Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Mon cher Fish, would you explain why you took so much pain to have us believe that Killeen measured the wounds, was right asserting that a breastbone was almost as hard as a rock, whereas the two cutting edges should have put an end to any further speculation long since ?

As for Reid, he was logically trying to have the suspected soldiers identified in August, that was his job, but later on he attributed Tabram's murder to a lone knife-killer nicknamed Jack the Ripper.

You'll have a hard time taking Reid as an evidence that a second weapon with two cutting edges has gone through Tabram's sternum, I reckon.

A wound caused by two cutting edges would have been quite easy to recognise. But I've never come across single reference to such a weapon in the case. Have you ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"would you explain why you took so much pain to have us believe that Killeen measured the wounds, was right asserting that a breastbone was almost as hard as a rock, whereas the two cutting edges should have put an end to any further speculation long since ?"

If you donīt believe that Killeen measured the wounds, you are in a league of your own, I should say. I pointed it out to reassure you that Killeen made a meticulous job, answering up to the demands that would be put on him from the police to provide as much information as possible about the two blades that penetrated Tabram.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe Killeen never took the trouble, and maybe he left the police to guess away on their own.

I am not sure that the wording you ascribe to me, that the breastbone was almost as hard as a rock, relates in any way to what I have said. But by all means, feel free! I do ascribe to the view that the breastplate is made of hard bone, so in some ways you are not all that far away from the truth!

The two cutting edges were implicated by Killeens suggestion of a dagger - and, subsequentially, by Reidīs following up on the bayonet track and his being convinced that a military man was behind that stab.

And that leads us back to my question! Apparently, you are of the meaning that police officers in charge of murder investigations sometimes look for murder weapons where they know they are not to be found?

Letīs see what you write on it: "As for Reid, he was logically trying to have the suspected soldiers identified in August, that was his job, but later on he attributed Tabram's murder to a lone knife-killer nicknamed Jack the Ripper."

But why would he check the bayonet for blood, if he knew that the weapon that had pierced Tabrams sternum was NOT double-edged? THAT is what I am asking for. I am also asking you why he believed that there was proof of a military man. And you are seemingly avoiding these questions, David, for some reason. Like I said, if you do not wish to give straight and direct answers to them, then follow your wish. But in all honesty, David, donīt you think that a police officer that has seen the forensic evidence would direct his search for evidence and proof according to what he has seen?

"You'll have a hard time taking Reid as an evidence that a second weapon with two cutting edges has gone through Tabram's sternum, I reckon."

Then read the above. It is very clear evidence to that exact effect. Reid thought a military man was responsible. Military menīs long and strong weapons are called bayonets. And there you are.

As for Reids stance that the Ripper was responsible, such a thing does not say anything at all about how Reid looked upon the wound in later days. He may well have been of the opinion that the Ripper must have used a weapon that gave an imprint that was comparable to bayonet wounds. After all, that was how he read the wound on the 18th, and if he was a police officer worth his salt, he would not have convinced himself of another shape.

"I've never come across single reference to such a weapon in the case. Have you ?"

Yes. Dagger.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The two cutting edges were implicated by Killeens suggestion of a dagger -

False. Had it been the case, he wouldn't have made any "suggestion". He would have clearly worded "two cutting edges". Would you realize that these two cutting edges, of which there is no trace in the whole investigation, nor in 125 years of ripperology, is nothing but a theory of yours ?

and, subsequentially, by Reidīs following up on the bayonet track and his being convinced that a military man was behind that stab.

No, Fish, hundred times no. Reid basically followed this track because PC Barrett talked to a soldier at 2:00 and because Martha and Mary Ann spent time with soldiers that evening.
As for Reid, his "conviction" that a "military man was behind the stab" is far from ascertained, while he clearly attributed the murder to JtR later on.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the info, Magpie!

Hi Fisherman,

"His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger". So from where do you get the idea that he did NOT specify this ...?”

He never specified that a double-bladed wound had anything to do with his dagger suggestion, as he certainly would have done had such a wound been in evidence. As I’m sure you’re aware, Kileen’s words were reported differently in various newspapers. Elsewhere, Kileen noted that the offending weapon was probably a “long, strong, instrument” which could have been caused by a sword bayonet or a dagger. The latter two are only cited as possibilities because they meet the long, strong, criteria. No other reason was cited. Had there been a better reason for those suggestions, such as the breastbone wound being unambiguously caused by a two-bladed weapon, he would most certainly have said so. But his silence in this regard speaks volumes, and the “one side/two” side distinction evidently had nothing to do with it.

