Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Tell me what you know about Killeen's medical career Fish? Anything?"

Nothing at all, Sally, no. Which is why we cannot use it to bolster any suspicion that he was a lousy doctor.
Of course, neither can we state that he was the very best of doctors. That also goes with the territory when one does not know. I fail to see, though, that I should have denied this?

The point, however, was that I stated that since we have no record of Killeens career, people who wish to point to a propensity of getting things wrong on his behalf, will have nothing at all to point to.

This is a strictly theoretical discussion, Sally, and the position handed down to us by history is one where Martha Tabram was stabbed by two weapons. It is not until this is contested that the waters are stirred, and the onus of proof lies on the ones who do the contesting. That was why I pointed to the fact that we cannot use any mistakes in Killeens prolonged career, since we know nothing about it, or as you eloquently put it: "Any attempt to judge his overall competence is a non-starter."

Exactamundo, Sally!

"All we have is opinion. Killeen's, and our own. That's all."

Spot on, Sally, once again! The trouble with regarding or even suggesting that these opinions are in any way on equal footing is however that such a thing is completely absurd.

Killeen grounded his opinion on a careful examination of Martha Tabram, involving a post-mortem. He was a fully qualified surgeon, and thus educated in assessing wounds and their impact on the human body.

Me, on the other hand, I never saw Tabramīs wounds and I am thus at a huge - and I mean HUGE! - disadvantage compared to Killeen in that respect. He could, if he wished, take a look at the wounds through a magnifying glass, he could examine the tissues at the wound entrances, feel them with his fingertips, he could measure all the relevant bits and pieces involved, he could make an educated guess and then try to corroborate it at the slab, cutting Tabrams body open and carefully examining all the things he needed to examine to make his mind up.

He had had years of training and education, and he had arguably discussed all sorts of professionally related matters with colleagues of his.

I could not compete with that sort of competence in a million years, Iīm afraid. He was reasonably totally and utterly superior to me when it comes to questions of medical competence. I humbly and logically bow to that fact.

And you, Sally? What about you? Do you feel that YOU are as competent to judge Tabramīs wounds as Killeen was? And do you think that the fact that you have no idea at all what they looked like (other than what you learnt from Killeen) would have any sort of impact on the question whose opinion is the more useful here - yours or Killeens?

Is it just a question of "I could just as well be right as he could"? Is it "anybodyīs opinion is as good as anybody elseīs", as your post seems to implicate?

Or is it a fact that Killeen has the upper hand in all of these respects?

Not that the questions really need to be asked - everybody knows that doctors are better judges of things like these then total laymen, and most people will instantly realize that having the cards on hand is infinitely superior to not even knowing what a deck of cards actually is - but since you raise these questions once again, Sally ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Opinion

-If we had had it on record that Killeen had a medical career riddled with mistakes, then you would have had a case. But we donīt, do we?

Eh? Tell me what you know about Killeen's medical career Fish? Anything? I was under the impression that he returned home, to his parents house, later his, and there resided in the capacity of local doctor for the rest of his life - I have no idea how many mistakes he made - do you?

Who has any way of determining how many, or how often he made mistakes? If he'd been catastrophically terrible, and his patients had died left right and centre because of his incompetence, then maybe there might be a record of it, otherwise, not likely. Any attempt to judge his overall competence is a non-starter.

We have no idea what sort of doctor Killeen was, other than a young and inexperienced one when Tabram was killed and thereafter a local one - an unremarkable career. How can we know if he was right or wrong in opining that two weapons were used?

We can't. And no approach to the evidence will alter that postion.

All we have is opinion. Killeen's, and our own. That's all. Nothing more or less. All opinion is subjective, all shaped and influenced by personal bias, none will do as a substitute for fact.

[Fisherman]

Well, gentlemen, there is little more I can do than I have already done. If you want to believe that Tabram was killed by just the one weapon, then go ahead and do so. Itīs just that one expects a bit more from seasoned Ripperologists when it comes to the evidence part.

