Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

David:

"Certainly not, Fish. You're the one that takes that to the bank.
It demonstrates that you are more adamant than Killeen on the subject."

So you are speculating that there would have been no description of the hole and itīs measurements in the post mortem report. That IS interesting!

So what reasons would you give for it to have been withheld? In a murder case post-mortem report, I mean?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"except for the "two cutting edges" that Killeen never alluded to, whatever Fish can argue."

With respect, David, saying "dagger" IS quite obviously to allude very clearly to a double edge. I realize that this keeps you sleepless andhurts your feeling, but since all the world knows that the one and only distinguishing factor of a dagger is that it cuts on both sides, there is really no escaping this.
Incidentally, the belief that people who need to point out a sharp point on a weapon will all say "dagger" is patently wrong. Very many knives have the same feature, and therefore, if the hole was a knife-hole, it would have been confusing if Killeen said dagger and meant knife.

As I said before, you may also rest assured that whatever Killeen judged that hole to look like, he would have specified this in his report. And if he there said that it was a hole with one sharp and one blunt side, then it escapes me why he would have opted for a dagger as he laid out the text at the inquest.
Maybe he had forgotten what the hole really looked like?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

That's not what I'm saying, Fish. I am (tired of) saying that Killeen never alluded to "two cutting edges", because if so, he would have been adamant, just as you are, but he was not.
The logical inference, therefore, is that when he suggested a dagger or a bayonet, he merely meant a stronger, larger, or longer blade.
The fact that the investigators were looking for soldiers at this very time might have influenced his choice of words.

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"When Fisherman gets an idea, he doesn't like to let go of it."

Wuth respect, Mike, the idea was Killeens and Reids, not mine. And I DO let go of ideas that I feel are wrong. My scavenger scenario for Tabram, for example, is something I do not hang onto much any longer. I have found out details that have diminished itīs value, whereas it has not been totally discredited.

Now, where have I heard THAT before ...? Hmmmm...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

With respect, David, saying "dagger" IS quite obviously to allude very clearly to a double edge.
Fisherman

And here is your mistake, my friend.

If the wound had been done by two cutting edges, that would have been visible and obvious, when compared to the other stabs, right ?

Then why merely suggesting a dagger or a bayonet, as if he couldn't rule out the knife completely ?

And needless to say, "dagger = two cutting edges" isn't that obvious.

[Fisherman]

David:

"That's not what I'm saying, Fish. I am (tired of) saying that Killeen never alluded to "two cutting edges", because if so, he would have been adamant, just as you are, but he was not."

And I have given you two reasons not to cling to this misconception:

1. He had no reason at all to go into this at the inquest.
2. He wrote a post-mortem report, and in THAT he had every reason to be "admant" as you call it - and he probably was just that.

"The logical inference, therefore, is that when he suggested a dagger or a bayonet..."

The logical inference when somebody says "dagger" is normally that they MEAN dagger, David. Regardless of what you suggest. And to believe that Killeen aadjusted to a wish from the policeīs side to say "dagger" and implicate soldiers is just plain rude. Why not say "sword bayonet" directly, if that was his intention. Maybe he did not want to be too obvious, like Hutchinson when he omitted Lewis?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I have found out details that have diminished itīs value
Fisherman

Well, you may soon find out details that will seriously diminish the two cutting edges value, methinks.

[DVV]

The logical inference when somebody says "dagger" is normally that they MEAN dagger, David.
Fisherman

But dagger = two cutting edges is nothing but a brand new anthem of yours (see Magpie's post again).

And the logical inference, since Killeen said "dagger or bayonet" after having alluded to an "ordinary penknife", is that he meant : something stronger than that penknife.

[Fisherman]

David:

"why merely suggesting a dagger or a bayonet"

Because it could have been a dagger-shaped Zulu spear.

When will you grasp it, David? A doctor will NOT at an inquest state what he cannot be absolutely certain of. He was absolutely certain that the weapon was some sort of dagger-like instrument, and that was exactly as much as he judged himself to be at liberty to state.

Try and understand this, David. It is dead simple. The doctor at an inquest will DESCRIBE the general type of weapon that reasonably MAY have inflicted the wound he is describing. He will NOT say that "it must have been a dagger", because there will be other instruments that produce daggerlike wounds.

Please tell me that you understand this principle!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I'd be pleased to make you happy, Fish, but not on this one. That's too big a mistake.
I'll have other opportunities on a Fleming thread.

[DVV]

And the logical inference, since Killeen said "dagger or bayonet" after having alluded to an "ordinary penknife", is that he meant : something stronger than that penknife.

What about this, Fish ?
Something you could agree with, couldn't you ?

[Stephen Thomas]

Tabram was stabbed to death by a gang of East End roughs that had been causing mayhem in the vicinity and had been seen approaching George Yard Buildings just prior to her murder.

But don't mind me, chaps. Keep calm and carry on.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I'd be pleased to make you happy, Fish, but not on this one."

Is this referring to the principle that a doctor testifying at an inquest would NOT state things that he could not be absolutely certain of? Surely not, David? This goes without saying, you see. This is why Killeen said thqat the 37-stab weapon "might" have been a knife. Do you really in your wildest imagination believe that he would not have formed a very good opinion about the appearance of that blade, after having seen itīs traces inTabram 37 times? He would be onehundred per cent certain that the blade had one sharp and one blunt edge, and thus he would know that it corresponded to a knife. Equally, he would know very well that when one has a stabbing, the weapon is a knife in close to 100 per cent of the cases. And still, he said that it "might" be a knife.

Why do you think this was? Why the cautious wording?

Was it because he was not certain about what impression the 37 holes gave?

Or ws it because he chose to accept that it could have been something else than a knife, albeit the appearance tallied with that specific weapon in every detail?

Any which way, what the inquest needed to hear was what TYPE of weapon it had been, and thus the wording that it might have been a knife was exactly spot on: it was something that gave the impression of a knife, something like a knife, something that tallied with the inherent properties of that very weapon. If, in the end, it would prove to be a sliver of diamond from an expensive necklace, then it would have been covered too by Killeens description, leaving him in the clear and the inquest informed.

The same goes for the dagger suggestion. The wound in the sternum was made of something that made Killeen suspect that a daggershaped weapon had been used here. That was niot to say it WAS a dagger, but it WAS to say that the result of itīs entrance into Tabrams body was such that it gave the implication that "some sort of dagger" had been used here.

Thus Killeen is VERY exact about the general shape of the wounds, but purposefully unguessing about the exact weapon that inflicted them.

Maybe I can say this in another fashion, but please donīt force me to make the try.

"What about this, Fish ?
Something you could agree with, couldn't you ?"

I can agree that Killeen was of the meaning that the sternum weapon was stronger than the small one. But that does not mean that it was the only thing implicated. When Killeen said dagger, he also established that the instrument that had peiced the sternum gave the impression of being a dagger-blade, and thus double-edged.

Wait a sec - have I not said this before ...?

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"Tabram was stabbed to death by a gang of East End roughs that had been causing mayhem in the vicinity and had been seen approaching George Yard Buildings just prior to her murder."

Why not? But I believe the timing was slightly off, was it not? And I am also having some problems with the apparently silent scenario. East End roughs were not exactly known for their discretion, were they?

But it canīt be ruled out, Iīll say that much!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Stephen. Music to my ears.

I take it that the violence/number of the stabbings were triggered by, not only her refusal of a shakedown, but also for her (known) surly tongue?

Cheers.
LC