Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Cogidubnus]

So do you think Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, Cogs?

Do you think Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00?

I only ask because if you don't accept either of these proposals, I guess you must be "some kind of deity", at least according to you

I'm quite open-minded on both issues - and because there is (so far) no firm evidence either way, so should you be...

best wishes

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Oh by the way...next time, if you're going to lecture me about established facts, kindly present me with the real evidence, rather than sophisms...

all the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Jon,
What has Emma Smith's attack have in common with that on Martha Tabram.The weapons were different,and Smith was able to attest in part to her attackers.

Harry.
It was merely a means of pointing out that "simple logic" can lead to the wrong conclusions.
It is not a fact the Smith was attacked by three males, this was just her claim.
Had Smith died at the scene "simple logic" when applied to the evidence of blunt-force trauma by one weapon would lead us to assume a single attacker.
We would be wrong, wouldn't we?

Simple logic, when applied incorrectly can lead to erroneous conclusions.


What we have with Tabram is evidence of two weapons used, but not necessarily two attackers.
Some might claim that one attacker carried two weapons, or that two attackers had a different weapon each. Conversely, due to the many "clasp-knife-type" wounds, being as many as 38, it is not out of the question that two separate men carried a clasp-knife, and a third carried a dagger. Being three attackers in all.

There is no benefit in claiming "simple logic" can be applied to discount Killeen's determination that the wounds were physically distinct.

I am not sidestepping anything.I have argued that a penknife can pierce the sternum.Tabrams sternum was pierced.A penknife could have done it,or are you argueing such an occurance in Tabrams case was impossible?

Not at all. What I am claiming is that the shape of the blade left in the bone would help Killeen determine the type of blade which made it. Whereas in your examples the shape of the blade would certainly be that of a penknife.
That is the difference.

I am tired of hearing but "you weren't there".I wasn't at Waterloo either,but I have a fair idea of the weapons used and the injuries sustained.

Not from a doctors description you don't.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Jon,(in reply to post 06.09)
And had Smith lived it would still be three attackers?,and had Stride lived there would still be BS and Pipeman,whether they were fact or fiction. There is no evidence of two weapons nor two assailants in Tabram's killing.There is opinion ,that is all.As to the shape of the wound to the sternum,Kileen did not detail such so I don't know.He only opinions a long slender weapon made it.How long? well you tell me.Certainly no longer than needed to reach and pierce the heart.In answer to your last sentence,I know from an historian's description,much as we know of Tabram's wounds from a newspaperman,s description.

[Sally]

Well, speaking for myself, I have never called a witness a liar.

How charmingly naïve.

Because of course, no historic witness was ever untruthful, forgetful, or just plan wrong; and people in Olden Times were infallible.

I don't see what the fuss is about. An opinion is just that, not a scientific fact - and questioning and examining is what this site is all about - isn't it?

Or do you really think we should all accept what people thought at the time without question, like good little sheep?

If everybody had 'known' the truth in the past then the case would have been solved at the time, there would be no mystery, no questions, and no Casebook either. The case would not be the enigma it is today. You like to go on about the application of logic, but do you really suppose that people in Olden Times couldn't do that as well as you?

The contemporary theory of the two naughty soldiers rests mainly on the testimony of Mary Ann Connelly, who was just about number 1 reluctant witness. As far as I can see, she did what she could to avoid being involved - presumably because she was scared. As such, its hard to tell how reliable her eventual testimony is, how much is missing.

It's not as simple as you make out.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Oh I think Dave would give you an argument on that point

So you think a simple local doctor with no forensic experience was fit for that job ?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"again - who says 'Killeen was wrong'? Where?"

This is getting tiresome, Sally. Ben says that it is more probable that he was wrong than right. And YES, that does not mean that he says that Killeen WAS wrong, but if we are to keep up your line of inquiry, I think that the time has come for me to ask who has said that somebody has said that he WAS wrong.