-If we had had it on record that Killeen had a medical career riddled with mistakes, then you would have had a case. But we donīt, do we?

-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?

-If you could point to an obvious wriggling at the sternum wound, that would have strengthened your argument. But that is impossible, is it not?

-If nobody at the time had concurred with Killeen, your position would not be as awkward as it is now. But this was not so, was it?

-If there had been some discontentment with Killeen and his suggestion at the time, it would have made for an interesting trail to follow, But there was never such a thing, was there?

-If it had come out that there was no bruising at any of the 37 entrance holes, it would have given us all a pause. But it didnīt, did it?

There is effectively nothing at all to support your view. Nothing.
Not a shred of evidence goes to bolster your suggestion.
And worse, it is not only a suggestion in Benīs case: He actually tells us that it is more probable that Killeen was wrong about this, than it is that he was correct! And the evidence for this? Because Ben thinks so.

That is the poorest judgment in any Ripper-related errand that I have seen displayed on any thread here. It does not get much worse than that.

Mike, you are another affair altogether, since you now say that you are "stating an idea and nothing more". Good for you! You also clearly state that your suggestion is nothing but conjecture. Of course! There is no way to get around that, and we have both known it throughout.

And as long as we treat the suggestion in this manner, I am perfectly fine with it. It is what I have been asking for all along. Not that I for a moment believe that you see it as your call in life to keep me happy, Mike, but it is incredibly nice to finally see things called by their correct names.

And yes, Mike, conjecture may well have had some serious thinking weighed into it, I am the first to admit that. Furthermore, it may be absolutely spot on. It is not until it all topples over and we start to think that the conjecture cannot be wrong that we are at fault. For such a thing takes evidence, and that evidence is not there.

And this, Ben, is why saying that it is more probable than not that Killeen was wrong is something that should be avoided at any cost: It is unsubstantiable.
It is, just like Mike says, an idea.
It is conjecture.

Wise words, Mike. And maybe your stance may prove wise too in the end, who knows?
Not me, thatīs for sure.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Ben! You should not be too alarmed about my advicing you not to be a fool. That was strictly related to your choice of arguments in this errand, and it was also a very clear indicator that I judge you quite capable of avoiding being a fool. It would have been worse if I had given up on you already, would it not? DS.

[The Good Michael]

Why not accept THAT statistical reality, if statistical realities are what you are looking for? Why try and wring it all into a completely weird and statistic-defying affair? If status quo is what you are looking for, why not look for it in this respect too?

He would not have KNOWN as such. But that does not make it conjecture in any manner. For he would most certainly be able to tell what type of weapon the wounds suggested.

And, parallel to my earlier question, if you so dislike conjecture, then why suggest that Killeen would have mistaken the wounds and failed to make the correct interpretation of them.
What is that suggestion, if not conjecture?

Fish as to the first part: Nothing weird. No one knows the sequence of stabs. It seems to me that the first stab was the long one and the others more playful. I don't know if that's the case, and neither did Killeen

Part the second: Killeen couldn't say the exact dimension of the blade(s) used. His interpretation is just that. It isn't the word of God (something that is also quite flawed)

I am stating an idea here and nothing more. An idea is conjecture, but it isn't necessarily something that isn't thought out. In the past, when there have been several contemporary opinions, I have deferred to the authorities. In this case, I say it isn't possible to know if Killeen was right or was wrong. That's where I am, and to deny real possibilities, based upon solid logic is to do a disservice to others. I'm not doing that here. Killeen may have been right. You don't know. Neither do I.

Mike

[Ben]

“Donīt be a fool, Ben.”

Yeah, I’d cut back on the insults if I were you, Fish. I would have thought our recent suspension might have given you some sort of clue that a different approach to debate (i.e. different from the one that gets you nowhere other than into MORE trouble) might be worth considering, but it seems you’re straight back to the old ways.

