Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Now, David, you explain to me how that suddenly turns into a conviction on my behalf that it MUST have been a bayonet. Or perhaps I do not belong to the "some" you speak of?
Fisherman

Fish, you very well know how easily medics could be mistaken in that case. Why not Killeen and his bizarre bayonet ? Contrary to your opinion, the soldiers trail makes it even less likely : it explains Killeen's suggestion, ie : why he made that mistake.
But glad to see you're not convinced. Imo, this is just an early ripper murder, involving a knife that was strong enough to stab Martha almost 40 times without breaking. Far more likely than two weapons, don't you think ?

[Observer]

Hi Obs, then why 38 stabs with another weapon ?
The guy must have confused Martha with a whole unfriendly battalion.

Hi David, I'd say it's not unreasonable to speculate that prostitutes also carried knives on the streets of Spitalfields in the LVP. Could Martha Turner have had her own knife turned upon her, she pulling her knife upon a drunken irate squaddie ? He then uses his own weapon to deliver the other 38 wounds.

[Observer]

That's true, Observer, but the type of blades that the soldiers were issued with would have made very poor candidates for Tabram's sternum wounding weapon.

Ben

Hi Ben

As said in my previous post it could have been Tabram's weapon used against her that delivered the sternum wound.

Also, I'm not talking standard issue blades here, I'm talking smaller private weapon carried for personal protection.

I think we need to face up to the fact that a soldier was the last person seen with Martha Tabram, and in all likelyhood was the one who killed her.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

"He specifically spoke of one dagger and one knife. Daggers have two cutting edges, knives have one."

If the sternum puncturing wound was suspected to have been caused by a dagger on the basis of the entrance hole's appearance and dimensions, Kileen would certainly have specified as much. In reality, however, the only "reason" he cited for his suggestion of a dagger was the fact that it was a strong instrument of the type required - in his opinion - to cause injury to the sternum. It would make Killeen a very strange creature indeed if he withheld the most telling piece of evidence pinpointing a dagger, while citing a lesser reason for championing it as likely candidate. His silence in this regard is a certain indicator that there was no "one side versus two sides" distinction that ruled out all knives. In fact, I've never heard it suggested until this afternoon that it was the decisive indicator for Kileen.

Iīm afraid, since it points the document out as obviously faulty. It detracts from the overall value one can ascribe to it

It was only faulty on one point - a point wholly irrelevant to the issue of the bayonet theory being later revised. If the "overall value" of something is tarnished because of one error, goodness knows where that leaves other error-ridden documents, such as Dew's memoirs.

Not a single bruising out of 37 stab wounds would have been odd in the extreme.

There may have been some general bruising that accompanied the knife blows, and where he manhandled the body, but if you mean the sort of bruising that would enable an inexperienced doctor to determine that the full length of the blade had been exerted, that's a considerably taller order. I never suggested that he used a "small portion" of his power. I suggested that he probably did not exert his full power, which isn't so remarkable at all. A knife or dagger thrust at a relatively superficial depth could easily create the impression of a lesser weapon. The only reason Killeen suggested a dagger was because it served as a good example of the sort of long, strong instrument that he felt must have caused the sternum wound. The fact that he referred to an "instrument" suggests obvious uncertainty as to the exact type - knife or dagger, he ruled neither out.

The fact that Killeen asserted that the two blades could not have been the same, speaking of a pocket-knife and a long, strong dagger

"Long strong instrument" which could have been a dagger. You don't have to worry about exercising any caution if you think none is required, but I'm perfectly content to adopt a critical approach to the evidence, rather than accepting it unquestionably because it was a doctor wot said it. If we didn't adopt such an approach, and concluded that what the medics say must always go, then Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00, and Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different people. Given Killeen's relative inexperience, and the fact that strength (NOT SHAPE) of blade was cited as a reason for "separating" the weapons, I would say that scepticism is perfectly healthy.

So no, I'm not "backing down", but in the same vein, you're perfectly entitled to keep subscribing to the "two weapons" hypothesis for as long as wish.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

The idea that the killer used Tabram's own weapon is certainly an interesting one, but there's no likelihood that the last person seen with Tabram was her killer. This sighting occurred hours before her accepted time of death, and there was plenty of time for her to have picked up many more clients.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

.... In fact, I've never heard it suggested until this afternoon that it was the decisive indicator for Kileen.

