherman,

“I tell you time and time again, that Dew is for another thread, you concur - and STILL bring it up ...?”

That’s because you keep regurgitating your weak criticisms of the Home Office document, despite my having made it clear “time and time again” that I disagree. Just leave a thing for once, and then maybe I’ll avoid bringing the Dew Spew into the thread. In fact, that’ll have to be the deal here from now on.

“Hereīs the thing, Ben - listen up, and listen good, for there is a lesson to learn here about evidence evaluation!”

Excellent, I’m all ears…oh, wait, is this “lesson” coming from you? In which case, I’ll pass on that one, thanks. I know better from experience. I also suspect very strongly that authors Jon Ogan and James Tully wouldn’t be too receptive to (less still appreciative of) such a “lesson” either. I doubt very much that either gentleman needs lessons from anyone in source evaluation, and both accept that the Home Office document rightly discounts the bayonet theory.

“It is said that some of the narrow wounds were originally thought to have been bayonet-inflicted, whereas we know that it was instead not "some" wounds that brought about this suspicion, but instead just the ONE wound.”

Irrelevant and immaterial. 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 as an strong indication that the bayonet idea was discredited.

The problem with the Dew Spew, besides containing off-the-wall opinions seemingly shared by none of his colleagues, is that it also contained significant errors of fact, and yet despite your acknowledgment that it is “riddled with mistakes”, you continue to champion it as a reliable and trustworthy source. This is in marked and inexplicable contrast to your approach to the Home Office document, which was contemporaneous to the murders, written in an official capacity, and carries so much more weight than some 1930s memoirs. Moreover, the Home Office annotators were not submitting their own opinion, but rather the accepted wisdom of the contemporary police. They would not themselves have been responsible for the detail that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable”, and they certainly didn’t peddle a deliberate falsehood.

“On a separate note, maybe the time has come to quit that "Dew Spew" thing?”

Ooh, that might be a bit of a tall order - asking me to renounce my funny little rhymes, but I’ll gladly do so on the condition that you don’t keep repeating your criticisms of the Home Office document as though they were never objected to. In fact, I think we all get the message now as far as your views on that document are concerned, and would respectfully submit that you'll just have to resign yourself to our differing stances (well, yours versus mine, Jon Ogan’s and James Tully’s) and avoid the repetition if you don’t want to hear any more references to the Dew Spew. If you're in agreement, I won't use the expression again.

“Think of what the coroner said to Killeen: You have given your evidence in a commendably careful way, or something to that effect. The chance is there that the care the coroner spoke of lay in Killeens NOT mentioning a bayonet, although he knew that such a weapon would fit the bill.”

Nah, I don’t think that’s very likely, personally, although it can’t be ruled out. I think we may take the coroner’s compliment as a simple act of courtesy to a medical professional, and we need not read anything more into it. I hardly think it was a case of “Hey Kileen, bloody good job with that evidence, and what blew me away most was that I could tell you were just itching to say BAYONET when asked about the likely weapon. A lesser man would have crumpled under the pressure, but you somehow managed to suppress your inner urge to declare the sternum-wounding weapon a bayonet. Good for you!”

The bayonet suggestion only arose after it became known that Tabram had been seen with soldiers on the night of her death.

Regards,
Ben

[bolo]

Hi Abby, all,

JtR was probably the type of person to carry a clasp or pen knife on him at all times, even before he started murdering. If Ada Wilson and Millwood were ripper victims, and I think there is a good chance they were, then i could envision a scenario that JtR used his pen/clasp knife on them, realized he might need something larger, so got a larger knife. When he encountered martha, in the heat of the moment resorted to habit by using the smaller knife, and then switched to the larger knife to finish her off. On later victims he then only used the larger knife. Again, in my mind, a natural progression as the Ripper was learning how to kill (and what turned him on).

I have similar thoughts on the progression from Tabram to Nichols, that's why I think poor Martha was the victim of a Ripper who was learning on the job (voted accordingly in the old poll). Similar, but not exactly the same, for I think that the thing he learned from Tabram was that stabbing doesn't cut it (pardon the pun).

