Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Wickerman]

If you could stay away from claiming that "yesterday it was A, and now it is B", I would be very grateful. I always have a rational reason when I abandon A for B, you may rely on that,

Which is a credit to you. Anyone who will not changed their mind will not learn anything. The implication that a changing opinion is a sign of weakness is quite primative.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

My advice to you, if you could see your way clear to take it from me, would be to argue your points in the different questions you are interested in, and let me argue whatever points I prefer. If you could stay away from claiming that "yesterday it was A, and now it is B", I would be very grateful. I always have a rational reason when I abandon A for B, you may rely on that, and I would appreciate if you took my word for it. Likewise, if you were ever to change YOURm ind on something - not that it is a frequent thing - I will gladly let you do so without making out that you are a less reliable person for it.

Bridewell!

Thanks for the new thread on Killeen! As for me, I have said what I wanted to say about the accusations that Killeen would have been incompetent in any way - it is impossible to prove. After that, any further discussion on the topic is moot and useless, I think, unless you are anticipating a discussion on the levels of competence amongst doctors in general back then - such a thing would be interesting!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I never suggested that you "stated" any of things as fact, but they were theories that you subscribed to not so long ago and you argued them very vehemently with others. I'm simply observing that you seem to have rejected these previous ideas and now argue the reverse of practically all of them with equal vehemence. I never suggested that this was a "bad" thing, so I'm not sure quite where I'm guilty of "bad manners", although I notice your own manners have been criticized several times on this thread and for good reason. Also, what's so "unpleasant" about speculating that that you might have been persuaded by someone else that Cross was a worthy suspect? You've referred to Lechmere's as yet undisclosed research, and I simply concluded - reasonably, I would have thought - that it was this that "converted" you into believer in Cross as the best suspect.

Hi Bridewell,

I apologise for my part in the forgoing frosty exchange, but I felt I had to explain that I'm not quite the unpleasant mannerless person I'm being depicted as.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Further to the above:

There is now a thread (under Doctors & Coroners) entitled:

Was Dr Killeen Competent To Express The Opinions That He Did?

for those who wish to do so to continue their discussions on that particular subject.

Sally, I'm not trying to upset anyone with this. I just think this particular thread has diverted too far for too long. It seems sensible (& wasn't meant to be rude) to start another one.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell - no I think it's a good idea

[Bridewell]

Further to the above:

There is now a thread (under Doctors & Coroners) entitled:

Was Dr Killeen Competent To Express The Opinions That He Did?

for those who wish to do so to continue their discussions on that particular subject.

Sally, I'm not trying to upset anyone with this. I just think this particular thread has diverted too far for too long. It seems sensible (& wasn't meant to be rude) to start another one.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Hi, Sally,

Thanks for an amusing post and one which is actually relevant to the subject matter. I've been party to allowing this thread to become one about whether two knives were used and whether or not Killeen was competent. Apologies for my involvement in that process.

Hi Bridewell - no worries

The nature of discussion is that it will inevitably evolve. I look forward to your new thread

[Bridewell]

A Relevant Post

I'm coming around to the theory that Tabram not only banged her own head on the wall; but did so whilst suffocating and stabbing herself as well.

Why not?

Hi, Sally,

Thanks for an amusing post and one which is actually relevant to the subject matter. I've been party to allowing this thread to become one about whether two knives were used and whether or not Killeen was competent. Apologies for my involvement in that process.

Ben & Fisherman,

When I've posted this I'll open a separate thread on the competence of Killeen to give the opinions that he did. Perhaps you can continue your increasingly irate off-topic discussion over there.

Regards, Bridewell

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Oh yes, your brand new exciting theory that Cross was the ripper after all. I can’t imagine who could have converted you to that one… It seems like only yesterday that Fleming was the ripper, Tabram was a ripper victim, Stride wasn’t, the Dew Spew was riddled with mistakes, Hutchinson got the right night, but all those tables have turned now, haven’t they?"

And it seems like only yesterday that you said that changing your mind need not be a bad thing, Ben! But do letīs take a look at things here!

Have I ever said that Fleming was the Ripper - or did I say that a case could be made for it?

Donīt misrepresent me, Ben. Itīs bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever said that Tabram was a Ripper victim, or have I said that she may have been? Does my stance now, more or less on the fence, preclusde that she WAS a Ripper victim?

Donīt misrepresent me, Ben. Itīs bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever stated that Stride was not a Ripper victim, or have I made the case that she MAY not have been?

Donīt misrepresent me, Ben. Itīs bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever sad that Dews book was faultless?

Donīt misrepresent me, Ben. Itīs bad manners and bad research.

Have I stated that Hutchinson must have gotten the days right?

Donīt misrepresent me, Ben. Itīs bad manners and bad research.

Are you of the meaning that George Hutchinson MUST have been Joe Fleming AND the Ripper? Is the case closed to you?

I would not think so.

