Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

Not being a military man himself, the writer likely assumed the same type of bayonet that everybody was familiar with, that everyone grew up knowing, the triangular 'spike' bayonet.

Not remotely, Jon.

The spike bayonet was not in use by the military at the time, and thus was certainly not the type of weapon referred to in the Home Office document that was supposed to have created "unmistakable" wounds. Indeed, we have it on record that the type of bayonet initially suspected of having caused the sternum wound was of the "sword" variety, not the "spike" or "pig-sticker" type. In addition, the writer's own opinion of what constituted a bayonet is completely irrelevant. He was not himself the theorist responsible for the revision of the bayonet theory. He was simply a representative; a functionary passing on the accepted wisdom of the police.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

But that particular “police bigwig” revised his opinion, and did not ultimately consider the ripper to have been a “military man”.
Ben

hi ben, military man looks suspicious, but if he was a cicilian, i dont think he can be military man. also kileen is suspicious too because when he say military man could it be that he was a medium..hmm ...GH had military appearance. Now my books are no handy got to think about cause really there is something too suspicious here.

David (Malcolm X sock puppet, don't tell admin he is too suspicious too as well)

[Ben]

“Double-edged or single edged, it doesn't matter because all wounds could have been done with the same weapon. The idea of a pen knife or clasp knife just means, a small blade. Whereas the idea of a bayonet means a long blade. It is just a guess based upon emotional response.”

Agreed entirely, Mike. And many thanks indeed for providing that Wiki quote. The definition of a dagger is very ambiguous, as you note, and can be whatever the person using the term envisages. On top of that, the ripper murders appeared to have pre-dated the more modern understanding of what a dagger is. Contrary to the erroneous advice of others regarding the use of Wikipedia, the entries are rigorously checked for errors and unsubstantiated statements, and where questionable assertions appear, there is always a cautionary note.

“And how does that fit in with Killeens assertion that the blade that made the 37 minor wounds COULD NOT have made the sternum hole”

There was no such “assertion”, Fisherman. Kileen said simply that he did not “think” that two weapons were responsible. Had there been any silly one-side/two-side distinction, he would have said so explicitly and the matter would have been resolved beyond any doubt, but he didn't, because there wasn't.

“What, by the way, would be your explanation to Reids reaction to the shape of that hole - that it proved a military man?”

He didn’t react at all to the “shape” of the wound. He wasn’t even quoted directly. The East London Observer merely passed on his supposed opinion, echoing Kileen’s, that a heavy-duty weapon must have been responsible for the sternum wound. The only observation made about the likely appearance of the offending blade is that it was probably “dagger-pointed”. Nothing remotely to do with the edges of the weapon.

“24-year old doctors are normally correct when they say that two wounds give away two weapons, but there will be exceptions to the rule.”

I’m afraid you have no evidence beyond guesswork that this is the case at all, and I believe it was you who cautioned me earlier to throw away statistics and focus instead on the “case specifics”. If you’ve changed your mind about that, then I can easily counter your above observation by observing that victims of stabbing are usually dispatched by one, and not two weapons….but there will be exceptions to every rule.

“Police bigwigs who take a look at a wound and say that it proves something are normally correct”

But that particular “police bigwig” revised his opinion, and did not ultimately consider the ripper to have been a “military man”.

“Home Office documents that speak of a bayonet having been contemplated as the potential cause of a number of narrow wounds generally do not”

“Generally”? Really? How many Home Office documents mentioning bayonets have you scrutinised in your time then? Have you compiled an extensive list of bayonet-mentioning Home Office documents that “secretely (sic) allude to another, large, wound” and another extensive list of bayonet-mentioning Home office documents that don’t?

“as long as we do not loose track of what is THE RULE!”

I’m afraid your “rule” is nothing of the kind.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

The type of bayonet in mainstream circulation - the type issued to actual military men at the time - was of the "sword" variety, and in addition to creating an unmistakable would, it was 18 inches long and very unwieldy indeed when separated from the rifle.

