Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Do you actually read what people say?"

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.

Let´s 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?

And if you have done so, does that mean that you are of the opinion that Killeen dealt in guesswork in this respect?

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. It´s way too kindergartenish to my taste, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fsherman

Sally tries to sell in the view that Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion,

What utter nonsense. Once again - where have I said this? That is not what I said and I'm sure you know it. This is now the third time that I have asked you to point out where people have said what you claim - in other words, to justify what you claim - and so far you have failed to do so.

Do you actually read what people say? Or do you not understand, perhaps?

[Fisherman]

One more thing in connection with your suggestion that it defies belief that a killer would ever have chgosen a less effective weapon over a larger, more deadly one. I will put it to you in the form of a question:

Are you of the meaning that people who perform frenzied stabbings normally weigh the options involved carefully? Or could it be that a frenzied stabberis punching away in a fury, oblivious of any weighing at all?

If somebody is possesed by a bloodred fury, and quite beside himself, being able to focus on nothing but the urge to kill another person - will that somebody search the woods for the optimally sized and weighted stone before bashing the head of his victim in? Or will he go for any stone that may do the job?

What do you think, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That’ll be the weapon he could have used from the outset, presumably? So all this stabbing that he engaged in with the "smallish blade"; the one that was failing to kill Martha Tabram, and which was causing him untold panic over the possibility of his victim surviving and dobbing him in – he could have avoided these problems by using his bigger, better weapon from the beginning of the attack? He had the option, and chose to use the crapper one. "

Try and stab with a sword bayonet, Ben, and you may see my point. It is "unwieldy", remember? That is, IF it WAS a sword bayonet - which it well may have been. With a smallish yawn, I can assure you that a pocketknife - or the typical military clasp knife - are items that most soldiers will use infinitely more than the bayonet. It is a practical tool, and very easy to fetch out of your pocket, thus representing the number one choice on most occasions.

If a sinister killer was equipped with a small caliber handgun and a cannon from an 18th century merchant ship, you can bet your shirt that the latter would do more damage than the first if fired at a victim. And still, I thinkk most killers would - at least initially - prefer the smaller weapon over the larger one. A cannon, see, is much more "unwieldy" than a small handgun.

But go ahead and think it is EXTREMELY odd, if you wish!

"As for the double-killer, two-knife idea, I can’t help but wonder why Sergeant Stab was supplied with a lovely “long, strong instrument” while Corporal Cutter had to be content with a puny pocket-knife."

No, I bet it must be a mystery to you! 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, we may have a very simple explanation.
But maybe you don´t think it IS simple? Maybe you think it is totally weird to even imagine such a thing? In your universe, maybe such things could never happen?

"I’m afraid your suggestions, far from making my “troubles go away”, are more perplexing than ever."

No, no no - YOU are the one suggesting that the better idea is that Killeen was wrong. THERE´S "perplexing" for you. How could it be perplexing with two kiillers? Who - apart from you - would be perplexed to learn that some people are killed by two or more men? I know of nobody.

" There is no evidence that Kileen was "adamant" about any of his opinions"

Could not.

"He was certain that one of the wounds was “much the largest and the deepest” – that’s all he was certain of."

I take it you know that we are speaking of the Star reporter here, and not Killeen? And I also take it that we age agreed that you don´t know what that reporter was certain of or not?

"In the case of Abberline, however, his feelings about Tabram’s inclusion in the “ripper’s" tally are beyond rational dispute."

You´d wish! But rational dispute is exactly what you have been presented with.

"Had it been otherwise, he would never have cited the George Yard connection as a pro on favour of Klosowski having been the ripper."

That´s citing things in a backward manner, Ben. What I am telling you is that he did not necessarily cite the George Yard connection as a pro in this context at all. All it would have taken for him to point out the coincidence would have been that he knew that A/ Tabram was killed in George Yard, and B/ Chapman once lived there. No matter how we look upon it, it IS a coincidence. And this of course applies whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not. The coincidence is not less flagrant if she was NOT killed by the Ripper.

