Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[harry]

Who are the two other people that agree with you Sally?Are there only two or was that a guess.Certainly I agree with you.I asked the question of how long a blade was needed to reach and pierce the heart.There is no indication of Kileen supplying the answer in relation to Tabram,nor indeed as Ben says,supplying details of the shape of the weapon.The only descriptions we have is given in a generalised way,could have been this could have been that.As a penetration depth through the body into the heart of only two inches ,has been given to a court.one might reasonably use that as a starting point

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“It is only in your thought processes "some" means "all".”

No, this wasn’t my point at all. The central bullet point that you need to take away from the Home Office document is that whichever wounds were initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted – one, some, all of them, it doesn’t matter – they were ultimately considered not to have been bayonet-inflicted. A bayonet is thus exonerated of any likely involvement in the Tabram affair, according to that annotation. The Home Office wouldn’t dream of discounting the bayonet for “some” of the wounds, whilst neglecting to mention that such a weapon was still in contention as the probable offending weapon for others. The brains of normally functioning human beings don't work like that. The Home Office bayonet-discounting annotation was only in response to that wound, or those wounds, that were initially suspected of having been inflicted by a bayonet.

“Read my lips, Ben: "some" means "a portion of", whereas "all" means each and every one.”

Don’t antagonise me with patronising and inflammatory nonsense, Fisherman. It works out badly for you every time. I’m quite aware of that oh-so-subtle distinction, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve said of suggested.

“Surely you must accept that "coincidence" does NOT mean "proven connection"!”

Ah, but unless you can’t read properly, you’ll notice I never suggested any such thing. Of course Abberline did not consider the connection “proven”, for the simple reason that he could no more prove Klosowski the ripper than he could prove Tabram a ripper victim. Abberline's central observation behind the Klosowski-related content of his 1903 interview was that he was the most likely suspect for the Whitechapel murders. He listed various details that he felt pointed towards that conclusion, and the American and George Yard connection were two such examples.

If he didn’t consider Tabram a ripper victim, he completely undermined – and made a stupid, laughable nonsense of – his reference to the George Yard/Klosowski connection. When Abberline referred to various connections, he described them as “remarkable” – remarkable in the sense that they lent weight, in his opinion, to the proposal that Klosowski was the ripper. If Tabram was not one of Jacks, the George Yard connection is irrelevant, and would be an eccentrically pointless thing to include on a list of factors in favour of Klosowski-as-ripper.

So yes, Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim, as accepted by Sugden (who therefore “faults your version” as I do), and when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder. He clearly didn’t mean the first murder in general because that would have described Emma Smith, and not Tabram.

But I’m prepared to reiterate all this forever, and I hope to goodness we can go round in endless repetitive on Abberline, Tabram and Klosowski. Let’s see if we can all outlast Ben in a battle of zealotry, prolixity and stamina. It’s such an irresistible challenge, isn’t it?

[Ben]

Ah, good. So Sally gets short shrift and I get the Magna Carta. Twas ever thus!

[Fisherman]

Sally!

After having read your last post, I have but one thing to say: Goodnight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Which it very probably wasn’t, actually, according to the Home Office document, which rejected the idea that a bayonet had any involvement in the murder."

So you persist with this utter nonsense. You and I both know that the Home Office annotations SPECIFICALLY said that that SOME of THE NARROW WOUNDS were originally thought to have been caused by a bayonet. And when you say "some", guess what you mean? Exactly: "some".

It is only in your thought processes "some" means "all". It is a completely and utterly irrational stance, and I can see no other reason for it than a desperate wish not to have to admit that "some of the narrow wounds" actually MEANS some of the narrow wounds and NOT all of the wounds, including the large one. It is beyond comprehension to argue such a thing. How on earth did you arrive at such a conclusion? You could just as well claim that "pea soup" should reads "pizza".
Read my lips, Ben: "some" means "a portion of", whereas "all" means each and every one. Surely you DO know that, yes?

"So this is your preferred scenario for the Tabram murder now, is it?"

