Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[lynn cates]

Farmer

Hello Christer. Thanks. So something like the Farmer case?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Abby. Actually, I do not subscribe to that theory. It is, however, consistent with the standard view.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"It is a guess after all, and he used the word "probably" when talking about a normal blade used for the smaller wounds."

Yes, Mike, you are correct here - it IS a guess, and nothing else. Killeen guessed that it was a knife that inflicted the 37 minor wounds, and he guessed that it was a dagger that did the big hole. And it is precisely BECAUSE he guessed this that he would not go on record at the inquest as saying "I am sure that it was a knife". He commented on the blade only, and said about it that it would have broken if tried at the sternum. This much he knew - thus the blade was a thin and narrow one, and like I have said before, the thinner and narrower it was, the better it tallied with Killeens suggestion!

So, Mike, Killeens hesitance to say "it was definitely a pocket-knife" owed not so much to uncertainty as to formalia. This becomes a lot clearer when we look at how he worded it in the East London Observer on the 18th: "when asked his opinion as to the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, Dr. Keeling [Killeen] replied that they were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife - all except the wound on the breast bone."

Hello there - he suddenly is sure that an ordinary pocket-knife was responsible! And why? Yes, exactly - because he did not have to adjust to the demands of the inquest at this stage, but instead gave his personal view and conviction. And once again, it would have been guided by his extensive knowledge about the apparition of the blade. Small, thin, narrow baldes, apt to break easily, belong first and foremost to pocket-knives, pen-knives and such weapons.

Another interpretation than the one you do - but I think it is a very viable and useful one, covering the details involved.

"Surely the man wasn't Sherlock Holmes."

Who knows? Then again, he did not HAVE to be.

All the best, Mike!

Fisherman

PS. He did not say" probably" at the inquest. What he said was "The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife...", meaning that a knife corresponded with what he knew and saw.

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"So something like the Farmer case?"

Some parallels are there. But all in all, more like the Tabram case ...

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

comparison

Hello Christer. Right you are. The less comparison the better. Each case was unique.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Ben.
You do recall insisting that this clasp-knife, which incidently has an approx. 3.5" blade, was responsible for all the wounds?

"A strong clasp-knife could easily have been responsible for all the wounds. Such a weapon need not have been wider in blade than an "ordinary knife", and yet it would certainly qualified as a "long, strong instrument" of the type that could pierce a breastbone."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=204255&postcount=56

I will guarantee you that any folding blade "pen-knife" design, when hit directly at a rounded hard object, will glance off and fold the blade back and quite possibly cut your fingers off.
To go through a hard object like a breastbone you will certainly need a fixed blade.

And, to your "wiggle" point, which I think Tom also suggested, will not change the shape of the hole in any bone. First of all, the bone would have to be thin for it to penetrate, but you can only wiggle a blade in two directions.
A clasp-knife has only one cutting edge so wiggling it in one way changes nothing, only on the cutting edge could you lengthen (widen) the slot already made, and only a millimeter or two is required to pull the blade free.

An extra millimeter or two does not make for a "dagger" sized wound. The remaining hole is still small. Wiggling does not obscure the type of weapon used.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

With all due respect, what are these guarantees based on? A strong folding knife locks into place when extended, and if the pressure was exerted on the non-folding joint, there would be no reason for the knife to glance off or fold back. I realise that a clasp knife only has "one cutting edge", but it was not as though the other edge is completely rounded or squared, and an oft-overlooked point is that a knife could so easily be ground down on either side. A sternum is about a centimetre thick, and while it is true that one of the knife edges will "square off" towards the hilt, it may be quite a different story at the knife's point, i.e. the first centimetre, where both sides are roughly even in width. This factor, plus the millimetre or two of "wiggling" required to dislodge the weapon, would more than account for the failure of Dr. Kileen to rule out a knife and/or narrow down the implement to a two-sided blade.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

It was not until that report went lost that you could question this.

