Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Wickerman]

Is it not true that you donīt have an idea at all how much weaponry Killeen had seen? Is it not equally true that you do not know how many violent deaths he had seen? Is it not true that you have no idea who his mentors were?

Thin air, Ben, would seem rock solid in comparison with the case you are trying to build here. No evidence, totally contrary opinions to what was laid down and accepted in 1888, zero substantiation but for the not very earthshattering insight that doctors MAY be wrong.

All their arguments are based on what 'we' do not know, its all supposition, hypotheticals and assumptions.

Killeen, as with all doctors have no need of weaponry experience, it is not their duty to identify the weapon, merely to establish the size & shape or the blade which made the wounds. It is the responsibility of the police to do the rest.

Likewise, it is not necessary for any doctor to have 'violent death' experience with respect to an autopsy. The medical procedure is the same whether the cause of death is natural or unnatural.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But I don’t need to, Fisherman, because one weapon may be quite capable of creating many wounds that are quite “unequal” in type."

Oh, I see! So the wounds may have been wildly different, and it STILL applies that the better proposition is that Killeen was wrong? And that applies because you say so?

Aha.

Look, Ben, I know that wounds by the same weapon may look dissimilar to a smaller or larger extent.

The snag here is that our friend Timoty Robert Killeen would ALSO have known this. Moreover, he would have started out with a belief that all the wounds had been made by one blade only, since, just like you say, that is more common than two blades.
Therefore, we need to soak up the insight that Killeen STILL made his call, and he did so in clear, unambiguous wordings. There was never any "perhaps it could have been just the one weapon" or any "I am slightly uncertain, but..."

The small blade could not have done what the large blade did. The wounds did not correspond.

That is all there is, and that is all that is worth listening to and acknowledging. If some poster finds it hard to accept 124 years down the line, and tries to peddle a view saying that it is more probable that Killeen was wrong than right - amazingly WITHOUT having seen any of the wounds at all, ans equally amazingly from a complete laymanīs point of view, well then more fool him.

The POSSIBILITY as such should be brought forward, analyzed - and buried under ten feet of soil until any evidence at all could be produced. And weīve done that now, so letīs be for real and move on. We have heard that you think Killen was wrong, and we know that you have nothing to show for it, end of story.

"That isn’t the way it works, though. It certainly isn’t incumbent on me to prove that something was NOT there. "

The thing is, Ben, that if YOU wish to push statistics beyond the breaking limit by stating that it is more probable that Killeen was wrong since the statistically normal outcome is just the one blade, then you may need to think twice before you criticize me for pointing out that the statistical outcome in 37-fold stabbing involved bruising.

Then again, you may embrace some statistics that suit you, while dismissing other statistics that do not, what do I know?

"But probably not on the subject of stab wounds, and almost certainly not on the subject of weaponry, and the type of wounds sharp objects are likely to create. For this, I’m far more inclined to heed the expertise of someone with demonstrable knowledge of weapons. That doesn’t seem to describe Kileen, although his insights as to what may have caused her death are obviously very valuable."

"Probably not". "Almost certainly not". "Far more inclined". "Doesnīt seem to describe".

Does that not come across to you as a rather weak argumentation, Ben? Is it not true that you donīt have an idea at all how much weaponry Killeen had seen? Is it not equally true that you do not know how many violent deaths he had seen? Is it not true that you have no idea who his mentors were?

Thin air, Ben, would seem rock solid in comparison with the case you are trying to build here. No evidence, totally contrary opinions to what was laid down and accepted in 1888, zero substantiation but for the not very earthshattering insight that doctors MAY be wrong.

Look away from your burning conviction and you have effectively nothing, is that not so? It just wonīt do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"And therefore Ben is right. Or is probably right."

Which is it? And dont forget that if the latter applies, it also applies that you have left out one option.

Guess which?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I'm not sure I was attaching any particularly derogatory connotation to the term 'local' with regard to Killeen."

And I was not answering you on that score, Sally. It was Davids post I replied to, and he has pointed out before that Killeen was only called upon because he was local. He seems to dislike local doctors for some peculiar reason.

"I think in focussing so intently on what Killeen did mean and didn't mean etc. etc. he stands in danger of being attributed supernatural powers. "

Oh, I donīt think that risk is too big. What I hear is instead people calling him unqualified and inexperienced and a doctor who never should have set foot in the Ripper saga, more or less. But in a sense, such allegations are not very natural, so you may have some sort of point.

"Is Killeen asked at this point - 'Could there have been two weapons? Could one of them have been a bayonet?'"