I donīt HAVE a "preferred" scenario for it, Ben. YOU have. I try to listen and learn. If I hold a conviction of "many" and am informed that "some" is what applies, I pick up on that and adjust my view accordingly.
I do not need to lock myself to any view at all. Thus I do not NEED to read "some" as "many". It is a liberating feeling, I can assure you. I own the material, instead of having it own me.

" It is equally clear ..."

But Ben, why would I trust somebody who cannot tell "some" from "all" to teach me about what is clear or not? I am a lot more discerning than that.

"We know this ..."

Donīt "we" me, Ben. I disagree very much, and I have given you a very good reason to do so. In fact, I would regard it as an intellectual duty, more or less, to realize that there are other interpretations to this then your preferred one.
You need to take some time to think things over, Ben. Surely you must accept that "coincidence" does NOT mean "proven connection"! If you and me should wear the same sort of shoes tomorrow, that would be a coincidence. But would it prove premeditation or an agreement to do so? No.

"The primary focus of the Abberline interview was the promotion of Klosowski as the likely murderer, and Abberline was citing the evidence in favour of that theory. If he did’t think Tabram was killed by Klosowsk-the-ripper, the George Yard connection means NOTHING. It’s a non-observation, a non-coincidence, non-“remarkable”, and pitiable in its utter worthlessness and irrelevance. "

Concentrate yourself, Ben. I will take you by the hand and lead you ever so gently along the road to understanding what I am talking about!

Assume that Abberline WAS convinced that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Would the correlation we are looking at be a coincidence in such a case? No, it would actually not. It would be a perfectly logical thing: Tabram was killed in George Yard, Chapman lived there, Chapman was Abberlineīs bid, so no coincidence, only a logical sequence.

Now, Ben instead assume that Abberline only considered Tabram a POTENTIAL victim of the Ripper. In fact, assume that he really did not think Tabram WAS Jacks, but he felt that he could not close the door on that possibility altogether. He thus kept it ajar, ever so slightly. And he admitted that if Tabram was not Jacks, it would still have been an almighty coincidence that she was killeed in George Yard where Chapman lived ,any which way one looked at things.
The two things coincided. They made a coincidence. Easy.

This should not be too hard to grasp, should it? I mean, I know that you favour your own solution, but I fail to see how you - or anybody - could fault my version.

BOTH versions may be true. None can be proven.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Those paragraphs are given in the third-person, they are paraphrase, not quotes.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of a difference. The reason given for his preference for a two-weapon scenario was his impression that the sternum-wounding weapon needed to be long and strong. That's an incredibly good "idea" of what he said. His explanation has been recorded, and unfortunately, it has nothing at all do with these imaginary alternative explanations that you keep conjuring up from nowhere. Had there been a better, more substantial, more compelling reason for his preference, he would have provided it. You get a grip.

[Wickerman]

Rubbish!, you have no idea what Killeen said, none of us do. Those paragraphs are given in the third-person, they are paraphrase, not quotes.

The press reporter condensed Killeen's explanation of which wounds were caused by the smaller weapon and which were caused by the larger weapon.
There's no explanation of how he knew a larger weapon was used, just which was caused by it.
Get a grip!

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

No he would not, this is absurd. The doctor is not required to explain himself.

But he did explain himself.

Whether he was obliged to or not, he provided a reason for suggesting that two weapons were used, and that reason had fcuk all to do with weapon shape, number of cutting sides, or any of that nonsense. His preference for the two-weapon idea was based on the apparent length and strength of the weapon required for the sternum wound, in his opinion. Only a clueless idiot would present an inferior reason for preferring a two-weapon hypothesis when he had the opportunity to present a much better one - a reason that would establish beyond question that two knives were used. Of course he was not required to explain himself, BUT HE DID, and his explanation was not in accordance with any of that oft puked-out nonsense regarding the number of cutting edges on a knife versus a dagger.

[Wickerman]

Because Kileen would have said so.

No he would not, this is absurd. The doctor is not required to explain himself. He is asked for his opinion and this is all he is required to give, unless requested to explain further.

When Phillips describes the weapon used on Annie Chapman, he is not required to justify his conclusions, he merely states:
"It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer."