Ah yes, the good old "lost report" syndrome. "We don't have it now, but when it existed, it must have said the following". You must be aware by now of my thoughts on the elusive spectre that is the "lost report".

if the three inches or so that Killeen could read were thin and seemingly frail

But you cannot possibly detect "frailty of weapon" from the type of wounds inflicted on Tabram, and you certainly shouldn't conclude that a thin wound must always indicate a thin knife. As Mike pointed out, the more superficial the wound, the lesser the chances of identifying the length or strength of the weapon. A full whack from a thin, "frail" knife could create a near identical wound to that created by a not-quite-so-full whack from a far sturdier weapon.

we have very good reason to assume that the length had been established, and a combination of bruising and 37 corresponding depths

But there's no evidence that the length had been established, or even that there was any means of establishing the length. Nor was there any evidence of bruising. Nor was there any evidence of "corresponding depths", whatever that means. So we don't have "very good reason to assume" any of that.

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!

Un-"wow". Yes, I do actually think I'm in a position to conclude this, because Killeen did not cite the shape of the wound as a reason for suggesting a dagger as a possible candidate for the sternum wound. Had the shape of the wound announced a "two-sided weapon" beyond any reasonable doubt, this would have been the decisive factor for any non-crap doctor to highlight.

Now, Ben, I have offered lots of good points on this thread

Whatever you reckon. We can all compliment ourselves, Fish. I have offered amazing insights on this thread, and I'm a sexy bastard to boot. See? Just like that. But I'm glad you agree to agree to disagree, as I feel that all angles have been thrashed out here, and that further repetition would be essentially unreasonable.

I have missed our lengthy exchanges. I fib ye not.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

With all due respect, what are these guarantees based on?

Ben, as much as I might be ashamed to admit it, I speak from experience.

A strong folding knife locks into place when extended, and if the pressure was exerted on the non-folding joint, there would be no reason for the knife to glance off or fold back.

Depending on design, Ben.
Clasp-knives are not intended for stabbing, they are designed for slicing.

Grasp one with a tight fist and stab hard and, depending on the type of retaining mechanism, the blade could snap if the 'clasp' is a sturdy design.
If not, then your fingers grasping the body/handgrip can trip the 'clasp' due to the applied force, thats what happened with me.

I realise that a clasp knife only has "one cutting edge", but it was not as though the other edge is completely rounded or squared, and an oft-overlooked point is that a knife could so easily be ground down on either side.

How would you pull the blade out if it was?
Take a look at all these examples, the design requires a stout back for the notch so the user can pull out the blade.

http://www.allaboutpocketknives.com/knife_forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=9829

This factor, plus the millimetre or two of "wiggling" required to dislodge the weapon, would more than account for the failure of Dr. Kileen to rule out a knife and/or narrow down the implement to a two-sided blade.

Wiggling a blade in a wound leaves very distinct laceration marks in the muscle or tissue beneath the bone. It's very obvious what has been done to remove a blade. Such an action does not fool anyone looking to identify the size of blade used. The heart would have been shreaded.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

I will guarantee you that any folding blade "pen-knife" design, when hit directly at a rounded hard object, will glance off and fold the blade back and quite possibly cut your fingers off.
To go through a hard object like a breastbone you will certainly need a fixed blade.
Regards, Jon S.

True, but Killeen didn't mean it was a folding knife. He said : 38 stabs could have been done by any kind of ordinary knives, including a penknife. How could he know the knife was a folding one or not ? That was impossible to determine.
As an aside note, I suppose victorian folding knives were certainly stronger than most of ours. They were not made in China at the time.

[Fisherman]

Ben, you bring up two points that I feel I need to counter. These are the ones:

1. "Ah yes, the good old "lost report" syndrome. "We don't have it now, but when it existed, it must have said the following".

...and

2. "Had the shape of the wound announced a "two-sided weapon" beyond any reasonable doubt, this would have been the decisive factor for any non-crap doctor to highlight."

These two points both adher to Killeens information at the inquest, a point that apparently has been sorely misunderstood by some.

To begin with, I do hope that you are not of the meaning that there was never any autopsy report? Or is this what you are implying - that I made it up on my own?