Ehrm, I think we need to realize that the two weapons suggesiton was something he arrived at a lot sooner than that. As for when and by whom he was asked about the bayonet, it seems hard to establish. But my own guess is that it was not the coroner or the jurymen that did the asking.

"To which he presumably replied that there could, and it could. He could not rule it out."

As for the two weapons, he ruled out the one weapon suggestion (that apparently never even surfaced, for some reason ...?) by stating that the weapon that did the 37 small stabs did not correspond to the larger weapon, and that would even break if tried at the sternum. I se no reason to imagine a sheepish guy who adjusted to and swallowed all suggestions he heard. You can be a decent, useful doctor without being supernatural.
And as for the bayonet suggestion, we may safely assume that if a suggestion of a sword bayonet was what he responded to, and if he said that it could not be ruled out, then that was because it could not be ruled out. Simple, really. And seemingly corroborated by Reids stance that it was a proven thing that a soldier had been at the spot.

But of course, Killeen, the Star, Hewitt and Reid may all have been wrong, And you may be right in guessing this.

Who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And therefore Ben is right. Or is probably right.

Thanks, Dave.

It is quite clear from Abberline's comments that he considered Tabram a ripper victim, which is why he referred to Tabram as the "first murder". In other words, the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murderer. His opinion was that Klosowski was responsible for the "main" ripper murders, not just the Tabram slaying, and unless he was quite the illogical lunatic, it would have made no sense whatsoever to note that Klosowski-George Yard connection unless he considered Tabram a "ripper victim".

Indisputable, I would have thought, although for those inclined not to listen to me, it is clear that Philip Sugden accepts as a fact that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Agreed entirely, Harry and Sally.

“If you could say "the wounds are so equal in type that a mistake could have been made", then you would have had a case. But you canīt, can you?”

But I don’t need to, Fisherman, because one weapon may be quite capable of creating many wounds that are quite “unequal” in type. I don’t need the sternum wound to have evinced any “wiggling” either, since it is quite clear that the shape of that wound was wholly insufficient to rule its creator out as having been responsible for the other wounds too. Otherwise, Kileen would not have had recourse to mere “opinion” only – opinion that had nothing to do with the shape of the sternum wound. I’m completely undeterred by the fact that Kileen’s two-knife hypothesis was “uncontested” at the time, presumably for the same reason that you champion various ripper-related ideas that were equally lacking in endorsement from contemporary police or medical professionals.

“If it had come out that there was no bruising at any of the 37 entrance holes”

That isn’t the way it works, though. It certainly isn’t incumbent on me to prove that something was NOT there. The fact is that there is no evidence of any “bruising at any of the 37 entrance” holes, and we don’t conjure up hoped-for bruising evidence from nowhere, for the same reason we don’t conjure up “lost reports” that got conveniently bombed during the blitz.

My view is based on the inherent improbability and illogicality of the “two knife” scenario, whether it was supposed to involve one or two attackers, and that is “support” enough. The ambiguous nature of the knife wounds and the inexperience of Kileen are simply wheeled in for good measure. There is no “onus of proof” upon me at all, for the simply reason that I am not attempting to “prove” him wrong. I just think there’s a better than average chance that he was, for the same reason that Phillips was probably wrong about Eddowes and Chapman being killed by different people, and for the same reason that Bond was probably wrong about Kelly’s time of death.

“He had had years of training and education”

But probably not on the subject of stab wounds, and almost certainly not on the subject of weaponry, and the type of wounds sharp objects are likely to create. For this, I’m far more inclined to heed the expertise of someone with demonstrable knowledge of weapons. That doesn’t seem to describe Kileen, although his insights as to what may have caused her death are obviously very valuable.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Fish

Interesting question, Stephen. Apparently, the Pall Mall Gazette wrote, back in 1903, that Abberline had said: "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious..."

And therefore Ben is right. Or is probably right.

[Sally]

Sheesh....

I'm not sure I was attaching any particularly derogatory connotation to the term 'local' with regard to Killeen. He was what we would call a GP - just a doctor, who, as a recent graduate, happened to be on call when Tabram was discovered.

I think in focussing so intently on what Killeen did mean and didn't mean etc. etc. he stands in danger of being attributed supernatural powers.

Killeen's opinion, at the time, when he first saw Tabram's body, was that the wounds were made with a knife or dagger. There was no talk then of two weapons, bayonets, etc.

Then along comes Poll, and the Tale of the Two Soldiers. Is Killeen asked at this point - 'Could there have been two weapons? Could one of them have been a bayonet?' Of course. Naturally.

To which he presumably replied that there could, and it could. He could not rule it out.

And neither can we - but that doesn't make it a fact.