Would you like me to tell all and sundry that you think that you have solved the case, and that you are of the meaning that your losution cannot be questioned?

I would not think so.

I take it that from now on, you are going to respect this, Ben. If not, Iīm not the one to talk to.

Incidentally, adding smilies to unpleasant accusations of me being a "convert" by somebody elseīs will, does not help very much. Can I please ask you to accept that I make my own calls, when I decide that something is a good theory? I would also like to point to the fact that much new evidence has been added to the Cross theory, much of which remains unknown to you for now. Such things may not sway you, but it can sway me if the evidence and implications are there. But I prefer to call it further insight instead of "being converted" by somebody.

Oh, I forgot:

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Theory

I'm coming around to the theory that Tabram not only banged her own head on the wall; but did so whilst suffocating and stabbing herself as well.

Why not?

[Ben]

“This has to be the mootest and most pointless discussion ever on Casebook”

Well off you pop to more “pointful” discussions then, Fisherman. Nobody’s forcing you to endure that which you consider pointless, and tortured, inapplicable analogies involving Cleopatra and Hannibal certainly don’t help. I’m challenging the nonsense that a doctor is “probably” right simply because he expressed an opinion. That determination must take into account the actual basis for that opinion, and in this case, the basis was insufficient to conclude that two weapons were definitely used. We don’t haul Kileen over the coals for this, but he was very young inexperienced, and multi-weapons stabbers are very rare in comparison to their single-weapon counterparts.

You know full well you don’t embrace the mantra that the contemporary professional opinions will “probably” be correct, because you’ve argued against contemporary professional opinion on several occasions, most notably on the Stride issue. If you didn’t consider that tantamount to “rewriting history” then, you shouldn’t really back-peddle now.

“If the signs are so very clear in that photo, the how could Killeen possibly have missed it?”

But I thought your argument was that he didn’t miss it? According to your previous logic, the signs of suffocation could easily have appeared in this “lost report”, and that he only didn’t mention it at the inquest because he wasn’t required to. You insist that lots of other details must have appeared in this report, despite the fact that they have no corroboration anywhere (not even in the Illustrated Police News) and the total absence of evidence that they appeared anywhere accept in your imagination, so why so confident when dismissing suffocation?

Evidence for suffocation: an admittedly uncorroborated article in the Illustrated Police News (not “Police Illustrated”, Fisherman!)

Evidence for wounds that reveal different numbers of “cutting sides”: Zero.

“You have invested heavily in telling people that my use of Dew compares to your use of an obviously erroneous Home Office report, so I once again ask you to provide proof of this.”

Have you or have you not used the Dew book to formulate theories? If you now contend that you haven't, I can only assume a certain penny’s finally dropped. In which case, well done you.

“Oh, so you think that no evaluation of the sources is involved when a journalist chooses what material to provide his writing colleagues with?”

Well, for instance, you might inform your colleagues that Historian X concludes this from the source, while Historian Y concludes the opposite, but I wouldn’t expect any journalist worthy of that title to pooh-pooh the historians' findings and adhere instead to the hastily conceived judgments of one of his colleagues.

“YOU may be as adamant as you please in stating that shape could not have had anything to do with Killeens assessment”

Yes, I may, because had it been otherwise, he’d have said so. No sane individual, let alone a doctor at an inquest, deliberately provides a weak reason for offering a two weapon theory, while keeping silent about a much better reason that would put the matter beyond question.

“... which is probably why so many people speak of the possibility that she banged her head against the wall or the floor.”

Do they really "speak" of that? Do they really suggest that Tabram banged her own head against the wall or floor without the killer’s help? She might do the former if she was having a discussion with you, and with considerable justification, but it seems most improbable in any other scenario. It could be argued that she injured herself when attempting to wrestle free of the killer, but this again seems unlikely to have occurred in the absence of any screaming or crying out.

“But what about my question to you about Nichols, Ben? I need an answer to that one. It is very important to another subject, as I will show you in some time”

Oh yes, your brand new exciting theory that Cross was the ripper after all. I can’t imagine who could have converted you to that one… It seems like only yesterday that Fleming was the ripper, Tabram was a ripper victim, Stride wasn’t, the Dew Spew was riddled with mistakes, Hutchinson got the right night, but all those tables have turned now, haven’t they?

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

But I thought you did not buy the bayonet, David ... so how do YOU know?

Fisherman

[DVV]

If you buy one bayonet, they give you a dagger free.

[harry]

David,
I didn't really think you w ould be.I guess the bayonet bearers will one day turn up with the left handed stabber.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Lost sheep, David, are sheep that have absconded from a heard of (probably black) sheep. Those who did not, are free (probably white) sheep. And white sheep donīt mingle with black. Plus, trying to sort me in with the black ones donīt come sheep.

Good to hear though, that I did not scare you away from the boards with my offensive posting!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David,
Don't be daunted by the offensive remarks of Fisherman.

Hi Harry. No worries about that. I'm currently praying for our lost sheeps, the bayonetists.