Any which way, let´s for sanity´s sake work from the premise that Tabram was not the only violent murder case that did not result in such a report! Now, we cannot tell what was in that report more than to a general degree: it would have had Killeens findings noted as regards all aspects of the state of Tabrams body after the assault.

If we take the sternum hole, for example, we can be very certain that this was not omitted in the report. The depth of the wound would have been measured, and so would the entrance hole have been. The shape of the hole in the sternum would also have been described. If it was a knife that did it, then this would have been noted as a hole with one sharp edge and one squared or somewhat rounded end, together with measurements of the hole. If it was a dagger that did the damage, then it would have been noted that both sides of the blade made the imprint of a cutting edge.

This is nothing strange. It would have been a lot stranger if these particulars had NOT been noted, since the police would then have been left clueless.

Now, Ben, you say that without a doubt, if there were two cutting edges, then Killeen would have been called upon to say so at the inquest. This is not true. What Killeen was called upon to do was to establish by what means Tabram had met her fate, and this was exactly what he did - he said that the 37 minor stabs "might" have been inflicted by a knife.
Please note that Killeen must have known whether the weapon he described here had one or two cutting edges! He had seen 37 stabs, and this distinction would not have gone unnoticed by him; there is no realistic chance at all for it.

So why does Killeen not say that Tabram had been stabbed by a pocket-knife with a blade that had just the one cutting edge? If he was called upon to name the number of edges, like you say, then why was he not as exact and thorough as he could?
Because he was only called upon to establish why Tabram died, and she died because somebody punched holes in her with an instrument that might or might not have been a knife.

But scarce information like this, would it not keep the police in the dark?
Yes it would, but luckily they had the autopsy report. In THAT, the measurements and exact descriptions were written down, the way they are in autopsy reports. Furthermore, the police also had Killeen to ask about things, like for example: "What is your best guess when it comes to the exact type of weapon?" And even more lucky, we have it from newspaper clippings how the doctor would have answered: he had no doubts that a pocket-knife answered that question best, as stated in the East London Observer of the 18th. "No doubt" it would have been that kind of knife, Killeen had said. My conviction is that this owed to the fact that a pocket-knife is folded and easily carried in your pockets. There were numerous accounts too in which Killeen mentioned a pen-knife. This would be since such a knife has a blade that looks exactly the same a a pocket-knife blade, answering to what Killeen had seen at the slab - but a pen-knife is less easy to bring along since it will cut holes in your pockets, being unfoldable. Thus the pocket-knife choice, methinks.

So now we are beginning to get a grip on things, and we can understand why he was equally vague about the larger weapon at the inquest! He stated that it was presumably something like a dagger. And he was just as silent about how many edges a dagger has as he had been about the same thing when it comes to knives. And the reason was exactly the same - no matter if it was a dagger or a zulu spear, it had punched a big hole in Tabram, travelling through her heart, and thus it had had effect on her health status. And THAT was all the inquest was asking to know.

This is why Killeen worded himself the way he did at that inquest. Of course, it would have been nice - and useful to us - if no autopsy report had been written, because then it would have been of paramount importance that ALL features that could help in the hunt for Tabram´s killer were presented at the inquest, for the benefit of the police. But one may imagine what that would have resulted in - that inquest would still have been going on when MacKenzie was killed...!

No, Killeen made the exact performance that he was called upon to do, and thus enabled the inquest to reach their verdict of a murder by person or persons unknown. In fact, the coroner made a point of how pleased he was about Killeens performance, stating that he had given his evidence "very well indeed".
Is there anybody who thinks that the coroner suppressed a wish to instead criticize Killeen for not going further into the exact shape of the wounds? I would hope not.

You may also have noted that Killeen said nothing about the clenched hands of Tabram. Would it not have been of colossal interest to get knowledge of the killer´s very probable strangulation of the victim? Such a thing would surely belong to what we needed to know about the perpetrator?

