Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[lynn cates]

Jtr

Hello Christer, David. It seems that both of you accept Tabram with the other "canonicals." Just from curiosity, do you think that "Jack the Ripper" began his career with a clasp knife or similar? Was it a "spur of the moment" thing which escalated?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

I haven´t got a clue, Lynn. It was said that Millwood and Wilson were attacked by clasp knives, but I am beginning to wonder if it was not Turkish hooksables, sunk into the body in a very superficial manner

Incidentally, I am not very sure about Tabram at all - I have entertained a scavenger theory on her behalf, but that theory relied upon a guess that the stabbing was seen by the man with the long, strong weapon. This in turn relied on the fact that George Yard Buildings had galleries on the backside, and I speculated that she could have been attacked there.
Since that stage, I feel pretty certain that she was found inside the building, well away from sight on behalf of anybody on the outside. I think I can pinpoint the exact point where she lay, and that detracts very much from my scavenger theory, which is why I nowadays lean more to her not being a Ripper victim than I used to. But such is life!

It still remains, though, that the TWO wounds that may have been caused by the larger blade seem curiously focused, whereas the 37 stabs seem like uncontrolled mayhem to me. Two perpetrators is thus still a good suggestion.

As for Millwood and Wilson, I am utterly undecided. They remain maybe´s to me, nothing more.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

dress rehearsal

Hello Christer. Thanks for that. Your reasoning seems sound enough. The one similarity I see with the later killings is that her dress was lifted up.

Any thoughts about that? It seems that a person killing another in anger would stab through the dress.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Fisherman,

“Ask yourself what is the main feature of a dagger. The ONLY distinguishing factor, as it were, compared to a knife”

Kileen mentioned a dagger as an example of the sort of “long, strong instrument” which he believed was responsible for the sternum wound. David is absolutely right, if the shape of the wound indicated a two-bladed weapon, he would certainly have cited this reason for his dagger suggestion. He would have said; “two separate knives were used because one of them definitely had two cutting sides and the other only had one”. That would have put an end to the issue, and established the weird “two knives” scenario beyond dispute. This never happened, because there never was any double-blade wound for Killeen to comment upon (as he would certainly have done had such a wound existed).

Daggers and bayonets are generally more heavy-duty than knives, which is why the first two were mentioned in connection with the “long, strong instrument” theory. “Knife” is obviously a far more encompassing term, and they can range from the tough and large, to a butter knife.

“He said that it would break in contact with the sternum”

But a strong clasp knife most assuredly would NOT break on contact with a centimetre-thick sternum. Simple as.

“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”

I don’t need a “list”. That would be quite superfluous. The Home Office annotation ought to put the revision of the bayonet theory beyond rational dispute. The only errant detail in that annotation was entirely unrelated to the nature of the weapon, and only concerned the number of wounds that the weapon in question was supposed to have been responsible for. No point throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As for the time it would it would have taken for the revision of the bayonet theory, yes, investigations can take considerable time as all leads are followed up. The results of these investigations take longer, and the committal of pen to paper outlining these results longer still. Contrary to your assertion, Reid never said anything about the “shape” of the wound. He wasn’t even quoted directly. The East London Observer merely passed on his supposed opinion, echoing Kileen’s, that a heavy-duty weapon must have been responsible for the sternum wound. The only observation made about the likely appearance of the offending blade is that it was probably “dagger-pointed”. Nothing remotely to do with the edges of the weapon.

“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.”

But without any means of assessing the length of the blade used, it wasn’t possible to determine that it would have snapped on contact with the sternum. Superficial stabs from a sturdy weapon do not “easily give away that it is not a pocket knife”. But we’ve already had this discussion, and I’d hate to have to repeat myself again.

“Frenzied stabbings, Ben, are not lame affairs and hesitancy”

I’ve addressed this too: 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.

“The "significance" is therefore not that there were no bruises.”

But in the absence of any evidence of bruising, it would be extreme blank-filling folly to assume that there MUST have been bruises which MUST have revealed that the full length of the blade entered the body.

“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.”

I’m not guessing it. I’m concluding it on the very sound basis that Kileen would certainly have referred to the “two-sides” distinction had it been the determining factor in ruling in a dagger and ruling out knives. The absence of any such reference is a certain indicator that the wound revealed no such two-sidedness. Again, Reid made no reference whatsoever to the “shape” of the wound, and nor did Kileen.

“Killeen said that two weapons were involved, but since that was his absolute conviction”

No, it wasn’t his “absolute conviction”.

It was his opinion only.

“I don’t think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument” - East London Observer.

