Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

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?

"So yes, you're reading too much into Killeen's words."

I am not the one turning the evidenced series of events inside out. I am not the one reading about a murder perpetrated with two weapons, crying out: Aha - it would of course have been just the one weapon!

I have no agenda at all to defend here. I am very much on the fence with Tabram, since I have read the evidence and realized that she could have been killed by one or more people, by a soldier or by the Ripper. These opportunities are completely open, all of them.

So donīt tell me that I am reading too much into things. People who, presented with clear evidence, come up with a theory (which is the nicest thing I can call it) that is completely adverse to this evidence, THOSE are the ones who are reading too much into things. Much worse, they are reading things that were never written.

I am not the phantasist here. You are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much."

Thanks for that, Harry! One would love to have more information about blade lenght and all.
If we take a human trunk that is 50 centimeters broad and 30 centimeters deep at the heart, and place a normally large heart in itīs middle, then in a standing up position, the blade will have to travel approximately 15 centimeters before reaching the heart if it is stuck in at an angle of 45 degrees between the centre of the ribcage and the left side of the body.

This is just an example, since we have no details at all concerning the actual deed. How large was the victim, for example? If it was a small child or a very thin, smallish woman, we are dealing with other measurements altogether which I am sure you will appreciate.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much.

Thanks for that, Harry.

It's so obvious that IF the wound in the heart had been at the same time :

1: the cause of the death
2: the last stab
3: the same stab that went through the sternum
4: the only stab given with a dagger with 2 cutting edges

....it would have been a bit more clearly worded by the impeccable Dr Killeen. But fact is that, on the contrary, it is listed among the other wounds performed by the knife.

[DVV]

Fish, it's good you can provide us with an unshakable scenario - something all ripperologists failed to achieve for 125 years.
Problem is that Killeen never said : "the cause of the death is the last stab, in the heart, done by a dagger with two cutting edges that went through the sternum."
So yes, you're reading too much into Killeen's words.

If you wish to argue that a penknife pierced the heart without going through the sternum, David, then Iīm afraid you are reading far too much into .. into ... Jeez, I canīt event tell WHAT you are reading it into!
Fisherman

No my friend, I've already pointed out that Killeen merely said : "it could have been caused by an ordinary penknife", I've already pointed out also that Killeen had no way to KNOW that this knife was a folding one or not. All we know is that this knife did reach several internal organs.

[harry]

January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish, I think you and Jon are once more reading too much into Killeen's words."

I can only answer for myself, and I can assure that if somebody is taking great trouble to find himself a truth other than the obvious one, well, then that somebody is not me.
The heart, David, is situated in the very centre of the body. It is a wise move by nature to have it that way, since it will be maximally protected to any objects entering the body.
In comparison, the lungs are closer to the ribcage, meaning that they are less well protected.
As if this was not enough, further protection is offered the heart by the sternum. It is a massive piece of bone, situated directly over the heart.
The lungs are protected by the ribs, but there is space between the ribs that offer the possibility for a blade to travel through them.

The heart can be reached from the front of a human being from different angles, just like you say. But any other approach than the one through the sternum will call for a blade that is longer than a penknife blade. Therefore, the penknife blade was not the one that caused the piercing of the heart.

Incidentally, when we have a pierced heart, and when we have a pierced sternum, and when we have a long, strong instrument doing that piercing, it is logic - and not "reading in too much" - to work from the assumption that the sternum wound was the one that hurt the heart. After all, if we thrust a long, strong instrument through the sternum of a person lying flat on her back, the one logical spot to expect the instrument to end up is in the heart.

If you wish to argue that a penknife pierced the heart without going through the sternum, David, then Iīm afraid you are reading far too much into .. into ... Jeez, I canīt event tell WHAT you are reading it into!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

What are you talking about? We know that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was perceived by Killeen to be a penknife blade.

We also know that the stab through the sternum was provided with a weapon that was long, strong and daggerlike.

Do you propose to say that a penknife is long, strong and daggerlike? I hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, I think you and Jon are once more reading too much into Killeen's words. There was no less than 22 stabs in the trunk, mostly concentrated in the breast area. Among them, 5 in the left lung, 2 in the right lung - all caused by the knife according to Killeen (no need to point out how close to the heart the lungs are).
Is the sternum the ONLY access to the heart ?

If you and Jon are correct, the sequence of events is crystal-clear :37 stabs with the knife - Martha being still alive - and then the final and lethal blow given to the sternum, with a longer and double edged instrument, as to reach the heart.

Why not... But how limpid and indubitable is that, compared to Killeen's testimony, in which we find the wound in the heart listed among those caused by the knife...?!

