Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[The Good Michael]

Though it grieves me to do so, I have cut a bit of an aticle from Wikepedia:

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. 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.

So....fight about what 'the last hundred years or so' means, and then notice that the dagger has come to mean something with a short blade and then see how retarded the argument is.

There is no such thing as a dagger. There are only mental images unique to each individual of what "dagger" means. Much like my image of a chair differs from yours. They are all chairs, and yet none of them are. So it is with daggers and nonsense.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Seriously, anyone coming to a conclusion that the supposed larger weapon was double-edged has absolutely no evidence for such an idea. Jon surmises that this is so in a logical fashion, but it still is unknown. The reality is that one wound was deeper and more destructive and Killeen came to a conclusion that a longer weapon was used, and this based on the sheer contrast between that wound and the others. It was probably more of an emotional feeling than a scientific understanding.

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.

Mike

[Ben]

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. I think we may reasonable conclude that it was this type of weapon that the Home Office man had in mind when he wrote in refutation of the bayonet being responsible for the Tabram wound. We should take care not to shoot the messenger in this case. That's all the HO representative was. His comments were hardly the result of personal knowledge of weaponry, and are more likely to have been influenced by the police investigation.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't say it was necessarily an error Harry. We do not know who raised the question in the first place. All we have is a paraphrase purported to be the words of Killeen, and him not being able to rule it out.

So, to say it was a mistake is almost to presume it was suggested by Killeen, which we have no way of knowing who suggested it.
Did the question originate from a Juror, or from a policeman?

Also, too much is being made of the word "unmistakable". Had the writer of the note seen the wound himself, this would hardly be his response. The way it is worded is more consistent with the opinion of someone who has not seen the wound, yet was under the impression that Killeen should have been as aware as himself of the shape a bayonet blade would make. Almost as if this was common knowledge among those who are supposed to know.

So that leaves us with the question, what type of bayonet did the writer have in mind when he made that comment?
Answer: We simply do not know, and as there were several styles of bayonet available, therefore the comment has no value.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Agreed entirely, Harry. Excellent point.