I’ve been discussing Tabram on these message boards since 2005, and I have never heard it suggested that the double-sidedness of a dagger had anything to do with Killeen’s judgment, since it so obviously had nothing to do with it. That is, until yesterday afternoon.

Did the hole deviate markedly from what we should expect from a dagger wound? Evidently not, but nor was it of a nature that ruled out every single type of knife in the world, or else he’d have said so.

“Now, a pocket-knife is decidedly NOT a "long, strong instrument".”

It isn’t long, certainly, but it could quite easily qualify as “strong”. The longer the blade, the weaker a candidate it becomes, given its unwieldy nature and the necessity to raise it far above your head to deliver a sternum-penetrating blow. I think Harry makes an excellent point too. Once the blade had ensconced itself in the sternum, it would have required quite a bit of that “wiggling” you object to in order to dislodge it, and this may have mucked up the neat appearance of the entrance wound.

“As for Dew, you need to keep in mind that his contribution is a contribution made by a first-hand participator; Dew was THERE.”

Which makes it worse.

He made glaring errors over that which he actually experienced. That’s a lot more “faulty” than a Home Office official, passing on the general revised view of the Tabram-bayonet theory while making a minor mistake, probably the result of mishearing or misreporting, that didn’t remotely detract from the more important observation.

“The obvious question that surfaces here must be: IF it was obvious from the outset that a bayonet could not have caused the wound, then why would that check be made?”

Oh no, I don’t believe it was obvious from the outset. I’m suggesting – as I believe you suggested earlier – that the opinion came to be revised later, possibly in the wake of more research into the type of bayonet carried by military men at the time. I don’t know when the HO document was penned, but my impression (which may be wrong) was that it was later than the 16th, and thus after the questioning and bayonet-checking of the guard.

“The later revised opinion? It is hard to measure what it amounts to. Does it say outright that a bayonet had not been used?”

Simply that a bayonet was initially suspected, but later rejected as the likely culprit, owing to the unmistakability of bayonet wounds.

“The hesitating 37-time stabber. The unwilling killer?”

You don’t have to be unwilling or hesitant NOT to use the full blade all the way down to the handle upon every blow, or even upon ANY blow, with the knife. This holds especially true of the killer’s stabbing career was in its infancy then.

“When the bruise is there, accompanying the stab, you know that the knife has been thrust in to itīs full length.”

And yet significantly, we have no evidence that any bruising accompanied any of the stabs.

“He only knew that it corresponded with a dagger as regards the shape of the wound.”

No. He knew it corresponded with an instrument such as a dagger as regards strength of the blade necessary, in his view, to create the sternum wound. Shape had very little to do with it, or else he’d have said so. Size maybe, but shape no. If he saw evidence of a two-sided weapon but mysteriously and shockingly neglected to mention this extremely important reason for the dagger suggestion, it would make him the biggest “donkey” in the medical profession. I’m not saying that the wound gave away a “one-edged knife”. I’m saying that the wound’s shape gave nothing away in terms of its ability to rule out ALL knives.

“No, you may rest assured that the hole in Tabrams sternum was made by an instrument that had two sharp edges.”

No, I'm very disinclined to "rest assured" of that, because the evidence doesn’t allow me to. Feel free to keep thinking otherwise, by all means, but I think the best option for you now is to agree to disagree and resign yourself to our differing stances.

“Criticizing WHAT?”

I’ve already said: I would argue that a number of factors oblige us to treat the “two weapon” hypothesis with extreme caution. I’ve just outlined the first – an over-reliance on imprecise wound measurements can easily lead to faulty conclusions. Then there is the relative youth and inexperience of Killeen to consider. Finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

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.

Exactly, Dave!

[DVV]

But why would he check the bayonet for blood, if he knew that the weapon that had pierced Tabrams sternum was NOT double-edged? THAT is what I am asking for. Fisherman

What else could he do, Fish ? When Corporal Benjamin returned from permission, he had his bayonet examined. That was just routine.

But now your premises is that Killeen was referring to "two cutting blades" when he suggested a dagger or a sword bayonet. Well, is that a distinct, widely known and obvious feature that those two weapons have in common ?
Untenable, if you ask me. And others.