Everybody knows, Sally, that it would be nuts to state that Killen was wrong. That is because the evidence points away from it, and it cannot in any fashion at all be concluded that he must have been wrong. So the discussion you are suggesting here is a moot, tiresome and unneccesary one.

The discussion whether it is reasonable to suggest that it is more credible to state that Killeen would have been wrong than right, is another thing, though. That discussion MUST be conducted, since if it was allowed to state such a thing and pass it off like some sort of truth, we would be doing scientific thinking and evidence evaluation a great disservice. It is a baseless suggestion that flies in the face of what evidence there is, and that needs to be pointed out.

I hope I have made myself perfectly clear in this respect. I KNOW that it cannot be conclusively proven that Killeen was either wrong or right. I have read the material existing and I am in no way interested in peddling any extremistic view - in fact, I fully support the traditional one, the evidencebased one, the logical one, and I am quite happy with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

next time, if you're going to lecture me about established facts, kindly present me with the real evidence, rather than sophisms

I wasn't "lecturing" you at all. You were the one lecturing me about the supposed folly of questioning any medical opinion from 1888, and you even went so far as to suggest that one would need to be a "deity" in order to challenger their opinions, which is ludicrous. It is an absolute ironclad certainty that senior doctors made errors with regard to ripper-attributed victims, and more often than not, the doctors responsible for those errors had considerably more experience than Kileen.

Yes, I most certainly do "close my mind" to the suggestion that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, for the simple reason that, when viewed from a criminological perspective - a perspective that a lot of keyboard warriors and internet hobbyists eschew out of ignorance - that suggestion is rendered unutterably absurd.

What I am claiming is that the shape of the blade left in the bone would help Killeen determine the type of blade which made it.

No, Jon, the shape of the wound had absolutely nothing do with with Kileen's opinion - and it was only an opinion - that two weapons were used. Had it been otherwise, Kileen would certainly have cited "wound shape" as the primary reason for his two weapon hypothesis, but tellingly, he didn't.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That’ll be the weapon he could have used from the outset, presumably? So all this stabbing that he engaged in with the "smallish blade"; the one that was failing to kill Martha Tabram, and which was causing him untold panic over the possibility of his victim surviving and dobbing him in – he could have avoided these problems by using his bigger, better weapon from the beginning of the attack? He had the option, and chose to use the crapper one. "

Try and stab with a sword bayonet, Ben, and you may see my point. It is "unwieldy", remember? That is, IF it WAS a sword bayonet - which it well may have been. With a smallish yawn, I can assure you that a pocketknife - or the typical military clasp knife - are items that most soldiers will use infinitely more than the bayonet. It is a practical tool, and very easy to fetch out of your pocket, thus representing the number one choice on most occasions.

If a sinister killer was equipped with a small caliber handgun and a cannon from an 18th century merchant ship, you can bet your shirt that the latter would do more damage than the first if fired at a victim. And still, I thinkk most killers would - at least initially - prefer the smaller weapon over the larger one. A cannon, see, is much more "unwieldy" than a small handgun.

But go ahead and think it is EXTREMELY odd, if you wish!

"As for the double-killer, two-knife idea, I can’t help but wonder why Sergeant Stab was supplied with a lovely “long, strong instrument” while Corporal Cutter had to be content with a puny pocket-knife."

No, I bet it must be a mystery to you! But if the former stabbed Tabram in a frenzy, and if the latter arrived at the scene and helped out to finish Tabram off, and dragged his frenzied partner from the scene, we may have a very simple explanation.
But maybe you donīt think it IS simple? Maybe you think it is totally weird to even imagine such a thing? In your universe, maybe such things could never happen?

"I’m afraid your suggestions, far from making my “troubles go away”, are more perplexing than ever."

No, no no - YOU are the one suggesting that the better idea is that Killeen was wrong. THEREīS "perplexing" for you. How could it be perplexing with two kiillers? Who - apart from you - would be perplexed to learn that some people are killed by two or more men? I know of nobody.