If you are right, then really Killeen wasn't fit for the job.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I'm not being nasty, Jon, but this is really too much."

What are you talking about? We know that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was perceived by Killeen to be a penknife blade.

We also know that the stab through the sternum was provided with a weapon that was long, strong and daggerlike.

Do you propose to say that a penknife is long, strong and daggerlike? I hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"All very true Fish, except that the ribcage will not give in the same way.

Certainly there is some flexibility but punch a knife into the abdomen and the tissue & intestines will most certainly give way, as you have been mentioning. Not the same with the heart, being behind the ribcage, the same argument does not hold here. A longer blade would be needed, sadly he never said how long the "longer instrument" had to be."

That, Jon, is certainly correct, and I never meant that the heart piercing could have been achieved with the smaller weapon. So thanks for pointing out that I could have worded myself more precise! Yes, the heart stab is another very good pointer to two weapons, since we know that the other weapon had a blade that equalled a pen-knife blade.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"He made a suggestion that turns out to be unlikely."

But that is just what I am saying, David - it has not "turned out" in that way at all. Nothing has surfaced to contradict Killeen, not then and not later on. There is no evidence at all to suggest that he WAS wrong, and evidence is what it takes.

I am being told that the normal scenario in a stabbing is that only one weapon is used, and that one may therefore conclude that Killeens suggestion is a dodgy one. But this is not so. The specifics of one case is not reliant on the overall statistics at all. Therefore it is completely useless to try and fit Killeens round peg into the square statistics hole. It does not belong there and it never did. From the second Killeen stated that one instrument was long, strong and dagger-like and the other one a pen-knife, the case instead belonged to the pile of cases that do not ascribe to the inherent qualities of the statistically typical case.
If we were to lean against statistics here, then we must accept that the murder was not perpetrated by the Ripper, since stabbings are normally not the work of serial killers. But for some reason or another, THAT particular statistic does not apply here. One wonders why?

So when you say "unlikely", you make it sound as if it was more likely that Killeen was wrong, than it was that he was right. But that is just plain wrong. An asserted penknife and an asserted daggerlike, long, strong instrument ARE totally, totally different weapons, and no talk about statistics is ever going to change that.

Back to the drawing board, David - there is nothing that allows us to for a second look away from the very clear possibility that Tabram was slain by a soldier, in spite of all the hard lobbying you produce to sway that picture. For it seems to me that your work is all directed to this goal: to try and make the possibility of a bayonet go away - begone, foul weapon! - by means of looking away from the evidence and tarnishing Killeen.

A penknife and a long, strong instrument goes to show that this road is effectively closed to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Jon,I am only repeating what was taught.What a military person might do.I a m with those that believe a bladed weapon was the more likely to be used on Tabram,whether it be bayonet,dagger,penknife or home fashioned.E ven with a foot on the chest,withdrawing from the sternum would not be a clean and easy withdrawl.I would expect significent damage compared to a withdrawl from the abdomen or throat,and that is what occured.With the same weapon.

[Ben]

Ben, with all due respect to Bob, he was not around in 1888,...put simply, Bob Hinton does not know.

I would certainly credit Bob with such knowledge, Jon. On the basis of both his book and message board contributions, it should be quite apparent that his knowledge of "weaponology" is impressive, and his insights carry more weight than the result of a hasty google search, in my opinion.

Nobody ever suggested that the socket bayonet had any involvement in the Tabram murder, which is fortunate, because it would have made a comically implausible candidate for ANY of the wounds.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

If she had have been then Macnaghten would have said so.

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.

[DVV]

Simply, yes.

Taking Killeen's words verbatim:
"......but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger".

Regards, Jon S.

No comment, of course.

edit : I'm not being nasty, Jon, but this is really too much.

[Wickerman]

Jon, are you suggesting that the wound in the heart has been caused by the "longer instrument" - ie : the famous dagger/bayonet ?

Simply, yes.

Taking Killeen's words verbatim:
"......but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger".

Or would it prove that I'm right saying that the knife wasn't a toy, and, having injured the heart, could well have gone through the chestbone as well ?

What do you mean by "toy"?
I don't read it as if the wound to the heart was a different wound to the wound through the breastbone. So, I assume this "dagger" pierced the breastbone, then pierced the heart. A 6" blade should suffice, and it wouldn't be a "toy", assuming there was such a thing as a toy knife.

Old socket-bayonets were being bought for a penny in Petticoat Lane market, kids were seen playing with them in the street.
Does this make the bayonet a "toy"?

Regards, Jon S.