[Fisherman]

David:

"What else could he do, Fish ? When Corporal Benjamin returned from permission, he had his bayonet examined. That was just routine."

Routine, David, involves making all the relevant checks. And it was relevant to check the bayonet. If it had been ruled out that a bayonet could have been the weapon, the routine would not have included such a check. So that answers your question about what else Reid could have done - he could have refrained from looking at a weapon as long as he knew that it had not been involved.

"now your premises is that Killeen was referring to "two cutting blades" when he suggested a dagger or a sword bayonet."

Killeen did not suggest a sword bayonet, David. He had it suggested to him that a bayonet could have been the weapon and concurred. If he had known that the hole in Tabrams chest had been made by a one-edged weapon, he would not have concurred. Therefore, by implication, the hole in the chest had been made by a weapon that shared the significant properties of a bayonet.

Itīs all very easy. Extremely easy, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish

Itīs all very easy. Extremely easy, in fact.
Fisherman

So much that it escaped everybody but you for 125 years.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He never specified that a double-bladed wound had anything to do with his dagger suggestion, as he certainly would have done had such a wound been in evidence. "

Now you are starting to move in circles. Ask yourself what is the main feature of a dagger. The ONLY distinguishing factor, as it were, compared to a knife.

"The latter two are only cited as possibilities because they meet the long, strong, criteria."

It could - and should - likewise be argued that Killeen for some reason NEVER suggested a knife for the chest wound. Why do you think that is? And the dagger and bayonet actually meet one more criteria than the ones you choose to name: They are two-edged.

"It isn’t long, certainly, but it could quite easily qualify as “strong”."

Not in Killeens eyes, it couldnīt. He said that it would break in contact with the sternum, and that tells us just how strong he judged that blade after having seen itīs tracks in Tabrams body.

"He made glaring errors over that which he actually experienced. That’s a lot more “faulty” than a Home Office official, passing on the general revised view of the Tabram-bayonet theory while making a minor mistake, probably the result of mishearing or misreporting, that didn’t remotely detract from the more important observation."

Dew is for another thread, methinks. But you are welcome to list all the things that you mean speak in favour of a discarded bayonet theory. It should make for interesting reading, especially if it boils down to a confused Home Office annotation and the stance on behalf of some officials that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Such a thing, mind you, would not preclude her having been killed by means of a bayonet or bayonet-resembling weapon!

"I’m suggesting ... that the opinion came to be revised later, possibly in the wake of more research into the type of bayonet carried by military men at the time."

But surely, Ben, ten days of researching the thing would immediately have told the police whether a bayonet could have been the weapon! Of course we do not know this, but I think a fair bet would be that the police showed Killeen the weapons in question and asked him "could any of these have been the weapon?" And they would not have waited a number of weeks to do so, not in my opinion! We know that Reid was very well informed about the shape of the wound on the 18th, presumably after having seen it himself and discussed it with Killeen.

"You don’t have to be unwilling or hesitant NOT to use the full blade all the way down to the handle upon every blow, or even upon ANY blow, with the knife."

Frenzied stabbings, Ben, are not lame affairs and hesitancy. And Killeen was never hesitant about the blade. He saw enough of it to deduct that it was so small that it would have broken in contact with the sternum. And three inches of a sturdy weapon easily give away that it is not a pocket-knife. The suggestion you make is a non-starter, thus.

"significantly, we have no evidence that any bruising accompanied any of the stabs"

Eh - Killeen never brought up the subject. Nor was he asked. The "significance" is therefore not that there were no bruises. It is that there is no report surviving, for it would have told us the truth.

"Shape had very little to do with it"

Really, Ben ...

"I’m saying that the wound’s shape gave nothing away in terms of its ability to rule out ALL knives."

You are guessing this, and you are doing so in conflict with the dagger suggestion on Killeens behalf, just as it is in conflict with Reids assertion that the shape of the wound gave away a military perpetrator. No contemporary source mentions a knife for this wound, Killeen never suggested it himself, but instead took the trouble to name a dagger, a weapon with one distinguishing feature and one only. Nothing at all substantiates this guess, and still you entertain it...?

"I’ve already said: I would argue that a number of factors oblige us to treat the “two weapon” hypothesis with extreme caution. I’ve just outlined the first – an over-reliance on imprecise wound measurements can easily lead to faulty conclusions. Then there is the relative youth and inexperience of Killeen to consider. Finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet."