Adopting a “critical” approach doesn’t mean lashing out with criticisms per se. It can mean using sound judgment, which is the reverse approach to accepting a thing completely at face value. If the reasons cited for the already unconvincing two-weapons hypothesis seem inadequate, there is no reason why it shouldn’t be questioned from a modern, criminological perspective. Very few people challenged Phillips view that Chapman’s mutilations evinced “surgical skill”, or that Eddowes was killed by someone other than the killer of Chapman, but I’ll cheerfully defend my opinion that both of these stances were wrong.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

Bagster

Hello Ben.

"Very few people challenged Phillips view that Chapman’s mutilations evinced “surgical skill”, or that Eddowes was killed by someone other than the killer of Chapman, but I’ll cheerfully defend my opinion that both of these stances were wrong."

Well, although we disagree here, I do appreciate your rightly attributing these views to GBP. Some seem unaware of his views on the matter.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"The one similarity I see with the later killings is that her dress was lifted up.

Any thoughts about that?"

Well, it could have been a deal that went wrong, of course. She was a prostitute after all, and that may well have played a role. But it is a hard call any way we look at it.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Kileen mentioned a dagger as an example of the sort of “long, strong instrument” which he believed was responsible for the sternum wound. David is absolutely right, if the shape of the wound indicated a two-bladed weapon, he would certainly have cited this reason for his dagger suggestion. He would have said; “two separate knives were used because one of them definitely had two cutting sides and the other only had one”. "

In a perfect world, perhaps. But you may have noticed that he did not state that he knew that the small weapon was a knife because it had just the one edge. Nor did he have to - knives are knives because they have this, just like daggers are daggers because they have two edges. And please, PLEASE, remember that all of the specifics, measurements, comment on the edge/s and all was readily available to the police via Killeens report. There would have been no doubt around as regards the wounds, what they looked like and what they represented. It was not until that report went lost that you could question this.

"a strong clasp knife most assuredly would NOT break on contact with a centimetre-thick sternum."

... which is why we may conclude that Killeen was of the meaning that it was NOT a strong clasp knife.

"without any means of assessing the length of the blade used, it wasn’t possible to determine that it would have snapped on contact with the sternum."

Not wholly correct - if the three inches or so that Killeen could read were thin and seemingly frail, then that part would break. Anyways, the same applies here as for the clasp knife - we may conclude that Killeen HAD established the full blade length, in all probability due to bruising on the skin and a total, more or less, correspondance in depth for all 37 wounds.

"The Home Office annotation ought to put the revision of the bayonet theory beyond rational dispute"

Okay, but since you use irrational dispute in the Tabram errand yourself, then that may not represent much of a problem. At any rate, we all know that the report was wrong on the exact topic of wounds and bayonets, so I would not lend too much of an ear to it.

"in the absence of any evidence of bruising, it would be extreme blank-filling folly to assume that there MUST have been bruises which MUST have revealed that the full length of the blade entered the body."

Not at all - since Killeen felt at ease to describe the inherent quality of the blade (it WOULD break!), we have very good reason to assume that the length had been established, and a combination of bruising and 37 corresponding depths would have been the best clincher in this errand.

"I’m not guessing it. I’m concluding it "

Would you say "establishing it" too? You actually think you are in a position to conclude that Killeen did not refer to a daggershaped hole when speaking of a dagger. I mean ...wow!

"No, it wasn’t his “absolute conviction”.
It was his opinion only.
“I don’t think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument” - East London Observer.

Why not use the inquest, Ben? The actual wording by Killeen recorded there must surely trumph the ELO? It went like this:

"The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

COULD not! At the inquest. He was convinced alright. And that was why he said that he did not think that the wounds had been made by the same weapon. That was his stance.

"Adopting a “critical” approach doesn’t mean lashing out with criticisms per se. It can mean using sound judgment, which is the reverse approach to accepting a thing completely at face value."

Then I will follow that good advice and tell you that I don´t accept one single of your arguments in this affair, since they all deviate from the evidence at hand.

Now, Ben, I have offered lots of good points on this thread, and you and David have offered a lot of, well, less good ones. But in the end, the best point belongs to you - we need to agree to disagree once again. So let´s do just that.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

