Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Wickerman]

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.

Excuse me Dave, but I see you keep missing the point.
Suggesting a "dagger" IS indicating two cutting edges, which is why he did not say "knife".
If Killeen had said "knife" we could be reasonably certain he saw evidence of only one cutting edge.

The smaller wounds were made by a "knife", a small "knife". So why didn't he simply say, "the single wound through the breastbone was made by a larger knife" ?
Two knives, one small, one large?

He didn't because even he knew the common terminology for a two sided blade is/was "dagger". Which more than adequately explains his use of the term, as opposed to "large knife", implying one cutting edge.
He saw evidence of two cutting edges and used the appropriate terminology.
Had there been only one, he would have said "knife".

Thats really all there is to it.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

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.

Fisherman

That daggers aren't first defined by 2 cutting edges, that some have only one actually, is no problem to you. Very well, Fish.

And then, the wound revealed the shape of a dagger, and two cutting edges, but that wasn't enough for Killeen who shyly suggested a...dagger...or a bayonet (!).

So, well, what to say, except that when he suggested the aforementioned weapons, he merely meant : something stronger than the ordinary knife he had just alluded to.

Unless, of course, it was just the same knife, but stuck with greater force.

[DVV]

Excuse me Dave, but I see you keep missing the point.
Regards, Jon S.

I'm not missing anything, Jon, don't worry.
If you want to play daggers and bayonets with Fish, go ahead.
I must say with all due respect that I feel a bit sorry, because it's not only a mistake, but a ridiculous one.
And even more ridiculous are those two cutting edges. Killeen would be very surprised at Fish's posts, for indeed, had he detected two cutting edges in that wound, he would have told the coroner adamantly instead of venturing aaargh, heurrff, perhaps not the same knife....maybe a arrff, dagger...or cough cough...bayonet...

[Wickerman]

I'm not missing anything, Jon, don't worry.
If you want to play daggers and bayonets with Fish, go ahead.
I must say with all due respect that I feel a bit sorry, because it's not only a mistake, but a ridiculous one.
And even more ridiculous are those two cutting edges. Killeen would be very surprised at Fish's posts, for indeed, had he detected two cutting edges in that wound, he would have told the coroner adamantly instead of venturing aaargh, heurrff, perhaps not the same knife....maybe a arrff, dagger...or cough cough...bayonet...

Ok Dave, lets just pursue that thought.

Killeen has already identified the smaller wounds as made by a "knife", something short, something narrow, like a clasp-knife or pen-knife?
You agree so far?

So then he describes the chest wound, made by a longer & stronger instrument?
So, lets assume the cut appeared the same as the smaller cuts, ie; single-sided blade.
Killeen needed to suggest a longer implement than the clasp-knife, so a "large knife" would do, yes?
He also needed to suggest a stronger implement than the clasp-knife, so a "large knife" would also do, yes?

Daggers are not known for being longer than knives. Most certainly daggers are not stronger than knives, by that I mean in most cases the blade of a dagger is narrower than the blade of an equivalent sized knife.
The simple reason is that the "work" of a knife is sideways, whereas the "work" of the dagger is forward, it is a thrusting implement. Therefore the knife needs a wider blade than the dagger.

Providing Killeen did see evidence within the wound to suggest a single sided blade had been used, "dagger" is not the most natural choice for him to choose.

A 6" or 8" blade "dagger" is not as strong in the blade as an equivalent 6" or 8" "knife". Therefore we must look for the most natural explanation that a "large knife" would not provide, and that is that the wound displayed the use of a double-sided blade.
Now, he knows he is dealing with a "dagger", and not a "large knife".

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“If he was of the meaning that a dagger is a double-edged weapon and nothing else, then he could not be clearer.”

He wasn’t of any such “meaning”. However many cutting edges a dagger has, Kileen suggested this weapon as a viable candidate for the sternum wound for a completely different reason. He believed that the offending weapon must have been a long, strong instrument. A dagger was simply one good example of such a weapon. Whatever autopsy details were withheld from the inquest, we know for an absolute certainly that he didn’t withhold his actual reason for preferring a dagger-type instrument, and that reason had feck all to do with any one-side/two-side distinction. You and Jon have rather eccentrically run away with the idea that it must have been the decisive factor that established “two weapons” beyond any doubt, but we know for certain that it wasn’t the decisive factor.

“And please accept that Killeen would have worded things carefully at the inquest for reasons given earlier.”