Abberline favourde Chapman as the killer. Right? Chapman once lived in George Yard, correct? Tabram was killed in George Yard, okay? THAT means that we have a coincidence. This was what Abberline said too. If he had said that it would have been MORE than a coincidence, then you would have had a point. If he had said that he suspected that it was not only a trick of fate, you would have been correct in what you suggest. But it is not until we move past the coincidence state that this occurs. Simple. Easy. And a VERY rational objection to your jump-the-gun suggestion.

"An opinion arrived at in the absence of all the necessary information."

You really need to ask Killeen about this, Ben. I don´t think he considered himself deprived of the necessary information.

"you ought to apologise"

Come again? Sally tries to sell in the view that Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion, and you want me to apologize for pointing out that this belittles the work of a professional medico? I think not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

next time, if you're going to lecture me about established facts, kindly present me with the real evidence, rather than sophisms

I wasn't "lecturing" you at all. You were the one lecturing me about the supposed folly of questioning any medical opinion from 1888, and you even went so far as to suggest that one would need to be a "deity" in order to challenger their opinions, which is ludicrous. It is an absolute ironclad certainty that senior doctors made errors with regard to ripper-attributed victims, and more often than not, the doctors responsible for those errors had considerably more experience than Kileen.

Yes, I most certainly do "close my mind" to the suggestion that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, for the simple reason that, when viewed from a criminological perspective - a perspective that a lot of keyboard warriors and internet hobbyists eschew out of ignorance - that suggestion is rendered unutterably absurd.

What I am claiming is that the shape of the blade left in the bone would help Killeen determine the type of blade which made it.

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

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"again - who says 'Killeen was wrong'? Where?"

This is getting tiresome, Sally. Ben says that it is more probable that he was wrong than right. And YES, that does not mean that he says that Killeen WAS wrong, but if we are to keep up your line of inquiry, I think that the time has come for me to ask who has said that somebody has said that he WAS wrong.

Everybody knows, Sally, that it would be nuts to state that Killen was wrong. That is because the evidence points away from it, and it cannot in any fashion at all be concluded that he must have been wrong. So the discussion you are suggesting here is a moot, tiresome and unneccesary one.

The discussion whether it is reasonable to suggest that it is more credible to state that Killeen would have been wrong than right, is another thing, though. That discussion MUST be conducted, since if it was allowed to state such a thing and pass it off like some sort of truth, we would be doing scientific thinking and evidence evaluation a great disservice. It is a baseless suggestion that flies in the face of what evidence there is, and that needs to be pointed out.

I hope I have made myself perfectly clear in this respect. I KNOW that it cannot be conclusively proven that Killeen was either wrong or right. I have read the material existing and I am in no way interested in peddling any extremistic view - in fact, I fully support the traditional one, the evidencebased one, the logical one, and I am quite happy with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Oh I think Dave would give you an argument on that point

So you think a simple local doctor with no forensic experience was fit for that job ?

[Sally]

Well, speaking for myself, I have never called a witness a liar.

How charmingly naïve.

Because of course, no historic witness was ever untruthful, forgetful, or just plan wrong; and people in Olden Times were infallible.

I don't see what the fuss is about. An opinion is just that, not a scientific fact - and questioning and examining is what this site is all about - isn't it?

Or do you really think we should all accept what people thought at the time without question, like good little sheep?

If everybody had 'known' the truth in the past then the case would have been solved at the time, there would be no mystery, no questions, and no Casebook either. The case would not be the enigma it is today. You like to go on about the application of logic, but do you really suppose that people in Olden Times couldn't do that as well as you?

The contemporary theory of the two naughty soldiers rests mainly on the testimony of Mary Ann Connelly, who was just about number 1 reluctant witness. As far as I can see, she did what she could to avoid being involved - presumably because she was scared. As such, its hard to tell how reliable her eventual testimony is, how much is missing.

It's not as simple as you make out.