Why not 4 inch long, or 12 inch long?, or a wide blade?, surely he would have to justify this rather precise conclusion - rubbish!

When Gordon-Brown was asked a similar question about the wounds to Eddowes, he replied:
"It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long."

No reason given, no justification necessary, why?, because he is not required to explain himself.

When Phillips, once again, was asked how long McKenzie had been dead, he offers:
"Not more than half an hour, and very possibly a much shorter time."

No questions of, "how do you know this?", why not?, because he is expected to provide his educated opinion without justification, unless specifically requested.

Your Straw-man arguments are absurd.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

I agree! I think that there are exactly two people agreeing with you.

Oh Good - A Poll! Would you like to decide how the question should be phrased so that you won't find it invalid?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“That is, IF it WAS a sword bayonet - which it well may have been.”

Which it very probably wasn’t, actually, according to the Home Office document, which rejected the idea that a bayonet had any involvement in the murder. If it made for an unwieldy, implausible weapon for the multiple stab wounds, it made for an unwieldy, implausible weapon for the sternum wound too. Bob Hinton, whose knowledge of weaponry is superior to ours and almost certainly Kileen’s, doesn’t consider a bayonet a very likely weapon either. I don’t dispute that soldiers may have carried clasp knives, but a sturdy clasp knife is also perfectly capable of injuring a centimetre-thick sternum.

The more you compare the sword bayonet to ancient cannons, the more you emphasize the already established reality that the former had nothing to do with any of the wounds inflicted on Martha Tabram. If the killer had a handgun and a ship’s canon, he wouldn’t use the latter at all. Just so with the pocket-knife and sword bayonet respectively.

“But if the former stabbed Tabram in a frenzy, and if the latter arrived at the scene and helped out to finish Tabram off, and dragged his frenzied partner from the scene”

So this is your preferred scenario for the Tabram murder now, is it? “Hey, Sarge, what are you doing, mate?! You’ve gone crazy! Get off her. If you want to kill a prostitute, THIS is how you should do it!”. What kindred spirits they must have become at that point. At first, they were simple chums who shared the good things in life – drink and prozzies, but in the early hours of the morning, they discover a shared affinity for homicidal mania. Maybe they both liked tennis too. Honestly, come back “Scavenger theory”, all is forgiven.

Most accounts of Kileen's evidence do not report him as having declared " no doubt" that the weapon used was an ordinary pocket knife. If you examine other sources, it it quite clear that he thought the wounds would "probably" have been caused by an "ordinary knife". It is equally clear that he was only prepared to offer his opinion that two weapons were used, instead of one. And that IS guesswork, like it or lump it. It's opining in the absence of all the facts, and nobody begrudges him that.

“But rational dispute is exactly what you have been presented with.”

Oh, is that what you thought it was? It’s just that it came across as you simply latching onto a tangential post from another member and starting a separate, unconvincing argument with me about it. Abberline was most assuredly, irrefutably citing the George Yard connection as a plus in favour of Klosowski-as-ripper. We know this because he described those perceived pluses as “remarkable”. He considered it “remarkable” that the murders continued in America after the Whitechapel murders supposedly ceased, and considered it an indication that Klosowski crossed the pond in search of more body parts to give to his American doctor. It is one example of a “coincidence” that is supposed to lend support to Klosowski-as-ripper. The George Yard connection is another one, according to Abberline.

The primary focus of the Abberline interview was the promotion of Klosowski as the likely murderer, and Abberline was citing the evidence in favour of that theory. If he did’t think Tabram was killed by Klosowsk-the-ripper, the George Yard connection means NOTHING. It’s a non-observation, a non-coincidence, non-“remarkable”, and pitiable in its utter worthlessness and irrelevance.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

And how can you assert such a claim?

Because Kileen would have said so. It would have been the primary reason for his two-weapon hypothesis. Why two weapons, Doctor? Aha, because one wound was definitely not created by a knife. This never happened. The only reason he cited for the two weapons theory was the apparent length and strength of the weapon required, in his opinion, to penetrate the sternum. Size and durability, yes. Shape, no, or else he'd have specified as much.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"More bluster and prevarication. Again. Where Have I Said that 'Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion'? I am quite aware of what I've said, thanks - and it wasn't that. "

So, more of the semantics, hmm? Okay:

You have said that Killeen GUESSED about the wounds. Maybe you did not say EXACTLY "Killeen guessed about the wounds", but in essence, this is what you said. I hope you will not contest this, since I do not wish to spebnd the rest of my days searching for your posts and finding the exact wordings you have used.