You never realised that this is the distinction between a knife and a dagger?

How else should he describe the difference in wounds when he is talking to laypersons?
Even on here I could tell a few members were not sure what I was saying until I posted pictures, and 'we' are better educated than the average 19th century Eastender.
Killeen's actual autopsy report might have spelled out the differences in the accurate medical terminology, alas we shall never know.
As it turns out he was addressing a Jury of common people. So he was speaking in the vernacular. Or, to be more precise, what we have is possibly the paraphrase of the reporter.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

But he suggested a long, strong instrument such as a dagger only because he considered it heavy-duty enough to cause the sternum would. That was the precise reason he offered. If he had a much more persuasive indicator than that, he would have said so. When asked why he thought the instrument in question could have been a dagger, he would have left the "long, strong" bit out, and addressed the far more salient point - that the dimensions of the wound specifically indicated a dagger and ruled out every single type of knife.

He referred to a long, strong instrument, and that alone should inform us that he harboured uncertainty as to the actual type of instrument used. The only dagger-implicating piece of evidence he referred to was the strength and durability of the blade required to penetrate a sternum. The fact that he was addressing a jury of common people increased the necessity to cite the most important reason for his dagger suggestion.

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

clients

Hello Ben. But given Poll's account of things (I know, dubious at best), it sounds like they were spending a good bit of time together--drinks, and what not.

So maybe not an evening for multiple clients?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Lynn,

It appeared to have been an evening of drinkies that culminated in getting down to business up the alley. One Poll and Tabram separated, my guess is that the frivolities had terminated, and the latter returned to her trade.

I owe you a response on another thread, Lynn, which I'll address shortly!

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

fine points

Hello Ben. Thanks for that. I think ripper studies are overdue for a dissertation on LVP prostitution and its fine points

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

His silence in this regard is a certain indicator that there was no "one side versus two sides" distinction that ruled out all knives. In fact, I've never heard it suggested until this afternoon that it was the decisive indicator for Kileen.
Ben

Hi Ben, that's undisputable. Had the sternum been punctured by any "instrument" that had two cutting edges, Killeen could (and would) have flatly asserted : "One wound only was caused by another weapon, which had two cutting edges."
As I've told Fish, daggers usually had two cutting edges, but not always. In any case, that was not the reason why Killeen suggested a dagger or a sword bayonet.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish, do you think the wound was caused by "something" that had two cutting edges ? - and this wouldn't have been specified by Killeen ?"

I have already given my answer to this, David. When Killeen wrote "dagger" he reasonably specified the type of weapon used as one with two cutting edges. Thatīs all the specification you need. Or all the specification I need, at least.

If you speak of coffee and cappucino, you normally donīt add that one is a black drink whereas the other contains milk. It lies in the name and it is thus redundant (or redumnant as Jake says in "Two and a half men") to go any further.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"glad to see you're not convinced."

All it would have taken for you to reach that joyous stage would have been reading my posts. They are quite clear on it.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

"Hi Fish, do you think the wound was caused by "something" that had two cutting edges ? - and this wouldn't have been specified by Killeen ?"

I have already given my answer to this, David. When Killeen wrote "dagger" he reasonably specified the type of weapon used as one with two cutting edges. Thatīs all the specification you need. Or all the specification I need, at least.

You're therefore plain wrong, Fish. If such was the case, Killeen would have just mentioned a weapon with two-cutting edges, not vaguely a dagger OR a sword bayonet.
And we would ALL be absolutely convinced that a distinct weapon had caused the wound.

So what you think ? What prompted Killeen to suggest a dagger or a bayonet, lastly ?
The length of the wound, the hardness of the chestbone or the obvious trace of two cutting edges ?

[DVV]

David:

"glad to see you're not convinced."

All it would have taken for you to reach that joyous stage would have been reading my posts. They are quite clear on it.

The best,
Fisherman

Fact is that I can no more reach that joyous stage since your "two cutting edges" post, my friend.