Absolutely. But guess where it was to be found? Correct - in the autopsy report. And why? Because it did not kill Tabram, and was thus only of interest to the aim of the police and NOT to the aim of the inquest.

Or are you of the meaning that this was NOT in the autopsy report?

Next up: we know that there was an effusion of blood on Tabrams skull. This would clearly indicate that the killer may have knocked her on the head, and thus silenced her.

Did Killeen mention this all-important information at the inquest? Nope. He stayed silent as the grave about it. And why? Had he forgotten about it? I should say not. But! Once again, he knew that it did not kill Tabram, and therefore it did not belong to the matters that the inquest needed to ponder when trying to establish what killed her.

Now, Ben, do you think that the effusion was in the autopsy report or not? That is IF there was an autopsy report at all ...? Since it has not been found, who knows?

Now, let´s finally return to the knife wounds. To what extent did it have an impact on Tabrams fate if the weapons that did the damage were double- or single-edged? Exactly so - to no extent at all. And therefore Killeen had no business elaborating on it in any fashion. She had had two different types of instruments, obviously sharp such ones, punched into her body, and these punches had struck vital organs and caused damage enough to kill her. Case closed, as regards the inquest! Simple as!

Therefore, it is a little bit of a bonus that Killen DOES give us the information we need, that it WAS a knife AND a dagger. And since the inquest was held on the afternoon of the 9th, AFTER Killeens post-mortem and compilation of the autopsy report, we can safely assume that Edmund Reid, sitting in the inquest room, could relate to that autopsy report as he listened to Killeen giving his inquest information. And when Killeen got to the point where he mentioned the hole in the chest and stated clearly that the weapon that had caused it had been dagger-like, Reid would have known that this corresponded with what was written in Killeens autopsy report and with what he had seen himself. Through Killeens work, Reid would have known by now how deep the wound was, how broad and it´s exact shape in the sternum imprint. And that, incidentally, made him form the opinion that the killer was a military man. One wonders why...? Well, not me, to be honest!

So you see, Ben, it all adds up, once you know what an inquest is aiming at and how an autopsy report is compiled and why. And when you speak of "the elusive spectre that is the "lost report" and go on about why Killeen must have mentioned things that were totally irrelevant to Tabram´s cause of death, whereas we full well know that other elements that were equally irrelevant in this respect – but all-important to the investigation as such! – it only goes to show that you have seemingly failed to grasp these things.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

as rightly pointed out by Jon, Killeen spoke somewhat "colloquially" at the inquest.
Then do you think that, as soon as they heard "dagger" and "bayonet", everybody thought instinctively "two cutting edges" ?

'Dagger' seems to evoke a strong knife, it evokes hunters, or perhaps some Florentine knife from the 16th century...while 'bayonet' evokes the army.

And for the last time, if that particular wound was caused by something with 2 cutting edges, why wasn't Killeen adamant on this point ?
That was the main revelation/suggestion of his autopsy. That Martha was dead and had been stabbed many times was already known.

[DVV]

From the Larousse dictionary, 1952 (the oldest I have handy at present):

Dague : arme de main à lame large et courte.

Baïonnette : sorte de petite épée qui s'adapte au bout d'un fusil.

None of them is defined by "two cutting edges" as its distinctive feature.
But this we know very well already, thanks to Magpie.

[Fisherman]

David:

"do you think that, as soon as they heard "dagger" and "bayonet", everybody thought instinctively "two cutting edges" ?"

I think, David, that those who had taken part of the autopsy report recognized it, whereas those who had not may or may not have pondered the inherent meaning of "dagger" - that it had two cutting edges. The all-important factor here, though, is that they did not in any way NEED to know or ponder it. The aim of the inquest was NOT to establish the number of edges, just as it was not to give information about details that had relevance to the investigation but NOT to the inquest.

Did you not read my last post ...???

"'Dagger' seems to evoke a strong knife, it evokes hunters, or perhaps some Florentine knife from the 16th century...while 'bayonet' evokes the army."

Yes? And ...?