Yes, thatīs all good and well, but exactly which parameters are you criticizing as such?
Killeen was young, but do you criticize that?
People may rely on Killeens words, but would you criticize them for that, given that there is no evidence pointing to him being wrong?
Killeen said that two weapons were involved, but since that was his absolute conviction and since it was substantiated by other sources (Reid and the Star, for example) and never contested at the time, are you criticizing him for making his call?

There is nothing to criticize, Ben, simple as that. You may "feel" that he was wrong, you may "sense" that two out of three young surgeons cannot establish knife blade differences and you may "surmise" that Killeen said one thing and meant another - but that is just personal, unsubstantiated theorizing and guesswork. In reality, we need to have it substantiated that Killeen was wrong BEFORE we can "criticize" him. Up to that point, we must settle for questioning him only - and to boot, with no evidence or substantiation at all.

Thatīs why I find your reasoning odd in the extreme.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"So much that it escaped everybody but you for 125 years."

Hi everybody!

Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"So much that it escaped everybody but you for 125 years."

Hi everybody!

Fisherman

Problem is that it also escaped Killeen, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Hi everybo ... sorry, David!

"Problem is that it also escaped Killeen".

Dagger. D_A_G_G_E_R. Daaaaagger. Typically a weapon with ..... cutting edges?

Question of the day, David.

It always makes for interesting semantics discussing with you. When it comes to factualities, I tend to put a lot less faith in your arguments. I also very much dislike your taking the liberty to make jokes about people to whom no contemporary or new evidence attaches, proving them anything but meticulous, well-willing professionals. Itīs all that about Rasputinīs sister and such - it makes for a deploring argumentation level.

I fear this is as far as the train goes, David. Take care.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

You must have missed Magpie's post, Fish.
And still you did not explain why Killeen merely and vaguely suggested a dagger or a bayonet, whereas, if you were right, he could tell urbi et orbi et ex-cathedra that it was undoubtedly a weapon with two cutting edges.

[DVV]

I also very much dislike your taking the liberty to make jokes about people to whom no contemporary or new evidence attaches, proving them anything but meticulous, well-willing professionals. Fisherman

Again, problem is that Killeen wasn't meticulous enough to assert it was done by two cutting edges.
You are in fact portraying Killen as more incompetent than I do.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, David, but Iīm not the one who have missed things here. I have laid out the text a number of things to you, but it just does not seem to catch on.

Here is my last effort for the day, when it comes to exchanging with you:

1. Killeen said, at the inquest, that "one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger". We know that a daggerīs most prolific feature is that it is double-edged. There is the odd exception, but the fact remains that a dagger is known as a double-edged weapon.
In consequence with this, the inference is that Killeen had established that the weapon that pierced Tabramīs breastbone had two cutting edges.
I am not saying that it MUST have been so, given this information only. Killeen COULD have said dagger but meant knife - the possibility is there. But as long as he did not do so, the best guess is that we are dealing with a double-edged wound.

2. Reid asserted on the 18th that he believed that the wound was proof of a military man having been the perpetrator. Now, he does not say that this was due to the shape of the wound giving away a bayonet, but since that is the only long and strong instrument a soldier had access to, one must draw the conclusion that the best bet by far is that Reid believed the wound to have been made by a bayonet. And a bayonet is a double-edged weapon. Reids assumption therefore strengthens the assumption that Killeen spoke of a dagger because he had recorded two cutting edges. And there are no other distinguishing parameters that would correspond to daggers only than the two edges. The pointedness, the sharpness, the sturdyness is something that do NOT distinguish the dagger from ordinary knives - but the two edges do.

So Killeen speaks of a dagger, and Reid saw the work of a bayonet in Tabramīs body. Interestingly, the two verdicts correspond. They therefore corroborate each other.

I know I have said this before. Apparently, I have not worded it clear enough. I hope I did so now.

If you still contest this - which you are of course at full liberty to do - I will not take the trouble to give any further answer. I have better things to do today.

Incidentally, donīt accuse me of calling Killeen incompetent. He would have made everything very clear in his report, which is lost to us. In front of the inquest, he was merely requested to give his view of what kind of blade would most resemble the hole in Tabram. He chose a dagger, and he did not do so since there was only one cutting edge, David. In such a case, he would have said "knife". So spare your semantics lessons, please. Better arguments are what you need.

The best,
Fisherman