Therefore, I sincerely hope that you donīt think that I have misrepresented you by saying that you have stated that Killeen GUESSED about the wounds.

Now, donīt loose track of thing, just follow and we well get there!

Guessing about things is using guesswork. Please contest this if you wish. You may also agree, of course.

I stated that Killeen did NOT guess, but instead he offered an informed opinion. That is what you do after a post-mortem. Then you donīt HAVE to guess about things - you may instead offer an informed opinion.

But you insisted after my telling you that Killeen was dealing in informed opinions, that he instead guessed.

Now, we are arriving at the conclusion, Sally! Bear with me!

Doing what you did in this case amounts to having stated that Killen (in this respect) dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion.

I am not going to play ball with you any more on this particular issue. The posts are all there for all to see. And it STILL applies that doctors like Killeen, educated professionals who has performed a post-mortem on a murder victim with 39 wounds, do not "guess" what they have seen. They inform about their finds in a more superficial manner at an inquest, and they write an adjoining post-mortem report that goes much further into detail about the aspects involved. Thus, they do not have to resort to guessing. Nor did Killeen. The 37 smaller stabs gave away that they had been performed with a smallish knife, and indeed Killeen did say that it was no doubt an ordinary pocket-knife, thereby stating that the blade corresponded to that sort of weapon.
No guessing there, thus, just cold facts.
He aslo stated that there was a wound that did not correspond with the 37 small stabs, a wound that had been performed by a long, strong instrument, answering to what a big dagger would produce.
No guess anywhere near that one either. He also stated that a dagger OR a bayonet could have inflicted the wound.
Do you see, Sally, how Killeen conscientiously AVOIDS making any guess about which of the two weapontypes was the responsible one? He only offers the informed opinion that he has gathered by careful examination.

You need to be very wary about telling people that Killeen guessed. Why would he, if he didnīt have to? If he had the information that could be gathered from the wounds, then why guess? Why not instead say that the wounds very clearly pointed to a smallish knife and a daggerlike, long, strong instrument? Which was what he did, of course.

"Ho Ho Ho, very good. I bet I'm not the only one laughing at that one."

I agree! I think that there are exactly two people agreeing with you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, the shape of the wound had absolutely nothing do with with Kileen's opinion

And how can you assert such a claim?

- and it was only an opinion - that two weapons were used. Had it been otherwise, Kileen would certainly have cited "wound shape" as the primary reason for his two weapon hypothesis, but tellingly, he didn't.

You found his report?
No, of course not, you are once again making assumptions, then, jumping to conclusions.
The police saw Killeens "Surgeons Report", reference is made to it.

No, Killeen has no reason to outline his findings to the press, and you know this. Once again you create another Straw-man argument, only to shoot it down.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Oh yes, Sally, and a sad business it is sometimes. How about you, do you read what you say? For it seems that you have missed out this time.

More bluster and prevarication. Again. Where Have I Said that 'Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion'? I am quite aware of what I've said, thanks - and it wasn't that.

Letīs do it this way:
Have you ever stated that what I mean is an informed opinion on Killeens behalf (that there were two weapons involved) was in fact only a guess?

No. I have never stated that Killeen's opinion was 'only' a guess. I said it was essentially a guess, in fact I said it was an informed guess, but a guess nonetheless. Or do you contend that Killeen knew for a fact?

You have a tedious way of twisting and turning what people say, Sally, It is as unbecoming as it is detrimental to any rational discussion. With you, one finds oneself discussing semantics instead of the caserelated items of true interest. Itīs way too kindergartenish to my taste, Iīm afraid.

Oh yes, sure. But that's ok - if responding to a straight quesiton is all too 'Kindergartenish' for you, don't feel obliged to respond. I'll understand entirely.