"if that particular wound was caused by something with 2 cutting edges, why wasn't Killeen adamant on this point ? "

Once again, did you miss my last post? Because, David, it was not of importance to the inquest. It had nothing at all to do with the question why she died. She would have died regardless of the number of edges. The subject as such was of importance to the following investigation only, but there it was of paramount importance! So ask yourself where the police searched for all that case-related information that they needed to know to optimize their chances to solve the crime!
Did Killeens omitting to mention the two edges in any way impair the investigation, do you think? Was all he knew and all he had established lost to the police by means of his "colloquial" attitude - commanded by the coroner! - at the inquest? Do the police work from the inquest or from the detailed autopsy reports?

What is it about this that is so hard to understand? Why do you not crave that Killeen should have spoken about the blood effusion? That would have added information about the crime that would have been much more useful in understanding the MO of the killer, would it not.
Yes, it would - but the inquest could not be bothered with it, since - just like the two edges – it had zero impact on Tabrams death as such.

NOW do you see what I am saying?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From "Your perfect guide to collectible daggers", http://www.2-clicks-swords.com/artic...-a-dagger.html

"In spite of their blackened reputation, collectible daggers have never lost their popularity. They are increasingly regarded with importance and respected as an invaluable part of any serious sword collection. For collectors, starting an interest on these “small” swords would pay off along the way.

Definition of dagger

What is a dagger? A dagger has the size of a knife. It is a one-handed, bladed shortsword made up of TWO CUTTING EDGES (my highlighting) tapering to a sharp point along the centerline of the blade. Its tang extends too through the centerline with a wooden or metallic hilt. It is used for stabbing and thrusting. It can also be used for cutting, as its edges are sharp enough to slash through flesh, wood, and other objects.

Parts of a dagger

There are two basic parts of a dagger: the hilt (which includes the guard, grip, and pommel) and the blade (which includes the ricasso, cutting edge, fuller, and point).

What is a dagger hilt

The hilt is the part of the dagger where the hand is fitted for holding and control. It is usually called a handle, because it is the only part where the human holder is safe. Below are some of basic parts of the hilt:

• Dagger Grip is the major part of the hilt. It is what the hand holds when wielding the dagger. Japanese daggers have beautiful shark skin wrapped around the grip to improve control. Other ancient knife swords have wood, animal skins, leather, and thick cords.

• Dagger Guard is a barrier that protects the hand from slipping to and being wounded accidentally by the sharpened edges. For daggers, the guard is usually made of wood or metal and range from a simple cross-guard (a bar perpendicular to the blade) to elaborate basket hilts.

• Dagger Pommel is a relatively heavy metal placed at the end of the hilt. In martial arts, putting some weight at the end of the dagger would counterbalance the weight of the blade. The pommel provides the swordsman an improved performance, better handling, and more control.



What is a dagger blade

The blade is the sharpened part of the dagger. It consists of:

• Dagger Ricasso is the unsharpened part of the blade to enable the handler to place some fingers without being wounded

• Dagger Cutting edge is the sharpened part of the blade responsible for cutting.

• Dagger Fuller is the hardened groove along the centerline of the dagger. The fuller makes it possible for the dagger to be swung, hit a hard object, and suffer no chips or breaking afterwards.

• Dagger Point, also called tip, is the end of the blade, often rigidly sharpened, and fatal for stabbing or thrusting action of the dagger.

Difference between dagger and knife

Dagger is sometimes confused with knife since it is of the same size and length. The main difference between them is design. Knife has only one cutting edge. Its point is either absent (which means, it is primarily for household use such as chopping) or prominent (which means that it can be used for slitting and, sometimes, as a weapon). The dagger, on the other hand, has TWO CUTTING EDGES (my highligting) with a prominent point.

Another difference lies in their primary use. The dagger is more effective for stabbing. A sharp point is powerful in opening or inflicting wounds. The gradual, equal increase of the dagger’s blade toward the hilt and the two cutting edges cause fatal mortal damage as it is driven deeply to the wound. The knife, on the other hand, is more effective for cutting. This distinction is hardly rigid, since both dagger and knife can be used either way.