A few years ago I made some stabbing and slicing experiments will all sorts of knives and a few pounds of veal just to see how a stab or slice wound looks like and how much force is needed to inflict deep/gaping wounds. On one occasion when I was stabbing away on a large piece of veal with a bone in it, the blade of the small but very sharp and pointy clasp-type knife I used broke just beneath the tip in a 45 deg. angle. The following thrust created a much larger and gaping opening that looked quite different to the other stab wounds. Take that for what it's worth (probably not much as my veal massacre was of course completely un-scientific).

If there were two weapons involved in Martha's case, I think there must have been at least two assailants involved as well. I have difficulties to accept the notion that an attacker changes weapons in the middle of a stabbing frenzy.

Please forgive me if I'm bringing coals to Newcastle with my babble, been away from casebook for a long while due to various reasons you don't want to hear about.

Regards,

Boris

[DVV]

Too bad Killeen didn't take care of Emma Smith, we would know the blunt instrument was a crossbow.

[GregBaron]

Speculation by any other name...

Greg:

"Is this an insult you guys? If it is, please explain it to me."

No insult, Greg - not at all. I was just pleased to see that you stated clearly that your stance was based in intuition. Like I said, others will not be as discerning, instead passing off very flimsy and unevidenced information as ironclad fact.

The best,
Fisherman

"I think Fisherman found it commendable that you merely "intuited" (very sensibly, I might add) that the ripper used one weapon when murdering prostitutes, and thought the cautious phrasing contrasted favourably with the absolutist, zealous dogma of the type shamelessly espoused by that dastardly Ben character."

Hi gentlemen,

Glad you understood. Yes I was merely passing an opinion, a speculation, an intuition; however you wish to phrase it. No facts here.

I just think it illogical for the ripper to carry multiple knives.

Now please, continue the bayonet argument, for which I have no intuition...


Greg

[Fisherman]

David!

Like I said - there are journalists and then there are journalists. Some of them will be more discerning and reliable. This would have applied back in 1888 too. I do not discount your thinking, thus.
Mind you, the ethical discussion we have about the press today did NOT apply in the same sense back then!

Sally:

"I think it maybe had more to do with Killeen covering all possibilities"

Could well be, Sally. I was just offering an alternative view.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Think of what the coroner said to Killeen: You have given your evidence in a commendably careful way, or something to that effect. The chance is there that the care the coroner spoke of lay in Killeens NOT mentioning a bayonet, although he knew that such a weapon would fit the bill.

Fish I think it maybe had more to do with Killeen covering all possibilities, including that some of the wounds could have been self-inflicted, for example. Press reports vary in what they report of Killeen's testimony, some are more detailed than The Times - not in a sensationalist way; just more detailed. I think Killeen was being careful to cover all his bases, not necessarily not to refer to a bayonet.

[DVV]

How gracious of you! It warms my heart, considering what I do for a living. And in your defense, it must be said that there are journalists and there are journalists. But at the end of the day, when sensation can be had, sensation will be pounced upon by the press.

Fisherman

I said "sensationalism aside", Fish. It's just about being more balanced. The Evening News and others were genuinely trying to understand, as far as I can make out. The very fact that they discounted Tabram in October proves they dedicated some thoughts to the murders, and weren't ONLY looking for sensation. They did have theories, as anybody else. Some are somewhat coherent, some are not.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I'm not sure the journalists were so bad and merely looking for more murders to write about."

How gracious of you! It warms my heart, considering what I do for a living. And in your defense, it must be said that there are journalists and there are journalists. But at the end of the day, when sensation can be had, sensation will be pounced upon by the press.

In this context, David, I would like to add that my belief is that when Killeen was asked about whether a bayonet could have been the sternum weapon, he was perhaps not asked this by the coroner or a juryman. I feel that a journalist may instead well have been responsible.
Think of what the coroner said to Killeen: You have given your evidence in a commendably careful way, or something to that effect. The chance is there that the care the coroner spoke of lay in Killeens NOT mentioning a bayonet, although he knew that such a weapon would fit the bill. I think we would agree, David, that the question would have been put to him by the police long before the inquest was opened. But no coroner or other legal official would want to point his finger at the army unless there was certainty.
The press, however, would also have read the signs in the sky. And THEY would not mind asking a sensationalist question, if Killeen decided to put the lid on. In fact, they would do anything to get an answer on this score.

Just a thought from a seasoned journalist, David.

The best,
Fisherman