Not being a military man himself, the writer likely assumed the same type of bayonet that everybody was familiar with, that everyone grew up knowing, the triangular 'spike' bayonet.
That had for the longest time been "the soldiers bayonet", he may have been oblivious to recent armamant changes.
Thee most recent being that "dagger-style" I posted previously.

With respect to a Sword-bayonet, if Tabram had been "run through" then yes I can see someone suggesting a Sword-bayonet. But she was only stabbed, and possibly to a depth of about 6"?, that would be sufficient to penetrate the heart. A clasp-knife might not even reach the heart, but a "sword-bayonet" would likely have gone completely through her.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

From the net:

"The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers ... Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material ... Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example:
There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve. Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time. The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material."

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Felt the need to safeguard the definition of dagger? Really? Maybe you are right. Perhaps any Tom, Dick, or Killeen referred to any old pointed object as a dagger prior to "about 100 years ago." Good idea to define something these days. Unfortunately, in those days, it wasn't so."

Are you envisaging a conference of knife authorities on the 29th of February 1912, deciding to suddenly start calling only double-edged weapons daggers, Mike? Because I think that you may need to take that "100 years" description with a pinch of salt.
To begin with, it apparently applies that even before them 100 years, daggers with just the one edge were exceptions to the rule, as implied by the few examples presented. So for some reason, although a dagger could be any sort of knife if you are correct, it clearly was normally not. It was normally and iconically a double-edged stabbing weapon, but for the odd exception. And those exceptions are apparently not even condoned by today´s authorities, since they do not adjust to the fairly rigid standards laid down.

To continue, if that conference was NOT on the 29th of February 1912, you may wish to contemplate that the Whitechapel murders themselves took place ROUGHLY a hundred years ago. The discrepancy is one of 24 years today, and we don´t know when the text you quote was written. Therefore, it applies that 1888 may well have been the year when this very debate was at a peak. Perhaps nobody were more conscious of the double-edge premise than Killeens contemporaries. We can´t tell.
What we DO know is that it is a Wikipedia text, and I know that my kids are not allowed to use that source in their school work, since it is very often riddled with mistakes, given that it is compiled by people volunteering to write the articles. And some will know their stuff,while others won´t. Plus there will be those who simply quote texts, without having any knowledge about their viability. I trust you do not use Wikipedia yourself when compiling any academic thesis, at least not without doublechecking?

Now, before we start planting double-edged daggers in each others backs, we may do well to recognize that the only thing that applies in the end is whether Killeen himself actually meant a double-edged weapon when he said "dagger" or not. And that is a question that has to remain open, since we of course cannot tell.

But of some things we may be certain! And one such thing is that there are always exceptions to the rule.

Daggers are normally double-edged, but there are exceptions.

24-year old doctors are normally correct when they say that two wounds give away two weapons, but there will be exceptions to the rule.

Police bigwigs who take a look at a wound and say that it proves something are normally correct, but there will be exceptions to that rule too.

Newspaper reporters who compare 39 wounds and state that one of them is MUCH bigger and deeper than the others are normally correct, but exceptions to the rule will exist.

Home Office documents that speak of a bayonet having been contemplated as the potential cause of a number of narrow wounds generally do not instead secretely allude to another, large, wound, but I guess one must accept that exceptions to even that rule could exist.

The point I am making here is that it is all good and well to keep an open mind for the always existing possibility that exceptions will be around, as long as we do not loose track of what is THE RULE! And the more exceptions we need to call for to be able to see our way through to an acceptance of a theory, the more wary we need to be of the risks involved. At some stage, all of this acceptance of a perpeetum mobile of exceptions calls for us to produce hard evidence.

That is all I am saying – but it should be enough.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

Felt the need to safeguard the definition of dagger? Really? Maybe you are right. Perhaps any Tom, Dick, or Killeen referred to any old pointed object as a dagger prior to "about 100 years ago." Good idea to define something these days. Unfortunately, in those days, it wasn't so.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"I just showed you one site Fish that said double-edged is about 100 years old as an idea for what a dagger is. "

Ooops, Mike! I just stated that you are a learned man and an academic, and here you go reading a dictionary the way the devil reads the Bible!