I have no intention of “painting you into a corner”, and you’re quite welcome to change your mind about anything you want, but if you want to champion the mantra that an “uncontested” opinion from 1888 can’t be “contested” by anyone today, you have to be consistent in applying it, and you’re just not. If you were, you wouldn’t ever have subscribed by the Tabram “scavenger” theory, which actually originated with R. Michael Gordon.

“I am as flexible as ever, Ben.”

Yes, you’re famous for your flexibility of mindset on ripper-related issues.

“He was uncontested when it comes to the two weapons suggestion, and that is what I am saying”

Which doesn’t count for a great deal, considering that other doctors and policemen were “uncontested” on observations which stand a better-than-average chance of being wrong. The revision of the bayonet theory at least demonstrates that his views were “contestable”, which is hardly surprising considering that the highly inexperienced Dr. Kileen had no demonstrable experience in weaponry.

“The killer? What if there were two?”

It isn’t particularly like for the same reason: why only decide at the end of the brutality session that the sturdier/longer/sharper/better knife was the best one to use? That effrontery to logic disappears if one accepts that one knife was used.

“They DO? Who?”

So you’re completely oblivious to the fact that people have been disagreeing with you throughout this thread?

“Do doctors NORMALLY make mistakes?
Answer: No, they donīt.”

Do stab victims NORMALLY get attacked with two knives?
Answer: No, they don’t.

Once again, you are inconsistent in applying your own mantra. Statistics are not your ally here. Erring doctors are far more common than two-knife stabbers, and yet here you are, cheerfully accepting the latter, statistically less probable scenario, because you can’t accept the statistically more probable one. And that’s just ridiculous and unreasonable, and a wholly illogical basis for concluding that, “Killeen was more likely to be right than wrong”. You acknowledged posts ago that statistics did not apply here, so I see little sense in attempting to wheel them in now.

A “trained medico”, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed from college, with little experience of the real world and next to no knowledge of weaponry is NOT “statistically likely” to have correctly discerned two weapons, especially not if the primary basis for his opinion was the apparent length and strength required for the sternum wound.

He can measure the depth of the wound until the cows come home, but it’ll tell him essentially sod all about the likely weapon used, since weapons of varying strength and varying strength can be thrust at varying depths. So none of that increases the likelihood of Kileen's opinion being correct either. If the shape of the wound had any bearing on the issue, he would have specified as much. You keep claiming that Kileen made "assertions", and that he was “adamant” about things, which is just wrong. He was expressing his opinion only.

Finally, it is complete nonsense to assume a penknife as the likely weapon on the grounds that the killer must have used the full length of the blade. “Frenzied” need not imply any great force or strength of blow. It is more likely to indicate a more haphazard approach, perhaps with one stab following the other in quick succession, easily resulting in more superficial wounds, or wounds that at the very least did not involve the full blade.

Regards,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

And as I demonstrated, a 3 inch knife can make 5 inch wounds.

But presumably only if you rub the handle first

Dave

[DVV]

You are normally a man of great consequene. So what happened here?
Fisherman

Hi Fish, but what happens to you here ?
Why so much faith in Killeen's guess ? - guess that obviously owes much more to the wrong soldiers track than to the two cutting edges that never were.
It was Joseph.

[DVV]

Hi Stephen, in fact it was 40 centimetres (quand je la plie en deux).

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Fish,

I'd say with just one guy's testimony who had never experienced anything like this before (we know because he didn't say he had and the status quo is inexperience in this kind of matter)...I'd say I lean in the direction of one weapon, but a longer one and not a clasp knife.

Then you are assuming that the weapon was only sunk into Tabrams body to a minor extent at all them 37 stabs, Mike. And since you draw the conclusion that Killeen would never have seen anything like Tabram before, based on a statistical status quo proposition, it would seem that you are interested in moving with the suggestion that is best suited to answer up to the realities surrounding us?
Then why on earth would you accept that a killer that inflicts a flurry of stabs adding up to 37 wounds, does so by only sinking his longbladed knife into the body of his victim to an extent that leads the thoughts to a penknife?

