Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

There is something like Ikea with Fish and Jon reasonings. Once you've entered that nightmare, you cannot step back.

[The Good Michael]

Precisely, so why can't "they" let history lay where it may. The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.
End of story!
Why?, for the very simple reason you just observed, "we" do not have sufficient evidence nor experience to argue to the contrary.
So there the arguement rests.



Well, now you just contradicted yourself...

Regards, Jon S.

I did? Don't think so. I don't believe in arguing the contrary. I believe all things discussed on this thread are possible. To ignorantly state that a doctor who you didn't speak with, who examined wounds you never saw, that were caused by weapons no one saw, must be correct in his conjecture, iss far too trusting for my tastes. If you want to believe it fine. I believe Killeen may have been right or may have been wrong. How can that be refuted. To argue against that logic is illogical.

MIke

[Ben]

Yes, Fisherman, a "small pocket knife" which could easily have been the same sort of instrument, blade-wise, that Kileen envisaged for the smaller wounds. I'm not sure quite what significance you're investing in "less than six inches", since the article did not specify how much less.

The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.

He didn't "determine" it, Jon. He opined it. A number of factors oblige us to treat the “two weapon” hypothesis with extreme caution. I’ve just outlined the first – an over-reliance on imprecise wound measurements can easily lead to faulty conclusions. Then there is the relative youth and inexperience of Killeen to consider. Finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet.

An uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of the opinions of those "who were there at the time, is folly, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You just did! Whatever Killeen believed, doesn't make it true. To argue all this blade stuff day in and day out proves nothing. It is senseless, useless, and unimportant without actually seeing the blade used. This isn't ballistics. It isn't science. It's conjecture.

Precisely, so why can't "they" let history lay where it may. The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.
End of story!
Why?, for the very simple reason you just observed, "we" do not have sufficient evidence nor experience to argue to the contrary.
So there the arguement rests.

To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly.

Well, now you just contradicted yourself...

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

The quality of the argumentation is not very encouraging here for the moment. This "pocket knife" affair was over the top, Iīm afraid. That means I am dropping it for now, reserving, though, the right to return to the discussion without being criticized for it.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

How you can believe that the smarter thing to do is to work from the presumtion that professional medicos will get things wrong is beyond me. Donīt tell your own doctor about it. Oh, wait - you donīt go to doctors when you are ill, do you ...?

Ah... I must have said this. You wouldn't make this up. I'll tell you what, I understand myself and my body more than an overworked doctor who may be thinking about golf. Doctors have made serious blunders with a ton more science behind them than Killeen had. Refute that.

Mike

[Fisherman]

"A York man was fatally stabbed after the bars closed early Sunday morning on Harrisburg’s Restaurant Row. City police have charged a Harrisburg man with criminal homicide in the case.

The Dauphin County Coroner says the fatal wound pierced the heart. Coroner Graham Hetrick says the murder weapon was a pocket knife, the type that’s easy to conceal.

The blade was less than six inches long. With the push of a button and a flick of the wrist, the blade is locked in place."

So, a stiletto knife. You can keep them in your pocket too, but it does not make them the type of pocket knife Killeen would have spoken of.

There we go. It would seem the example was TRULY "harrowing".

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"A York man was fatally stabbed after the bars closed early Sunday morning on Harrisburg’s Restaurant Row. City police have charged a Harrisburg man with criminal homicide in the case.
The Dauphin County Coroner says the fatal wound pierced the heart. Coroner Graham Hetrick says the murder weapon was a pocket knife, the type that’s easy to conceal.
The blade was less than SIX INCHES LONG."

Ooops. Ooopsie, ooopsie ...! Six (6) inches! But then again, the article says that it was LESS than six inches long. So maybe just two? Or three, at worst?

Thank heaven for research.

http://www.whptv.com/mostpopular/story/UPDATE-2-Harrisburg-man-accused-of-murder-has/5CmCWCLal0Kl41qk8gsZSA.cspx

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Ehhrm ... no.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly."

Not at all, Mike. The height of folly would instead be to habitually DISAGREE with something a doctor said. After all, he IS a professional, he KNOWS his job, he HAS experience and he HAS methods to measure and compare things. If we take all that as useful indicators that he would be wrong, we are on water so deep that it will pour out into the atmoshpere via the Chinese Sea.

How you can believe that the smarter thing to do is to work from the presumtion that professional medicos will get things wrong is beyond me. Donīt tell your own doctor about it. Oh, wait - you donīt go to doctors when you are ill, do you ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Agreed, Mike and Dave.

If people want to "lean against statistics" and conclude that Tabram was killed with more than one knife, they must at least demonstrate some consistency in applying that reasoning. They can't then argue that Kileen was unlikely to have been wrong because it "leans against statistics" for doctors to make mistakes.

It is circular reasoning at its very worst. Mistake-making doctors are far more frequently occurring than multi-weapon stabbers, which is why I'm quite comfortable with my impression that the former happened in this case, and not the latter. The inexperienced Kileen was offering his opinion only, and he may have been wrong, just as other doctors called upon to examine the ripper-attributed corpses were certainly wrong in some instances.

