Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[harry]

Jon,
The stabbing is suggested as having been done in a frenzy,quick thrust and withdrawl.It is the withdrawing that presents the problem,and the problem is the sternum,not the heart.or any other part.As the blade has already pierced the sternum,there is an exit passage.However the solid part that is the sternum will still,to a certain extent,grip the blade.This requires more leverage than withdrawing through flesh,so a see-sawing motion will help,aided by the lubrication of blood and body fluid.It is the see-saw motion,in conjunction with the withdrawl motion,that extracts the blade.A larger wound is obviously made,but unless the blade is twisted,the outside skin will show a wider,but similar shape to the blade,and that is the difference in wounds that would have been noted.Can't put it simpler than that.

[Ben]

You do not have Killeen's inquest testimony, nor his written report. So "here we go again", you pontificating on what a doctor "would have said", when you don't even know anything that he said.

Why do you keep saying this when we know for a fact that it's wrong?

Of course we know what he said. He suggested a two-weapon theory then provided a reason for that suggestion, and that reason had absolutely nothing to do with "blade-sidedness" or any of that nonsense, or else he'd have said so. No sane individual, let alone a doctor, would provide a weak, inconclusive reason for suggesting a two-weapon hypothesis when he has the opportunity to provide a much better one. It doesn't work like that it real life.

You'll have to do a lot better than an insistence that Tabram would have "cried out" if you want to dismiss Dave's sensible suggestion that she may have been hurled against the wall or the floor. A sudden hand over the mouth and a violent slam against the hard floor would knock her unconscious. She would not have had a chance to cry out and there would be no need for truncheons. Moreover, if she was suffocated first, she had even less opportunity to cry out.

Evidently, the hole that pierced the sternum must have been of an ambiguous nature or else Kileen would have been in a position to state for certainty that two weapons had been used, and he was in no such position. We have no way of knowing how far beyond the sternum the knife continued.

If it wasn't for manipulation, pontification, and hyperbole, you wouldn't have any arguments at all.

Oh, hush your noise, Jon. We had a string of excellent posts last night until we got to yours.

[Sally]

The stabbing is suggested as having been done in a frenzy,quick thrust and withdrawl.It is the withdrawing that presents the problem,and the problem is the sternum,not the heart.or any other part.As the blade has already pierced the sternum,there is an exit passage.However the solid part that is the sternum will still,to a certain extent,grip the blade.This requires more leverage than withdrawing through flesh,so a see-sawing motion will help,aided by the lubrication of blood and body fluid.It is the see-saw motion,in conjunction with the withdrawl motion,that extracts the blade.A larger wound is obviously made,but unless the blade is twisted,the outside skin will show a wider,but similar shape to the blade,and that is the difference in wounds that would have been noted.Can't put it simpler than that.

You know, Harry, I know exactly what you mean. This is exactly what does happen in practice and all makes perfect sense to me based on my own experience (not from extracting blades from the sternums of dead women, I hasten to add).

I think you have presented some excellent reasons for doubt when it comes to the 'two weapon' hypothesis and it appears quite plausible that alternatively one weapon was used in more than one way - not necessarily by design, but by necessity.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too. But he didn’t, despite the signs of suffocation having been present."

Yaaawn. "We" also know full well that Killeen did NOT supply information about the blood effusion. But "we" perhaps do not want to accept the implications of this? No?
Right, then I will once again spell it out.
Martha suffered a blow to the head, by the signs of things. This blow to the head may or may not have played a more or less important part in the scenario leading up to her death, but at any rate, Killeen did not mention it at the inquest.
Martha MAY (and THIS time it is only MAY!) have suffered some sort of suffocation, that may or may not have played a more or less important part in the scenario leading up to her death, but at any rate, Killeen did not mention it at the inquest.

The effusion of blood was in the post-mortem report, by the signs of things. If there was any suffocation (and that remains nothing but an IF), then there is no reason not to believe that this was not in that same report.

Joint reason - none of these things - out of which we KNOW that one existed, whereas the other one is mere speculation on your behalf - was what caused MArtha Tabram´s death.

