Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Hi Fish

Nobody, Harry, is saying that different weapons cannot pierce bone.

Except Killeen. Should I quote him ?

It will not matter a bit, though.

It does, due to Dr Killeen's testimony.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Sorry to disapoint you but I have not shown a disposition to challenge my medical knowledge against Kileen's.I have made comparisons on the ability of different weapons to pierce the human body.I have given examples.The 10 August 1888 article in the Times,which is quoted much,has Kileen believing a dagger type weapon as piercing the sternum or chestbone,and that a weapon,a knife,was generally responsible for other wounds to Tabram. So Kileen's could have been wrong.Certain types of penknives can and have caused death by piercing the sternum and entering the heart,and these knives were available then.No one Jon,is trying to establish the shape of blade or wound,certainly not myself,I wonder why you mention it.It has no bearing on anything,as we do not know it's nature.

Nobody, Harry, is saying that different weapons cannot pierce bone.

Nobody is contesting that one may find examples of penknives that have done so either.

It would be a stupid thing to do, since a little research would immediately show that such a position would have been untenable.

Therefore, neither Jon nor I ascribe to such a stance.

But the core of the matter here is that no person living in todayīs world could possibly know of what value such examples are in relation to the Tabram slaying. We cannot establish to what degree the examples you dig up, no matter how many they potentially are, make a good comparison with the weapons that killed Tabram.

And that owes to the fact that we do not have any measurements of the blades involved in George Yard. All we know is that a trained medico DID know what impression the two blades gave, after having examined them thoroughly, even to the extent that he cut the body of Tabram open and followed the trails in detail. We also know that this examination resulted in him giving the opinion that two different weapons had been used.

The criticism you choose to direct against this informed view, substantiated by the papers of the time and unchallenged by any contemporary part, is that you THINK that this MAY be wrong, because killers statistically, generally and normally use just the one weapon (but we know for certain that there are heaps of exceptions to that rule, just as we know that there is a totally open possibility in Tabramīs case that there were more than just the one killer).

The reason that you have no further points of accusation to direct against Killeens verdict, is a very simple one: you cannot tell what the wounds looked like. So, chances are that if you DID get the opportunity to take a look at them, you would have gone: "My word - those wounds were NOT done by the same weapon!" Is that not true, Harry? Equally, you may have said "Well, Iīm not sure. Maybe if the smaller weapon was wriggled a lot, and if it was a lot longer than the small stabs give away...? Then perhaps ...?"

What you would NOT have said would be "But those wounds all look the same!". For we know that they did not, from the Star, amongst other sources, that reported that the hole in the chest was MUCH larger and deeper than the other wounds. Much, Harry, not significantly, comparatively or slightly. Much. And that supports Killeenīs assertion very much. Itīs corroboration, whereas there is nothing at all to point away from Killeen and the Star being correct.

And so we end up at the same point again. Those who need to dismiss Killeen try to paint me and Jon out as someone who says that it is a fact that Killeen was right, and that his verdict cannot be challenged.

We donīt; at least I know that I donīt. Challenge away as much as you like, Harry, by all means. Find as many examples as you like of bone pierced by different types of weapons. Speak as loudly as you wish about how doctors may be wrong. Find as many young doctors as you can, of whom it can be shown that they made mistakes. Research away!

It will not matter a bit, though. Itīs not until you find a contemporary source that tells us that Killeen may have been wrong and substantiates this assumption, itīs not until you can establish the exact measures of the two blades whose tracks Killeen measured, itīs not until you establish what the entrance holes in Tabramīs body looked like, that you can produce a RELEVANT criticism towards Killeen and his findings. Up til that time, you are trying to draw conclusions about a specific case, grounded in specifics attaching to completely OTHER cases and OTHER weapons, conclusions that thus may or may not be relevant. In short, you are guessing, hunching, perhaps hoping.

Canīt you see that such a thing is utterly useless?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,Jon,
Sorry to disapoint you but I have not shown a disposition to challenge my medical knowledge against Kileen's.I have made comparisons on the ability of different weapons to pierce the human body.I have given examples.The 10 August 1888 article in the Times,which is quoted much,has Kileen believing a dagger type weapon as piercing the sternum or chestbone,and that a weapon,a knife,was generally responsible for other wounds to Tabram. So Kileen's could have been wrong.Certain types of penknives can and have caused death by piercing the sternum and entering the heart,and these knives were available then.No one Jon,is trying to establish the shape of blade or wound,certainly not myself,I wonder why you mention it.It has no bearing on anything,as we do not know it's nature.

[Fisherman]

IF this was the case, Mike, that is how I worded it. IF Tabram DID die by means of blood loss, as Killeen suggested, then the sternum wound WAS inflicted when she was dead.
That should not be too controversial a thing, should it?

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.

How it would add up to discrediting Killeens name to recognize this, I donīt know. But I suspect that you are being ironic, here. Sort of?

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

If this was the case, then she was already dead when the heart was pierced. Arguably, the final stab to the sternum may just as well have been inflicted while she was still alive. The call must have been tough for Killeen to make.

No, this cannot be argued because according to you and Jon, if Killeen didn't specifically say this is how it happened, we would be unfairly jumping to conclusions and thereby, discrediting the good doctor's name.

Mike

[Qlder]

Thank you, Fisherman. Your reply is accepted and appreciated.
Regards

[Wickerman]

Hi Harry.

The question in Tabram's killing is whether one weapon could have caused all wounds.

Please bear in mind Harry, this is 'our' question, not Killeen's. And the reason 'we' ask is because 'we' lack sufficient information of the details of these wounds.
'We' ask the question because 'we' lack information. Killeen had the information and he made his determinations based on all the necessary information.
As I mentioned elsewhere, "questions" are not "answers". Just because 'we' ask a question this does not mean that Killeen lacked information.