An opinion which is an elicited response does not carry the same weight as an opinion offered independent of parameters.

[Stephen Thomas]

Interesting question, Stephen. Apparently, the Pall Mall Gazette wrote, back in 1903, that Abberline had said: "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious..."

This of course couples Abberlines suspect to George Yard. But as such, it does not say that he believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim. It merely points the coincidence out as curious.

Thankyou most kindly, Fisherman

I suppose that's the beginning and end of it.

[Fisherman]

Interesting question, Stephen. Apparently, the Pall Mall Gazette wrote, back in 1903, that Abberline had said: "There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George-yard, Whitechapel-road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious..."

This of course couples Abberlines suspect to George Yard. But as such, it does not say that he believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim. It merely points the coincidence out as curious.

I really could not say what more there is in this context, if anything. Letīs hope that Ben can help out!

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

Again, Stephen, I really wouldn't cling to Macnaghten. His opinion that Tabram was not a ripper victim ran contrary to the accepted wisdom of the police in 1888.

With respect, Ben, there is no accepted wisdom anywhere in this weird case then or now which is why we are all here discussing it, perhaps endlessly.

And just for information if you can help....

Where exactly does Abberline say that Tabram was a definite JTR victim?

The A-Z says that but I don't know the quote.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You accept that Kileen,being human,could make mistakes.That he did give opinion. My very argument,glad you agree."

To disagree would be a strange thing to do. Everybody is human and can make mistakes. Even Ben. That said, letīs not forget that I also pressed the point that the opinion Killeen gave was the informed opinion of a professional surgeon, and no opinion is going to be better qualified than that in the context we are speaking of.
So itīs not a question of "just another opinion", Harry. It is much more than that.

"As for reporters viewing the wounds and being in position to observe'holes' that too is a new one for me."

The reporter of the Star stated that the hole at the sternum was much the largest and deepest of them all. That means he either guessed or took a look. Strangely, his view is seemingly corroborated by Hewitt.

"Kileens opinion was that a knife would not pierce the sternum."

I think we need to rephrase that: Killeens opinion was that the exact knife that inflicted the smaller wounds would break if tried at the sternum. A "knife" as such may be half a meter long and extremely sturdy, and I donīt think Killeen would have believed that SUCH a weapon could not pierce the sternum. It was not "a" knife that could not achieve this, Harry, it was "the" knife.

It also belongs to the discussion that Killeen told the two weapons apart in more than this fashion. He also said that the weapon that caused the small holes did not correspond with the one that pierced the sternum.

"Killeen was not a weapons expert"

Killeen was PROBABLY not a weapons expert, no. But we donīt know that, do we? He may well have had an interest in knives, just as he may not have. Stating firmly that we know either way would be wrong. Consequently, just as I donīt have proof that he was, you have no proof that he was not.

Comparisons are often, just like you say, very useful. The snag is, though, that we can never tell if they are viable comparisons as long as we do not have the data we need to tell. Up til the time we do, just like I have said before, any comparison may or may not be a good one - and we shall never know, as it stands.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
You accept that Kileen,being human,could make mistakes.Thaqt he did give opinion.My very arguement,glad you agree.Now as to the round hole appearing wounds.I didn't know any were ever described as such,by Kileen,the only person you say examined the wounds close up.As for reporters viewing the wounds and being in position to observe'holes' that too is a new one for me.I accept,as does everyone else,that the sternum wound was different in appearance.No arguement there.Doesn't matter the difference,no one,including Kileen explains this.Kileens opimion was that a knife would not pierce the sternum.As Ben has pointed out,this is not lack of medical competance,but lack of knowledge of what a knife was cabable of doing.Kileen was not a weapons expert,and I will apologise if you have proof that he was.Now comparrisons,which I have provided and you reject,are very much accepted in law enforcement.They are sometimes the only means of providing a suitable explanation.

[Fisherman]

Elaborate, please, David! The way I remember things, Killeen said that one of the wounds gave an impression of possibly being made by a left-handed person, whereas none of the others did. And he said that two weapons had been used, one that was apparently a penknife and one that was probably some sort of dagger, long and strong.

You would not be trying to discredit Killeen by misrepresenting him, would you? Iīm sure you are not. So letīs hear what you are on about this time - I am sure it will be interesting and enlightening.

By the way, the worldīs best doctor is always local. Somewhere. Being a local doctor does not in any way point out anything about abilities, experience and such.

But this you know, donīt you, David?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Eh?

I was about to say: uh ?
How cute to call a local doctor in a difficult and extraordinary case.
"He is left-handed. But perhaps right-handed. He used a little knife. But maybe something bigger."