I can´t believe that you go on speaking of repetition on my behalf, Ben - since you refuse to pick up on very easy things, you must surely realize that repetition is very much called for? The inquest got what it asked for - the death reason. After that, there was nobody calling for Killeen to go into all details. And we KNOW that this meant that her left the effusion out, we KNOW that he did not mention any blade length suggestion, we KNOW that he did not elaborate on the hole in the chest (either to say that it was diamond-shaped or to say that it was too crude to be established at all).

And thus you now add ANOTHER thing to the three earlier ones you hang on to - Abberlines stance, the one weapon suggestion and the claim that a bayonet can be discarded - and you apparently sought this new element out on the same ground as the others: it only needs to lack any hard evidence at all, and you will buy it straigt off.

Why is it, Ben, that evidence is as rare as hens´ teeth in ALL your favoured solutions to the Ripper mysteries, from Hutchinson to Tabram?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I can’t believe you’re still not appreciating the extent to which you’re applying double-standards."

I don´t. YOU do. It goes like this:
1. You have to be wrong, Fisherman, since Sugden disagrees with you.
2. Tabram was killed by one weapon - to hell with Sugden.

THAT´S double standards. My theory is built on the best evidence available, and does in no part contain any fact derived from Dew.

But this you cannot admit, apparently?

" Yes, we know full well that the Home Office confused the number of wounds initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they confused the type of weapon suspected of causing them, or it. You’re still perpetuating the fallacy that if a document contains errors, the rest of its content must be erroneous too."

Am I? Then why do I say that we must regard material like this as POTENTIALLY faulty? Do not wring my views into something they never were, Ben. It reflects poorly on you.

"There is nothing to contradict the Home Office statement that the bayonet had been dismissed owing to the “unmistakability” of the wounds they create. Nobody invented this detail out of nowhere"

No? Then why did the same author invent the check against the narrow wounds out of nowhere? Once again, when part A of a sentence is ludicuously wrong, there is a very large POTENTIAL risk that part B is too. And the only way to dispell this is to find evidence to bolster part B.

Do you have it, Ben?

"The detail that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable” cannot reasonably be chalked up to miscommunication. It is an unambiguous statement"

The statement that some of the narrow wounds were initially thought to be bayonetinflicted is just as unambiguous, I´m afraid. It is very clearly worded - and hopelessly wrong. Therefore, I take it, it cannot be chalked up to miscommunication, can it?

Now, who was speaking of double standards here ...?

" If you think Mike’s so discerning, why did you accuse him of “repeatedly fail(ing) to understand”, “ironizing things” and reading your posts in a “very strange manner”?"

That was BEFORE he came clear and stated that the whole one weapon suggestion is conjecture. Up til that point, he very much sided with you. After it - nope.
I can tell you that I expected nothing less from him.

"Not even Kileen was that confident, so Sugden cannot possibly have been."

So how do you read Sugdens statement that Tabram was slain by two weapons, one penknife and one dagger? Does it not sound to you as if Sugden thinks that, well, how should I put it ...? As if, you know, Tabram, was killed with two weapons, one penknife and one dagger, sort of?

Has it not occured to you that IF Sugden is unfallable and God in Ripperology, then you MAY be wrong when you say that Killeen was incredibly unceratin about things? You see, I don´t read him that way at all, and - how unlucky for you! - apparently Sugden doesn´t either.

"Those are your words, which you now denounce."

I don´t denounce them. I thought so as I wrote them. I had apparently listened too much to less discerning people. But after having gone through the book thoroughly, I changed my mind.
So, yes, you may say that I used to think Dew was a bad source. I did. But no, you may not say that I do so now. I don´t.
Can you see the distinction? And I must add that I thereby join the common view that Dew´s book is very useful on the whole.

But why do you keep bringing this up? Are you deaf or something? I have toild you four times now that Dews book is not included factually in my theory on Hutchinson. Try to grasp that, Ben, please!

" I say the detail is almost certainly correct in the total absence of any indication to the contrary, coupled with the sheer unlikelihood that the detail was either a miscommunication or an outright invention."