In his opinion, he didn't "think" that one weapon was responsible for all the wounds. In other words, the wounds themselves did not evince proof that two weapons were responsible.

“A hole in the sternum that did not reveal ANYTHING?”

No. I said its “shape” didn’t reveal anything. It’s size and ability to pierce a sternum may well have done, however.

“Don´t try and correct me when I am already right.”

About what? "Dagger pointed" can easily be “sharp knife”-pointed. The point is that points were pointed to as a distinguishing feature of the sternum-wounding blade, and not sides or edges, which offers yet another indication that the one/two blades distinction was never an issue. The 37 knife wounds were attributed to an "ordinary knife" for reasons wholly unrelated to the number of cutting sides on a blade.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Suggesting a "dagger" IS indicating two cutting edges, which is why he did not say "knife"

No, Jon.

Suggesting a dagger is merely citing an example of a "long, strong instrument" of the type that could have caused the sternum wound. The number of cutting sides on a knife versus a dagger had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with his failure to cite a knife as the offending weapon for the sternum wound. Why didn't he cite a knife, rather than a dagger, as an example of a long, strong instrument? I've explained already: 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.

This, and no other reason - especially not the one/two sides distinction - accounted for his suggestion of a dagger. Had it been otherwise, he would have spelt it out explicitly: "two weapons were definitely used because some of the wounds were one-bladed, and the sternum wound was two-bladed". That would have put an end to the issue.

So, lets assume the cut appeared the same as the smaller cuts, ie; single-sided blade.

No, let's not assume that.

Let's be sensible instead and realise that Kileen's suggestion of a pocket knife was wholly unconcerned with the number of cutting edges on a blade, and that an ordinary knife was only suggested as the culprit for the 37 stabs because of the narrowness and superficiality of the wounds.

Had the "two weapon" hypothesis all boiled down to cutting edges, Killeen would have said so, unless he was an idiot. His silence in this regard, coupled with his completely different reason for "thinking" that two weapons were used, establishes beyond any doubt that the number of cutting edges was not made clear by the stab wounds.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

A bayonet is identifiable by the handle.It has connections enabling it to be affixed to a rifle.How could any medical officer describe the weapon used on Tabram as even remotely resembling a bayonet,unless he viewed the weapon,which of course no one did.The description of bayonet was an error.It was probably refered to as such because the sternum wound could not otherwise be explained.By them.

[Ben]

Agreed entirely, Harry. Excellent point.

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't say it was necessarily an error Harry. We do not know who raised the question in the first place. All we have is a paraphrase purported to be the words of Killeen, and him not being able to rule it out.

So, to say it was a mistake is almost to presume it was suggested by Killeen, which we have no way of knowing who suggested it.
Did the question originate from a Juror, or from a policeman?

Also, too much is being made of the word "unmistakable". Had the writer of the note seen the wound himself, this would hardly be his response. The way it is worded is more consistent with the opinion of someone who has not seen the wound, yet was under the impression that Killeen should have been as aware as himself of the shape a bayonet blade would make. Almost as if this was common knowledge among those who are supposed to know.

So that leaves us with the question, what type of bayonet did the writer have in mind when he made that comment?
Answer: We simply do not know, and as there were several styles of bayonet available, therefore the comment has no value.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

The type of bayonet in mainstream circulation - the type issued to actual military men at the time - was of the "sword" variety, and in addition to creating an unmistakable would, it was 18 inches long and very unwieldy indeed when separated from the rifle. I think we may reasonable conclude that it was this type of weapon that the Home Office man had in mind when he wrote in refutation of the bayonet being responsible for the Tabram wound. We should take care not to shoot the messenger in this case. That's all the HO representative was. His comments were hardly the result of personal knowledge of weaponry, and are more likely to have been influenced by the police investigation.

Cheers,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Seriously, anyone coming to a conclusion that the supposed larger weapon was double-edged has absolutely no evidence for such an idea. Jon surmises that this is so in a logical fashion, but it still is unknown. The reality is that one wound was deeper and more destructive and Killeen came to a conclusion that a longer weapon was used, and this based on the sheer contrast between that wound and the others. It was probably more of an emotional feeling than a scientific understanding.