He certainly wasn't emphatic about identifying a pen-knife as the weapon. That was merely a suggestion, and if it was based primarily on the depth of the wounds, the suggestion was a very bad one, for reasons discussed and repeated already. Nor was he remotely emphatic that two separate weapons were used. He simply "did not think" that one weapon was responsible for all wounds.

It is not remotely the case that a penknife or pocket knife can't penetrate a heart, as this rather harrowing case aptly demonstrates:

http://www.ydr.com/local/ci_20050221

And no, none of the wounds pierced the sternum. There was not the slightest suggestion that the sternum wound was the one that was also responsible for the heart piercing, in Tabram's case. Had it been otherwise, Kileen would have specified as much. I dearly hope nobody is seriously suggesting that a Bowie knife can't reach a heart, when we know for an absolute certainty that a "small pocket knife" can?

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

But I will leave it to you to theorize about that, since I donīt delve into things I can in no way substantiate myself.

You just did! Whatever Killeen believed, doesn't make it true. To argue all this blade stuff day in and day out proves nothing. It is senseless, useless, and unimportant without actually seeing the blade used. This isn't ballistics. It isn't science. It's conjecture. To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly. There are many people walking around this earth alive because they sought second opinions from other doctors. Here we have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th opinions and they are all possible. Understand that and move on to another argument.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Since it may be lost on some posters here, I ought perhaps further press the implications of the Bowie knife laws described above:

1. A knife-blade that is no longer than 3 inches will not reach the heart.
2. A pen-knife blade is normally around 3 inches long.
3. A pen-knife blade was what was used on Tabram in 37, perhaps 38, instances. We know this since, as Jon quoted from Sugden on the Home Office thread: "The records of the Metropolitan Police still contain a contemporary digest in tabular form of all the official reports made upon the case. In one column, headed 'Nature and description of wounds as given in surgeon's report', is written the comment "twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen apparently inflicted with a penknife." The official name of this document is MEPO 3/140, by the way.
As we can see, the fact that a penknife was responsible was something that was deriving from the "nature and description Of wounds AS GIVEN IN SURGEONS REPORT".

The surgeon? Killeen. He was in charge.

The report? The post-mortem report, of course - unless somebody wants to argue that Killeen wrote more reports in this context.

Meaning that we have a direct link to at least one thing Killeen said in the lost post-mortem report - he stated that a penknife was used on Tabram.

But how, one might ask, did a pen-knife reach all the way in to her heart, piercing it as it were?

Answer: It did not.

But, one might ask, does that not mean that some other weapon must have been included in the deed, since we know that the heart WAS pierced?

Oh, yes - that is EXACTLY what it means.

But of course, I may just be reading things into Killeens testimony that were never there.

Or not.

Definitely not.

This, by the way, should answer your last post too, David. Killeen WAS certain that it was a penknife. And this means, boiled down, that he was certain that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was a blade that looked the way blades on penknives do. To argue that he could not have known whether it was a pen- or a pocket knife is just stalling - the one and only thing that is of interest is the size and shape of the blade. After that, it may have been mounted on a severed zebraleg, a vacuumcleaner or a harpoonhandle.

But I will leave it to you to theorize about that, since I donīt delve into things I can in no way substantiate myself.


The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"I've already pointed out that Killeen merely said : "it could have been caused by an ordinary penknife"

And this he said about the sternum hole? Would you point me to your source, please, if this is the case?

The best,
Fisherman

I beg your pardon, Fish ?
I was merely answering one of your previous posts in which you took for granted that a penknife had been used. And I replied that Killen had no way to know whether the knife was a penknife or a folding one, or whether he had a fixed blade. And that all we know it that it could reach several internal organs.

[Fisherman]

Harry! This is for you! It is from an article I found, called: "Restrictions On Carrying A Bowie Knife".

These are the relevant parts I need you to see:


"A Bowie knife is a weapon. Although it does have utilitarian uses, as well, this knife is most well-known for being a legendary fighting blade. Like any other weapon, owning one means being responsible and exercising some common sense when carrying it. It also means knowing the local and regional laws that apply to carrying any kind of weapon."

...and this:

"There are certain areas where any type of weapon is prohibited, regardless of one's state laws. Federal properties, hospitals and schools are good examples of such places. The owner of a Bowie knife, in these cases, has to be responsible and leave their blade at home."

and finally:

"Bowie knives will be restricted in some cities by local ordinances. In many cases, these ordinances will be based on blade length. Usually, they permit the carry of any knife 3 inches or shorter in blade length, which is too short to reach the heart on a human being."

And there we are, obviously: A blade of 3 inches is too short to reach the heart. And that would owe to what I said earlier - the heart is hidden away in the middle of the body. Of course, a newborn infant would not have the measures that would protect itīs heart from three inches of steel. Therefore, this regulation should be read as one that is meant to apply to grownups. And Tabram was a grownup, and by the apparition of things, not a thin woman.

This is why I think that your Jamaican article needs to have a bit more information added to it. Do you have this information at hand? If so, please post it!

The best,
Fisherman