Have a look again, Mike, on what you offered:

First this:

"Over the years, the term 'dagger' has been used to describe a wide variety of thrusting knives, including knives that feature only a single cutting edge, such as the European rondel dagger or the Persian pesh-kabz, or, in some instances, no cutting edge at all, such as the stiletto of the Renaissance. "

That tells us that formerly, there were exceptions to the double-edge rule, albeit the commonly accepted dagger was double-edged. Three rare examples of daggers that did not have double edges are named here to exemplify that there WAS the odd exception.

...and then:

"However, over the last hundred years or so, authorities have recognized that the dagger, in its contemporary or mature form, has come to incorporate certain definable characteristics, including a short blade with a sharply-tapered point, a central spine or fuller, and (usually) two cutting edges sharpened the full length of the blade, or nearly so."

And here we say that "authorities" - and that would mean the ones who know about knives and daggers - have agreed that a weapon that can qualify for being named dagger should represent certain elements. And that only means that they have wished to establish a standard for what can be called dagger fortwith. It does not mean that a hundred years ago, a dagger could be anything, but instead that the last hundred years or so have produced a need to safeguard the name dagger from involving weapons that are clearly NOT daggers. Thus it would seem that the period BEFORE, incorporating the Whitechapel killing spree period, did not HAVE that need. At THAT stage, the historical few exceptions to the double edge rule were accepted, and no confusion was about. But after that, the terminology seemingly slipped, calling for action on behalf of the "authorities".

Luckily, it seems they did their job, since we can see that todays dictionaries unanimously honour the old description.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Indeed, Mike. Hence "knife or bayonet" in the Home Office annotations.

Hi Fish, try a 19th century dictionary, perhaps. The Littré dictionary, from the end of 19th century, defines a dagger as a big knife usually carried at the belt.

And was Magpie wrong ?

See you my dear, have to walk my bitch.

[The Good Michael]

It would be truly interesting to find the relevant material relating to 1888. In all probability, there will be some sort of difference, owing to the passage of time. If somebody has access to material showing us just how tightly the word dagger was knit to double edges back then, it would be very interesting to share in that information. But as it stands, our own time and dictionaries opts for double edges in a very clear fashion.

I just showed you one site Fish that said double-edged is about 100 years old as an idea for what a dagger is. The point is, (point? haha) if there is even one person who thinks that a dagger can be single or double-edged, then that's what it is. And Killeen could have been just such a man.

Mike

[Fisherman]

And here is another outstanding post for you, David! I googled the word "dictionary", and copied what the net dictionaries had to say about what a dagger is.

Webster´s dictionary:

Dagger: [Noun] (weapon) A stabbing weapon, similar to a sword but with a short, double-edged blade.

Farlex free dictionary:

dag·ger *(dgr)
n.
1. A short pointed weapon with sharp edges.

Cambride dictionary online:

”a short pointed knife which is sharp on both sides, used especially in the past as a weapon”

Dictionary.com:

a short, swordlike weapon with a pointed blade and a handle, used for stabbing.

Oxford dictionaries:

a short knife with a pointed and edged blade, used as a weapon

MacMillan dictionary:

a weapon like a very small sword

Yahoo education:

dagger
A short pointed weapon with sharp edges.

Allwords.com:

A stabbing weapon, similar to a sword but with a short, double-edged blade

Wictionary:

dagger (plural*daggers)
(weapon) A stabbing weapon, similar to a sword but with a short, double-edged blade.

I should add that I take "swordlike" to mean double-edged too, since that is the general shape of a sword - although there are exceptions to the rule. All in all, though, it would seem that we are living in a world where the ones who write dictionaries describe a dagger as double-edged. My search stretched over the first ten pages or so related to the searchword "dictionary", and I do not rule out the possibility that you may find other sites that do not say double-edged or swordlike. But the point - and the edges - here is that it is totally obvious that the general and overall definition of a dagger is one that distinguishes the double edges as a prominent feature of this weapon.