" There is no evidence that Kileen was "adamant" about any of his opinions"

Could not.

"He was certain that one of the wounds was “much the largest and the deepest” – that’s all he was certain of."

I take it you know that we are speaking of the Star reporter here, and not Killeen? And I also take it that we age agreed that you donīt know what that reporter was certain of or not?

"In the case of Abberline, however, his feelings about Tabram’s inclusion in the “ripper’s" tally are beyond rational dispute."

Youīd wish! But rational dispute is exactly what you have been presented with.

"Had it been otherwise, he would never have cited the George Yard connection as a pro on favour of Klosowski having been the ripper."

Thatīs citing things in a backward manner, Ben. What I am telling you is that he did not necessarily cite the George Yard connection as a pro in this context at all. All it would have taken for him to point out the coincidence would have been that he knew that A/ Tabram was killed in George Yard, and B/ Chapman once lived there. No matter how we look upon it, it IS a coincidence. And this of course applies whether Tabram was a Ripper victim or not. The coincidence is not less flagrant if she was NOT killed by the Ripper.

Abberline favourde Chapman as the killer. Right? Chapman once lived in George Yard, correct? Tabram was killed in George Yard, okay? THAT means that we have a coincidence. This was what Abberline said too. If he had said that it would have been MORE than a coincidence, then you would have had a point. If he had said that he suspected that it was not only a trick of fate, you would have been correct in what you suggest. But it is not until we move past the coincidence state that this occurs. Simple. Easy. And a VERY rational objection to your jump-the-gun suggestion.

"An opinion arrived at in the absence of all the necessary information."

You really need to ask Killeen about this, Ben. I donīt think he considered himself deprived of the necessary information.

"you ought to apologise"

Come again? Sally tries to sell in the view that Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion, and you want me to apologize for pointing out that this belittles the work of a professional medico? I think not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing in connection with your suggestion that it defies belief that a killer would ever have chgosen a less effective weapon over a larger, more deadly one. I will put it to you in the form of a question:

Are you of the meaning that people who perform frenzied stabbings normally weigh the options involved carefully? Or could it be that a frenzied stabberis punching away in a fury, oblivious of any weighing at all?

If somebody is possesed by a bloodred fury, and quite beside himself, being able to focus on nothing but the urge to kill another person - will that somebody search the woods for the optimally sized and weighted stone before bashing the head of his victim in? Or will he go for any stone that may do the job?

What do you think, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fsherman

Sally tries to sell in the view that Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion,

What utter nonsense. Once again - where have I said this? That is not what I said and I'm sure you know it. This is now the third time that I have asked you to point out where people have said what you claim - in other words, to justify what you claim - and so far you have failed to do so.

Do you actually read what people say? Or do you not understand, perhaps?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Do you actually read what people say?"

Oh yes, Sally, and a sad business it is sometimes. How about you, do you read what you say? For it seems that you have missed out this time.

Letīs do it this way:
Have you ever stated that what I mean is an informed opinion on Killeens behalf (that there were two weapons involved) was in fact only a guess?

And if you have done so, does that mean that you are of the opinion that Killeen dealt in guesswork in this respect?

You have a tedious way of twisting and turning what people say, Sally, It is as unbecoming as it is detrimental to any rational discussion. With you, one finds oneself discussing semantics instead of the caserelated items of true interest. Itīs way too kindergartenish to my taste, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Oh yes, Sally, and a sad business it is sometimes. How about you, do you read what you say? For it seems that you have missed out this time.

More bluster and prevarication. Again. Where Have I Said that 'Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion'? I am quite aware of what I've said, thanks - and it wasn't that.

Letīs do it this way:
Have you ever stated that what I mean is an informed opinion on Killeens behalf (that there were two weapons involved) was in fact only a guess?