Stabbings involving excess numbers of wounds, are statistically almost always affairs performed in a frenzy and shoving the knife in to the hilt.

Why not accept THAT statistical reality, if statistical realities are what you are looking for? Why try and wring it all into a completely weird and statistic-defying affair? If status quo is what you are looking for, why not look for it in this respect too?

" This being said, I'm not sure where the weight is: 2 knives, 1 short 1, 1 short 1 long, 2 clasp knives and one long weapon, a dozen clasp knives and 1 long weapon... I mean, how would he know if it had been more than one clasp knife or not? He wouldn't and really all is conjecture."

He would not have KNOWN as such. But that does not make it conjecture in any manner. For he would most certainly be able to tell what type of weapon the wounds suggested.

And, parallel to my earlier question, if you so dislike conjecture, then why suggest that Killeen would have mistaken the wounds and failed to make the correct interpretation of them.
What is that suggestion, if not conjecture?

You are normally a man of great consequene. So what happened here?

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

3 inches is equal to 7.62 cm, right ? Enough to reach internal organs, no ?

I once read that you need 8 inches to do that, David.

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

I'd say with just one guy's testimony who had never experienced anything like this before (we know because he didn't say he had and the status quo is inexperience in this kind of matter)...I'd say I lean in the direction of one weapon, but a longer one and not a clasp knife. This being said, I'm not sure where the weight is: 2 knives, 1 short 1, 1 short 1 long, 2 clasp knives and one long weapon, a dozen clasp knives and 1 long weapon... I mean, how would he know if it had been more than one clasp knife or not? He wouldn't and really all is conjecture.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you really subscribe to the mantra that a modern commentator cannot challenge a professional opinion if it was uncontested at the time, then I guess you must be in favour of Stride being a ripper victim. Every police official of any seniority accepted Stride as a ripper victim, but you cheerfully reject the conclusion of the contemporary professionals, preferring your own opinion."

Donīt be a fool, Ben. A better comparison would be my Tabram scenario. Not a living soul back in 1888 supported it, and few do today. So why not choose that instead? Must I not be a total idiot to have promoted it?
Then again, I have always said that I know that it is a fringe suggestion.

As for Stride, I have always said that yes, it COULD have been Jack. I even think that I have said that I donīt see my own scenario as much more credible - they weigh in at similar weights, roughly, but since many people have found that hard to swallow, I have fought my fight from a viewpoint that excludes the Ripper. Thatīs the way people want things here - they need to paint you into corners and say "you are not allowed to change your mind!" - as if anybody but me knew what mind I am of...!

You do it yourself repeatedly, which is understandable since you refuse to leave any of your own convictions, come what may evidencewise.

Itīs funny, though, that you should mention Stride, since when I was in London November last, I was presented with the first new good reason I have heard in years to actually count her into the Ripperīs tally! Surrounding evidence that I have never seen before does point to her actually being a Ripper victim.

This is all I will say about that for now, since it does not belong to my own research, but there you are: I am as flexible as ever, Ben.

"I will continue to believe that Kileen was most probably in error"

You do that, and you will be guessing. If you instead say that you think that there is a chance that he could have been wrong to some extent, I will go along with you. But "most probably" reeks of totally other grounds for deciding than factual ones.

"You say that his opinion was uncontested at the time, which obviously wasn’t quite the case. He clearly endorsed the suggested “bayonet” as a possibility for one of the weapons, and equally clearly, that weapon was later considered an improbable candidate for any of the wounds."

He was uncontested when it comes to the two weapons suggestion, and that is what I am saying. The bayonet business is something else, and what you have to show for your theory fails totally to convince me of anything but a daydream on your behalf. Factually, it is disastrous. Anyways, donīt mix up apples with pears - it was the two weapons suggestion that was uncontested.