It would be truly interesting to find the relevant material relating to 1888. In all probability, there will be some sort of difference, owing to the passage of time. If somebody has access to material showing us just how tightly the word dagger was knit to double edges back then, it would be very interesting to share in that information. But as it stands, our own time and dictionaries opts for double edges in a very clear fashion.

Now, just how "outstanding" was that post, relating to searching the sources instead of just offering some sort of personal conviction?

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Outstanding posts, Mike.

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"There is no such thing as a dagger."

Please return to the post I made, copying a sit about dagger-collecting (apparently daggers are collectors items, in spite of their non-existance ...?), and read it through. It was compiled by somebody who has very extensive knowledge about the topic, so you need to prepare for heaps of terminology. But when you have read it through, you will have a complete picture of the origins, the development and the varyings aspects of daggers, just as you will have it explained to you what is the one typical feature of a dagger. I´ll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with length, pointedness or strongness.

Let´s be serious, Mike. When people have a perfectly functional name for a sharp blade mounted in a handle (knife), it would be pretty strange if somebody suddenly felt the need to instead call it dagger, without having any design-related reason at all for doing so.

We have learnt that there is the odd exception to the double-edged rule when it comes to daggers. We both realize that some people are not knowledgeable enough to know that a bowie-knife is not a dagger - they think that "dagger" is the same as "hunting knife". It is not, and it never was.

In spite of these exceptions and confusions - and the latter will be more common than the former - it remains that there IS such a thing as a dagger, and it also remains that the typically distinctive feature of it is that it is double-edged.
You are a learned man, an academic. Therefore I propose that you approach an expert on knives at your nearest university or museum, and ask him or her about whether daggers are recorded in history and what is the distinctive feature of a dagger.
Of course, if you think that my former post from the dagger-collectors forum does the trick on it´s own, it would save you the trouble. But if not, then please get it all from the horse´s mouth.

Because this "there are no daggers"-business is not up to standards.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Seriously, anyone coming to a conclusion that the supposed larger weapon was double-edged has absolutely no evidence for such an idea. "

That, Mike, would not be correct. I agree that we have no PROOF for it, but the evidence is there, since we both know that Killeen said dagger just as we both know that Reid thought it proven that a military man was the perpetrator, and the only reasonable weapon to suggest in such a scenario would be the sword bayonet - which was double-edged.

Therefore, we DO have evidence suggesting a double-edge. But no proof!

"Double-edged or single edged, it doesn't matter because all wounds could have been done with the same weapon."

It matters very much, I think. I also think that a pocket- or pen knife, which are the weapon types the evidence suggest, are never double-edged.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He wasn’t of any such “meaning”. "

To begin with, I said "IF" he was of such a meaning. To go on, you don´t know what meaning he was of. End of story.

"In his opinion, he didn't "think" that one weapon was responsible for all the wounds. In other words, the wounds themselves did not evince proof that two weapons were responsible."

And how does that fit in with Killeens assertion that the blade that made the 37 minor wounds COULD NOT have made the sternum hole. Does that not sound very much to you as if Killeen tells us that the small blade COULD NOT be identical with the large blade?
"Could not", is that not something else than the "would not" you are trying to wring this into by means of omitting to mention the definite denial on Killeens behalf that the two blades could ever have been one and the same? And why are you not accepting that a doctor will be cautious in his wordings at an inquest?

"No. I said its “shape” didn’t reveal anything."

Once again, this you do not know. And that is not "would not" know - it is COULD not know. What, by the way, would be your explanation to Reids reaction to the shape of that hole - that it proved a military man? Or are you telling me that Reid judged that in relation to the length of the weapon? Or that Reid was not able to judge such things? Incompetent and too young for the job, inexperienced, sort of?

"About what? "

About how Killeen worded himself. When I told you that he had spoken about some sort of dagger, you tried to correct me by saying that he had spoken of "dagger-pointed" instead. But that did not pan out with the inquest testimony, did it?

The best,
Fisherman