I think you suggested or asked what my ... agenda was about arguing the usage of which or what knives. I have no agenda as you know. It matters not to me if 1, 2, or 3 knives were used to kill Tabram. I do agree that the longer weapon pierced the sternum, yet i will say up and down without any possibility of being swayed, that a long, narrow-bladed weapon, such as a bayonet, could do more shallow wounds as well. The stark contrast between a deep wound and a 3 incher (which is also super-deep btw) would be enough for a lone doctor to make a guess that two weapons were used. It is a guess after all, and he used the word "probably" when talking about a normal blade used for the smaller wounds. Surely the man wasn't Sherlock Holmes. If he had been he could have given the exact dimensions of each blade used and that PPSI pressure exerted in each individual stab, and then could have come up with the gender of the killer, the BMI, and the drinking habits. He didn't. He guessed in a thoughtful manner that is seriously open to debate. That isn't enough to wager on in this case.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hello Christer, David. It seems that both of you accept Tabram with the other "canonicals." Just from curiosity, do you think that "Jack the Ripper" began his career with a clasp knife or similar? Was it a "spur of the moment" thing which escalated?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
Astute point on the clasp knife escalation. I could see it as a progression with JtR starting out with a clasp knife with possibly wilson and Millwood, but definitely then with Tabram. (also agree with your point that Tabrams raised skirt one of the main indicators this is Jack)He was learning how to kill and what to use, switching from a clasp or smaller knife to something larger and more effective. Along with this progression, i think he was probably also learning what turned him on: from fantasies involving a Knife, stabbing women, womens private parts, mutilations, to organ removal.

[Sally]

Particularly, perhaps, if the weapon was being used in a rapid frenzy. Quite likely.

That aside..

There is insufficient evidence to enable us to know with any degree of certainty whether one or two weapons were used. It could've just as easily been one as two.

And in any case, two weapons doesn't equal two killers. Necessarily. There is nothing - nothing - to say that one person cannot carry, and use, two weapons.

So I don't see how any of this helps much in helping us decide whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not.

Nope.

[DVV]

I could see it as a progression with JtR starting out with a clasp knife with possibly wilson and Millwood, but definitely then with Tabram. (also agree with your point that Tabrams raised skirt one of the main indicators this is Jack)He was learning how to kill and what to use, switching from a clasp or smaller knife to something larger and more effective. Along with this progression, i think he was probably also learning what turned him on: from fantasies involving a Knife, stabbing women, womens private parts, mutilations, to organ removal.

Hi Abby, my view exactly.

[Observer]

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

Hi Ben

I realise that Killeen isn't exactly flavour of the month at the moment, but he was of the opinion that Tabram was murdered 3 hours prior to his examination of her at 5:30 a.m. on the morning of her murder. This would put her TOD at around about 2:30 a.m., which fits in with what PC Barret observed namely

Pc 226H Barrett, who was on duty in George Yard on the night of the murder stated that about 2 am 7th he spoke to a private of the Guards in George Yard, who informed him that he was waiting for his mate who had gone away with a girl. The P.C. stated that he should know the private again.

It does seem that she was murdered before 3:30 a.m. Alfred Crow having seen someone lying on the first floor landing at that time.

Regards

Observer

[DVV]

Hi Mike

It is a guess after all, and he used the word "probably" when talking about a normal blade used for the smaller wounds. Surely the man wasn't Sherlock Holmes. If he had been he could have given the exact dimensions of each blade used and that PPSI pressure exerted in each individual stab, and then could have come up with the gender of the killer,
the BMI, and the drinking habits. He didn't. He guessed in a thoughtful manner that is seriously open to debate.

Agreed.

That isn't enough to wager on in this case.

But you can wager that Killeen never meant "two cutting blades" - for reasons you gave above (ie : in that case Killeen would have been adamant).

[DVV]

I realise that Killeen isn't exactly flavour of the month at the moment, but he was of the opinion that Tabram was murdered 3 hours prior to his examination of her at 5:30 a.m. on the morning of her murder. This would put her TOD at around about 2:30 a.m., which fits in with what PC Barret observed namely
Pc 226H Barrett, who was on duty in George Yard on the night of the murder stated that about 2 am 7th he spoke to a private of the Guards in George Yard, who informed him that he was waiting for his mate who had gone away with a girl. The P.C. stated that he should know the private again.
It does seem that she was murdered before 3:30 a.m. Alfred Crow having seen someone lying on the first floor landing at that time.
Observer

Hi Obs, all true, and that's one of those minor misteries/coincidences that make the case fascinating.
Certainly Reid did well trying his best to have the soldier(s) identified. Unfortunately it led nowhere. Perhaps the private's chum was with Martha at 2 o'clock, perhaps he was with another woman.
But precisely, the problem with Killeen is that it's all those stories about soldiers that probably inspired him the bayonet, not the reverse. I mean, it's not Killeen's post-mortem that drove Reid to the Tower.

[Observer]

Hi David

It would be interesting to know exactly when Killeen became aware of PC Barret's sighting. Your'e probably correct in stating that Kileen based his bayonet theory upon PC Barret's sighting though. Regarding Reid's pursuit of the soldiers in question, I'm very surprised that they were not apprehended.

O