Difference between dagger and other combat swords

A dagger is sometimes called knife sword and small sword. There are two other varieties, called long dagger and shortsword, that are too long to be called a dagger and too short to be called a sword. The table below illustrates the difference between these combat swords:

Type of Sword
Sword Example
Sword Blade Length (in)
Dagger Tanto(Japanese dagger) between 6in – 12 in
Long Dagger Pugio(Old Roman dagger) between 12in - 17in
Shortsword Gladius(Old Roman shortsword) between 17in – 24in
Sword Knight Arming Sword between 24in – 35in
Longsword European Knights Templar Longsword over 35 in

Use of daggers

The dagger was used as a backup to the longer axes and maces. This was necessary, obviously, as the dagger lacks in reach and force that axes and maces can provide. This was also practical, because metalworking around 3rd millennium BC was crude and mining of ores was limited and labor-intensive. Ancient blades were forged from weak metal alloys of copper, bronze, and iron. These materials become brittle (their tensile strength will give in to stress) when they are made into long blades.

Daggers as a close-combat shortsword

The dagger became instrumental when somehow, the use of axes and maces proved to be cumbersome to carry for ordinary infantrymen. As military tactics and formation became advanced and dynamic, close combat was fast becoming the central arena for fighting and showing valor on the battlefield.

Such evolution in warfare was coupled with the discovery of steel around 1st century BC. Smiths found a way of lengthening the dagger and the first of the ancient swords were produced. This breakthrough afforded the infantrymen to drop their axes and maces. From that time, the dagger became secondary to sword.

The survival of daggers

When heavy artillery and firearms were introduced to war, the use of swords waned correspondingly. Instead of being employed as primary weapons, the swords were carried symbolically by generals and other high-ranking military officials to manifest honor and prestige to their position.

It is surprising that daggers proved to be more resilient than swords. They survived through the sweeping change of arms technology. In 17th century, antique daggers were mounted onto the muzzle of longarms to produce bayonets and instant spears. They were continued to be used as killing weapons even when guns and bullets were preferable.

Royal and Religious daggers

There are daggers however that have never been used in the battlefield. Some of them were meant to be a display of power, authority, and affluence, such as those carried by kings and royal family members. Still some were meant to be a symbol of reverence and respect, such as those used for religious purposes.

They are often designed with elaborate accessories. They are forged, enmeshed, or hammered together with other precious metals such as gold and silver. They are inlayed with rare gemstones especially on the guard and pommel. Markings are often found etched on the blade. For instance, some Indian daggers are carved with the faces of the deities. Ancient Arab swords and daggers bear quotes taken from Holy Koran.

Famous daggers

Admittedly, daggers are not a popular as swords. But starting to collect daggers as a hobby is an even more exciting endeavor. Because daggers are fewer, they would command heftier prices than swords. They are also somewhat difficult to search for, which make their discovery more romantic and adventurous. Historical daggers are also rich with tales of treachery and betrayal, which makes them even more precious.

To tease your interest with daggers, here are some of perfect masterpieces that you can start viewing for appreciation:

• Ear dagger is a medieval shortsword famous for its Moorish design. Its prominent part is the oversized, oval pommel, which looked like and has almost the same size of a human ear (hence its name). For its design, museum curators consider it as a very rare European dagger.

• The famous gold encrusted dagger of Shah Jahan, the Indian ruler who commissioned the construction of Taj Mahal in India. A collector in the ’60s brought it for only a thousand dollars. However, it was traded for $3 million when it was auctioned in April, 2008. It only proves that knowledgeable collectors are inviting money into their homes when they get hold of valuable daggers.

• Topkapi dagger is a very rare antique shortsword now on display in a museum in Turkey. It is a priceless 16th century dagger considered to be the pinnacle of ancient Turkish bladesmithing. Its golden hilt holds three big emerald stones and the scabbard is covered in diamonds."

... plus, of course, there would be some reason for naming this weapon "dagger" instead of just saying knife. But hey, maybe that´s just me...?

The best,
Fisherman