No. I have never stated that Killeen's opinion was 'only' a guess. I said it was essentially a guess, in fact I said it was an informed guess, but a guess nonetheless. Or do you contend that Killeen knew for a fact?

You have a tedious way of twisting and turning what people say, Sally, It is as unbecoming as it is detrimental to any rational discussion. With you, one finds oneself discussing semantics instead of the caserelated items of true interest. Itīs way too kindergartenish to my taste, Iīm afraid.

Oh yes, sure. But that's ok - if responding to a straight quesiton is all too 'Kindergartenish' for you, don't feel obliged to respond. I'll understand entirely.

[Wickerman]

No, Jon, the shape of the wound had absolutely nothing do with with Kileen's opinion

And how can you assert such a claim?

- and it was only an opinion - that two weapons were used. Had it been otherwise, Kileen would certainly have cited "wound shape" as the primary reason for his two weapon hypothesis, but tellingly, he didn't.

You found his report?
No, of course not, you are once again making assumptions, then, jumping to conclusions.
The police saw Killeens "Surgeons Report", reference is made to it.

No, Killeen has no reason to outline his findings to the press, and you know this. Once again you create another Straw-man argument, only to shoot it down.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"More bluster and prevarication. Again. Where Have I Said that 'Killeen dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion'? I am quite aware of what I've said, thanks - and it wasn't that. "

So, more of the semantics, hmm? Okay:

You have said that Killeen GUESSED about the wounds. Maybe you did not say EXACTLY "Killeen guessed about the wounds", but in essence, this is what you said. I hope you will not contest this, since I do not wish to spebnd the rest of my days searching for your posts and finding the exact wordings you have used.

Therefore, I sincerely hope that you donīt think that I have misrepresented you by saying that you have stated that Killeen GUESSED about the wounds.

Now, donīt loose track of thing, just follow and we well get there!

Guessing about things is using guesswork. Please contest this if you wish. You may also agree, of course.

I stated that Killeen did NOT guess, but instead he offered an informed opinion. That is what you do after a post-mortem. Then you donīt HAVE to guess about things - you may instead offer an informed opinion.

But you insisted after my telling you that Killeen was dealing in informed opinions, that he instead guessed.

Now, we are arriving at the conclusion, Sally! Bear with me!

Doing what you did in this case amounts to having stated that Killen (in this respect) dealt in guesswork instead of informed opinion.

I am not going to play ball with you any more on this particular issue. The posts are all there for all to see. And it STILL applies that doctors like Killeen, educated professionals who has performed a post-mortem on a murder victim with 39 wounds, do not "guess" what they have seen. They inform about their finds in a more superficial manner at an inquest, and they write an adjoining post-mortem report that goes much further into detail about the aspects involved. Thus, they do not have to resort to guessing. Nor did Killeen. The 37 smaller stabs gave away that they had been performed with a smallish knife, and indeed Killeen did say that it was no doubt an ordinary pocket-knife, thereby stating that the blade corresponded to that sort of weapon.
No guessing there, thus, just cold facts.
He aslo stated that there was a wound that did not correspond with the 37 small stabs, a wound that had been performed by a long, strong instrument, answering to what a big dagger would produce.
No guess anywhere near that one either. He also stated that a dagger OR a bayonet could have inflicted the wound.
Do you see, Sally, how Killeen conscientiously AVOIDS making any guess about which of the two weapontypes was the responsible one? He only offers the informed opinion that he has gathered by careful examination.

You need to be very wary about telling people that Killeen guessed. Why would he, if he didnīt have to? If he had the information that could be gathered from the wounds, then why guess? Why not instead say that the wounds very clearly pointed to a smallish knife and a daggerlike, long, strong instrument? Which was what he did, of course.

"Ho Ho Ho, very good. I bet I'm not the only one laughing at that one."

I agree! I think that there are exactly two people agreeing with you.

The best,
Fisherman