While we can accept that there was,in Tabram's case,a marked difference in appearance regarding the sternum wound.we do not know what that difference was.

Right Harry, so who did know? Killeen.
Therefore, who is the best informed person to judge?

When we examine other cases where a penknife has been named as the weapon used,and to have pierced the breastbone,into the heart,an opinion can be formed that a penknife could,whatever medical opinion states,have made all the wounds to Tabram.So my opinion is not based on what Kileen or anyne else said,but on the established power of a certain type of weapon.

This argument is not valid, the reason being, that you do not know the shape of the blade which is left in the breastbone, and we do not know the shape of the blade that went through Tabram's breastbone.
Whether Killeen "could" have confused the two depends largely on the shape of the wound in the bone, which neither of us can establish. Therefore there is no grounds for a debate on that issue.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Hi Qlder!

That theory has not been aired on this particular thread - but it has been discussed on other Tabram threads. The problem with the suggestion is that Killeen was adamant that Tabram lived throughout the 37 stabs, and he was equally adamant that the sternum stab would have been enough to kill. But
in the end, he opted for blood loss as the cause of death, meaning that he thought that Tabram was stabbed 37 (or 38) times first, lived through that ordeal as the stabs rained down over her, but eventually succumbed to the blood loss (and, one would expect, having her lungs filled with blood, suffocating her). If this was the case, then she was already dead when the heart was pierced. Arguably, the final stab to the sternum may just as well have been inflicted while she was still alive. The call must have been tough for Killeen to make.

But at any rate one must accept, I think, that the sternum stab was NOT the first.

The best,
Fisherman

[Qlder]

Just a thought about how Killeen's opined view may have transpired:

Once long ago on a Casebook board now defunct, I wrote a brief bit about how I imagined the bayonet or dagger for one and pen-knife for thirty-eight may have occured.
Plunging a dagger or bayonet through the sternum may well have got the attacker's preferred weapon stuck. (I think in the old post I refered to my own experience of this with a roast turkey.) To proceed, he then takes out his pen-knife to continue what he started. Perhaps finding that the smaller blade wasn't up to cutting up his victim as he wanted, he becomes frustrated and stabs rather wildly.
This is, of course, pure conjecture.
I also conjecture that there is a reasonable chance that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim and that her murderer learned lessons from this attack that shifted his M.O.

(Apologies to all and sundry if this line of thought has been floated by others. I have not read all of this thread.)

[Fisherman]

Well, to be a little more precise, since we have a view by an educated medico who performed the post-mortem and who was never challenged but instead supported by contemporary sources like newspapers, we must accept that this view has a lot more going for it than any contrary view, produced and designed in our own time by laymen who never got to see the damages.

So, much as we must NOT accept Killeens view as being accurate - and I fail to see any such demands having been raised - we need to accept that the suggestion that Killen got it right rests on much firmer ground than any suggestion that he got it wrong. The latter suggestion rests on no ground at all, come to think of it. Itīs best support is the insight that doctors sometimes get things wrong, and nothing else at all. If I am wrong about that, please tell me. I would love to think that all of the commotion the Killeen-scorners are making is grounded in more than so, but I suspect that this is what it amounts to. And that is thinner than the thinnest penknife imaginable. It will never find itīs way to my heart, I can guarantee you that much.

Where you own knife is, Mike, I cannot say. I have seen no edge at all in your reasoning, so it remains hidden to me.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Anybody is welcome to say that there was a chance that Killeen was wrong. Anybody is equally welcome to say that they have a hunch that this was in fact so. But nobody is welcome to say that the material speaks in favour of it, since that would be patently wrong. The material speaks in favour of two weapons, and that is not open to discussion, Iīm afraid.

This is true and since there is only one opinion of the day, we must accept it as being accurate. Back to the Book of Mormon. Where's my knife? No the one with the 3 inch blade.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Yes, Harry, a three-inch blade could inflict a five-inch wound. I have said as much before, and I have bolstered it with a scientific report saying as much. But a five inch wound made by a penknife will not have a doctor speaking about long and strong instruments.

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, it still remains that neither me or you, Harry, will offer any credible opposition to Killeen, considering the not irrelevant fact that none of us have seen the holes in Tabramīs body.

Killeen has the upper hand by any stretch, and his view had contemporary support in the papers, just as it remained unchallenged by any party. That speaks very clearly and unambiguosly about which stance is the sounder one in this affair. And anybody who challenges this, must be prepared to be looked upon as somebody who either has failed to understand this very basic truth, or who has other reasons to refuse to accept it.

Anybody is welcome to say that there was a chance that Killeen was wrong. Anybody is equally welcome to say that they have a hunch that this was in fact so. But nobody is welcome to say that the material speaks in favour of it, since that would be patently wrong. The material speaks in favour of two weapons, and that is not open to discussion, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Quoting from the same paper as in previous posts.Witness"Long shiny thing like a dagger".The weapon produced in court was a penknife with a three and a half inch blade.Would it have needed longer to reach Tabram's heart?I am writing of weapons that were seen.So yes I think his(Kileen) opinion can be questioned. Another case.Three inch long incised wound on the left breast.One inch wound in back of left shoulder.A five inch incised wound in the left groin,and a one inch incised wound on left buttock.Shown a penknife,witness(surgeon specialist)said it could have caused the wounds.

[Fisherman]

Did he bring a knife?

Seriously, Mike ...

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

so if one is to invest faith in any source at all, there is only one source to invest in.

I agree. Joseph Smith said he talked to an angel who gave him some gold plates which he translated with the the help of the urim and thummim and then published the Book of Mormon. He is the source which we should put faith in because no one challenged him. They, like cattle followed him to Navoo, Illinois, accepting his revelations.

Mike