"it’s completely clear that people disagree with you"

They DO? Who?

"The sheer implausibility of the suggestion that the killer decided at the last moment to use the “better” knife, which he could have used from the outset, is already "firm" ground on which to base the far more logical, far more probable “one knife” scenario."

The killer? What if there were two? Or three? Or do the Home Office annotations rule that out to, in a manner obscured to me?

So much for that "firm ground" of yours, Ben.

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Wow, Fish! You have spent umpteen pages telling us that Killeen's word is all we have to go on and that because of no other testimony, we should accept it for now. Now you say the best doctors don't know the answers. Where does Killeen fit in? Rhetorical question obviously, because you have just admitted his testimony is flawed at best. Or were you being sarcastic?"

You see, Mike, this is the precise reason WHY I have spent umpteen pages discussing this: You repeatedly fail to understand. And YOU have spent umpteen posts, professionally avoiding the points, reading my posts in a very strange manner and ironizing over things, so you have a fine track record yourself in this discipline, methinks.

Letīs do it again, then!

Can doctors be wrong?
Answer: Yes, they can.

Could Killeen make mistakes?
Answer: Yes he could.

Do doctors NORMALLY make mistakes?
Answer: No, they donīt.

Does this mean that we should work from the premise that Killeen was more likely to be right than wrong?
Answer: Yes, it does.

Look at it this way, Mike:

Letīs assume we have a case on hand where a victim has been stabbed to death with more than one stab.

Letīs further assume that we let a layman look at the stabs. Letīs say that this layman comes up with the suggestion - silly sod - that two weapons have been used.

Where would that put us? Would it be a fifty/fifty chance that the layman was correct?
That, my friend, would depend ON THE WOUNDS! If the layman has observed a combination of very small round wounds and one colossal wound, squareshaped, then it stands to reason to say that the layman would arguably be correct in his estimation.

Are we agreed thus far?

If we instead have some small, round wounds, and one wound that is slightly bigger, slightly less round and giving the impression that somebody had wiggled a weapon in it, then the chances that the laymans assessment was correct is much inferior. There would be every reason to challenge him and point to the possibility of just the one weapon. I take it you agree?

So the wounds and their apparition will be the decisive factor here, but it remains that even a layman would stand some sort of chance to make the right call.

Be that as it may, but I suggest that we form a theory that works from the presumption that a layman instead would - averagewise - stand a fifty/fifty chance of getting a decision like this correct.

So letīs see what happens when we add the known factors from the Tabram case:

If we change the layman for a trained medico, in what direction will the probabilities travel? I would say that they would move towards a statistic probability that is very much higher that the doctor is correct. If you do not accept this, then you are saying that it will not matter if we use a trained medico or not to make the call. But I donīt think you would say that, would you?

Next: We let the medico make a post-mortem of the victim. He will thus be able to cut up the body and examine each and every stab in detail, measure each depth, each width of the stabs, assess what type of entrance wound they produced (for example if they were one-edged or double-edged). All of these things he may do, thus double-checking if his initial suspicion of two weapons pan out at the slab.
Would such a thing add to the credibility that he was correct, or will it detract from it? I suggest that the former generally applies here. Do you agree?

Moving on, if we have nobody who contests the doctorīs assertion, although we know that we have police officials who ALSO got to take a look at the wounds - would THAT add to or detract from the reliability of the doctors verdict? Once again, I say option 1 applies. What do you say?

Finally, if we have newspaper reporters that have ALSO seen the wounds, saying that one wound differs MUCH from the others, being reported as MUCH the largest and deepest of the wounds, does this tell us that the doctor would probably have been wrong, or would it speak of a potential and quite credible corroboration of the doctorīs assessment? In this case, Iīd say that the latter choice would be the wisest one to opt for. But if you are of another meaning, please tell me so!