[harry]

Jon,(in reply to post 06.09)
And had Smith lived it would still be three attackers?,and had Stride lived there would still be BS and Pipeman,whether they were fact or fiction. There is no evidence of two weapons nor two assailants in Tabram's killing.There is opinion ,that is all.As to the shape of the wound to the sternum,Kileen did not detail such so I don't know.He only opinions a long slender weapon made it.How long? well you tell me.Certainly no longer than needed to reach and pierce the heart.In answer to your last sentence,I know from an historian's description,much as we know of Tabram's wounds from a newspaperman,s description.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
What has Emma Smith's attack have in common with that on Martha Tabram.The weapons were different,and Smith was able to attest in part to her attackers.

Harry.
It was merely a means of pointing out that "simple logic" can lead to the wrong conclusions.
It is not a fact the Smith was attacked by three males, this was just her claim.
Had Smith died at the scene "simple logic" when applied to the evidence of blunt-force trauma by one weapon would lead us to assume a single attacker.
We would be wrong, wouldn't we?

Simple logic, when applied incorrectly can lead to erroneous conclusions.


What we have with Tabram is evidence of two weapons used, but not necessarily two attackers.
Some might claim that one attacker carried two weapons, or that two attackers had a different weapon each. Conversely, due to the many "clasp-knife-type" wounds, being as many as 38, it is not out of the question that two separate men carried a clasp-knife, and a third carried a dagger. Being three attackers in all.

There is no benefit in claiming "simple logic" can be applied to discount Killeen's determination that the wounds were physically distinct.

I am not sidestepping anything.I have argued that a penknife can pierce the sternum.Tabrams sternum was pierced.A penknife could have done it,or are you argueing such an occurance in Tabrams case was impossible?

Not at all. What I am claiming is that the shape of the blade left in the bone would help Killeen determine the type of blade which made it. Whereas in your examples the shape of the blade would certainly be that of a penknife.
That is the difference.

I am tired of hearing but "you weren't there".I wasn't at Waterloo either,but I have a fair idea of the weapons used and the injuries sustained.

Not from a doctors description you don't.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

Oh by the way...next time, if you're going to lecture me about established facts, kindly present me with the real evidence, rather than sophisms...

all the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

So do you think Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, Cogs?

Do you think Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00?

I only ask because if you don't accept either of these proposals, I guess you must be "some kind of deity", at least according to you

I'm quite open-minded on both issues - and because there is (so far) no firm evidence either way, so should you be...

best wishes

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Was it Sergeant Stab and Corporal Cutter, or was it Corporal Cutter and Private Prick?

[harry]

Jon,
What has Emma Smith's attack have in common with that on Martha Tabram.The weapons were different,and Smith was able to attest in part to her attackers.There is no comparison between the blunt instrument and a knife,but there is comparison between a weapon such as a knife used in one crime and a weapon such as a knife used in another.I am not sidestepping anything.I have argued that a penknife can pierce the sternum.Tabrams sternum was pierced.A penknife could have done it,or are you argueing such an occurance in Tabrams case was impossible?Kileen himself states the other wounds could have been caused by a penknife type weapon.I am tired of hearing but "you weren't there".I wasn't at Waterloo either,but I have a fair idea of the weapons used and the injuries sustained.

[Ben]

Frankly, unless you can outright prove the doctor wrong, you've got to think you're some kind of deity to query that sort of evidence after this many years...

So do you think Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, Cogs?

Do you think Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00?

I only ask because if you don't accept either of these proposals, I guess you must be "some kind of deity", at least according to you.

Unfortunately, if your suggestion is that everything the 1888 doctors said must be correct unless we can "prove" them wrong, you'll end up in one heck of a pickle when contemplating ripper-related matters. It would mean Eddowes and Chapman were killed by the same AND different people, Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00 AND after 5.00, Eddowes was killed by someone who deliberately sought a kidney, but had no design on any particular organ, and so on.

Can't say I envy being a "deity", if that's the case.

Edit: "it was an equally poor candidate for the sternum wound", I meant, of course.