Double-edged or single edged, it doesn't matter because all wounds could have been done with the same weapon. The idea of a pen knife or clasp knife just means, a small blade. Whereas the idea of a bayonet means a long blade. It is just a guess based upon emotional response.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Though it grieves me to do so, I have cut a bit of an aticle from Wikepedia:

Over the years, the term 'dagger' has been used to describe a wide variety of thrusting knives, including knives that feature only a single cutting edge, such as the European rondel dagger or the Persian pesh-kabz, or, in some instances, no cutting edge at all, such as the stiletto of the Renaissance. However, over the last hundred years or so, authorities have recognized that the dagger, in its contemporary or mature form, has come to incorporate certain definable characteristics, including a short blade with a sharply-tapered point, a central spine or fuller, and (usually) two cutting edges sharpened the full length of the blade, or nearly so.

So....fight about what 'the last hundred years or so' means, and then notice that the dagger has come to mean something with a short blade and then see how retarded the argument is.

There is no such thing as a dagger. There are only mental images unique to each individual of what "dagger" means. Much like my image of a chair differs from yours. They are all chairs, and yet none of them are. So it is with daggers and nonsense.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He wasn’t of any such “meaning”. "

To begin with, I said "IF" he was of such a meaning. To go on, you don´t know what meaning he was of. End of story.

"In his opinion, he didn't "think" that one weapon was responsible for all the wounds. In other words, the wounds themselves did not evince proof that two weapons were responsible."

And how does that fit in with Killeens assertion that the blade that made the 37 minor wounds COULD NOT have made the sternum hole. Does that not sound very much to you as if Killeen tells us that the small blade COULD NOT be identical with the large blade?
"Could not", is that not something else than the "would not" you are trying to wring this into by means of omitting to mention the definite denial on Killeens behalf that the two blades could ever have been one and the same? And why are you not accepting that a doctor will be cautious in his wordings at an inquest?

"No. I said its “shape” didn’t reveal anything."

Once again, this you do not know. And that is not "would not" know - it is COULD not know. What, by the way, would be your explanation to Reids reaction to the shape of that hole - that it proved a military man? Or are you telling me that Reid judged that in relation to the length of the weapon? Or that Reid was not able to judge such things? Incompetent and too young for the job, inexperienced, sort of?

"About what? "

About how Killeen worded himself. When I told you that he had spoken about some sort of dagger, you tried to correct me by saying that he had spoken of "dagger-pointed" instead. But that did not pan out with the inquest testimony, did it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Seriously, anyone coming to a conclusion that the supposed larger weapon was double-edged has absolutely no evidence for such an idea. "

That, Mike, would not be correct. I agree that we have no PROOF for it, but the evidence is there, since we both know that Killeen said dagger just as we both know that Reid thought it proven that a military man was the perpetrator, and the only reasonable weapon to suggest in such a scenario would be the sword bayonet - which was double-edged.

Therefore, we DO have evidence suggesting a double-edge. But no proof!

"Double-edged or single edged, it doesn't matter because all wounds could have been done with the same weapon."

It matters very much, I think. I also think that a pocket- or pen knife, which are the weapon types the evidence suggest, are never double-edged.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"There is no such thing as a dagger."

Please return to the post I made, copying a sit about dagger-collecting (apparently daggers are collectors items, in spite of their non-existance ...?), and read it through. It was compiled by somebody who has very extensive knowledge about the topic, so you need to prepare for heaps of terminology. But when you have read it through, you will have a complete picture of the origins, the development and the varyings aspects of daggers, just as you will have it explained to you what is the one typical feature of a dagger. I´ll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with length, pointedness or strongness.

Let´s be serious, Mike. When people have a perfectly functional name for a sharp blade mounted in a handle (knife), it would be pretty strange if somebody suddenly felt the need to instead call it dagger, without having any design-related reason at all for doing so.

We have learnt that there is the odd exception to the double-edged rule when it comes to daggers. We both realize that some people are not knowledgeable enough to know that a bowie-knife is not a dagger - they think that "dagger" is the same as "hunting knife". It is not, and it never was.

In spite of these exceptions and confusions - and the latter will be more common than the former - it remains that there IS such a thing as a dagger, and it also remains that the typically distinctive feature of it is that it is double-edged.
You are a learned man, an academic. Therefore I propose that you approach an expert on knives at your nearest university or museum, and ask him or her about whether daggers are recorded in history and what is the distinctive feature of a dagger.
Of course, if you think that my former post from the dagger-collectors forum does the trick on it´s own, it would save you the trouble. But if not, then please get it all from the horse´s mouth.

Because this "there are no daggers"-business is not up to standards.

All the best,
Fisherman