Now, all of this is not some sort of religious outburst, aimed at telling you that Killeen was born a faultless saint and the future for all forensically interested medicos. He was a human being, and human beings sometimes make mistakes and misjudge things. In his life, he would have made calls that were sometimes good and other times less good.

But that does not change the outcome of a sound weighing of the circumstances here at all, other than by conjecture. And we donīt wish to introduce that here, I take it?

Now, Mike, you tell me where I am wrong. And you tell me where you are right! If you only need me to recognize that doctorīs may be wrong, I have already done so. If you need me to accept that Killeen was PROBABLY wrong, you have a lousy argument. Plus it would be introducing that conjecture that we donīt want around here. It would be fiction, and we all prefer facts, donīt we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Glad you were able to revise your decision to “bow out”, but I really don’t see the point in regurgitating at length what Jon took two posts to write. If you really subscribe to the mantra that a modern commentator cannot challenge a professional opinion if it was uncontested at the time, then I guess you must be in favour of Stride being a ripper victim. Every police official of any seniority accepted Stride as a ripper victim, but you cheerfully reject the conclusion of the contemporary professionals, preferring your own opinion.

Unless you’ve stopped doing that recently, I cannot take seriously your advice to accept Kileen’s opinion at face value on the grounds I wasn’t “there” to contest his otherwise uncontested opinion.

I will continue to believe that Kileen was most probably in error, just as you believe the police were all in error on the Stride issue. Had he based his judgment on something rather more compelling than his perception that an unspecified “long, strong” instrument must have been required for the sternum wound, I’d be more inclined to accept it. As it happens, however, I don’t need to look at the wounds directly to know full well that it is impossible to distinguish a strong knife thrust superficially from a weaker knife thrust forcefully. Had there been anything more substantial behind the very implausible two-weapon hypothesis, he would definitely have specified as much.

You say that his opinion was uncontested at the time, which obviously wasn’t quite the case. He clearly endorsed the suggested “bayonet” as a possibility for one of the weapons, and equally clearly, that weapon was later considered an improbable candidate for any of the wounds. But Kileen hardly deserves 40 lashes for this. He was a very young, inexperienced doctor with no demonstrable experience in weaponry. So no, it’s not the case that there is “no contemporary sources or voices giving (me) any support at all”. Moreover, it seems to be you and Jon alone that insist so doggedly on the two-knife scenario.

until you can establish the exact measures of the two blades

Which Kileen did not, and could not.

“Once again - but probably not for the last time - although it cannot be ruled out that Killeen made some sort of misjudgement in at least some aspect”

“Probably not for the last time”…? No, probably for the last time, actually, now that you’ve made your point, and now that it’s completely clear that people disagree with you. Of course, if you repeat yourself again, as you’ve expressed your intention to, I’ll just go straight back to my earlier rebuttal. The fact that yours and Jon’s arguments regarding knife sidedness and heart penetration didn’t convince many people, doesn’t mean that repetition overkill is a brilliant strategy when plan C – “they were professional and there at the time!” – is inevitably resorted to. You make exactly the same point in the next five or so posts after mine.

If there are “heaps” of exceptions to the rule that serial killers, or stabbers in general, use one knife and not two, there are considerably more “heaps” of exceptions to the rule that doctors don’t make mistakes. The sheer implausibility of the suggestion that the killer decided at the last moment to use the “better” knife, which he could have used from the outset, is already "firm" ground on which to base the far more logical, far more probable “one knife” scenario.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

And even the best of doctors could settle for a verdict of "couldnīt say". In fact, only bad doctors say that they know when they donīt.

Wow, Fish! You have spent umpteen pages telling us that Killeen's word is all we have to go on and that because of no other testimony, we should accept it for now. Now you say the best doctors don't know the answers. Where does Killeen fit in? Rhetorical question obviously, because you have just admitted his testimony is flawed at best. Or were you being sarcastic?

Mike