Eh, the "indication to the contrary" would be that we have it on record that the police sought high and low for soldiers in the case, plus we have Killeen assertion that a bayonet could have caused the sternum wound, and we have the observation that Reid thought that this wound PROVED a soldier connection. Or don´t you think that these things are "indications" that a soldier was suspected? And don´t give me the "that was just because we know that Tabram was seen with soldiers" routine - such a thing would not change the apparition of Tabram´s chest hole. It allowed for a bayonet interpretation as evidenced by Killeen, and it had Reid convinced.

And it STILL comes from a muddled source, and even from a muddled sentence!!!

"You might convince yourself that’s what you’re doing whenever you construct one of your theories, but the reality is often very different."

You are welcome to do two things, Ben:
A/ Tell me what facts it is that are not up to the task in my Hutchinson theory, and
B/ Tell me what evidence you have for the one weapon suggestion, the Abberline-said-Tabram-was-the -Rippers suggestion and the A-bayonet-was-discarded theory. It should not waste all that much of your time, Ben - it is VERY quickly taken care of.

"Thanks, Fisherman. I’m reassured by this. It’s perfectly acceptable for anyone to have a hunch that this particular killer would not have converted from stabbing to cutting, but as you note, it wouldn’t be based on anything we’ve learned from other serial killers, whose criminal histories reveal a completely different story. Even those serial killers who maintain a very consistent MO started out using a completely different weapon (in Sutcliffe’s case, I believe it was a stone-filled stocking!). Moreover, most early offences will appear more haphazard and “frenzied” that their later, more polished, efforts, and may often result in total failure (Wilson?). If the ripper killed Tabram, it would constitute a near textbook example of a serial killer's earlier phase, before he become more proficient through experience and exploration, discovering what he “liked" as he progressed."

What I was saying, Ben, was in essence that stabbers normally don´t evolve into serial killers. Their deeds are not led on by a wish to kill as such - even if it is often the consequnce. But if you do not see what I mean, let´s just drop it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

" Clearly the doctors had to speak of anything related to the murder"

Then explain why he did not mention the effusion of blood. It should make for interesting reading to see you trying to explain why it was NOT potentially connected to the murder.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim"

That would be because there is no such problem. The only problem around is that we have it asserted that she MUST have been so, and that it could NOT have been soldiers who did for her.

What do we do about that, much larger, problem, Sally? What do we do when somebody on the shakiest of gounds tries to present a case that flies in the face of all the collected evidence?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Of course we know what he said."
I think that Jon is pointing out that what we have is not what Killeen said, but instead what the gentlemen of the press recorded. And since we can clearly see that not all papers make the exact same report of it, the wordings varying rather substantially, one must accept that we actually do not know how Killeen worded himself.
There is, for example nothing in the inquest report from the Times speaking about a pen- or pocket knife, but other papers write later that Killeen very clearly stated at the inquest that the knife doubtlessly WAS of this type.

This is very clear evidence that we have is a RECORDING of Killeen and not his exact words. It therefore also applies that some things may have been left out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Ben!

Just to drop yet another stone in an already rippling pool, how do we know the famous Home Office report wasn't simply a convenient whitewash by senior civil servants anxious to keep their doorsteps clean?

In a long ago life, in a very junior capacity, I saw an awful lot of this!

All the best
Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Just maybe...

However the solid part that is the sternum will still,to a certain extent,grip the blade.This requires more leverage than withdrawing through flesh,so a see-sawing motion will help,aided by the lubrication of blood and body fluid.It is the see-saw motion,in conjunction with the withdrawl motion,that extracts the blade.A larger wound is obviously made,but unless the blade is twisted,the outside skin will show a wider,but similar shape to the blade,and that is the difference in wounds that would have been noted.

Nice one Harry...now THAT sort of reasoning I can believe in far more than most of the argument on this thread...and no it doesn't make you some kind of deity!

Dave

[Fisherman]

David!

Any luck on the Anderson thing yet..?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You forgot to point me to the part where Sugden states that Abberline believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Could you help out?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

There is, for example nothing in the inquest report from the Times speaking about a pen- or pocket knife, but other papers write later that Killeen very clearly stated at the inquest that the knife doubtlessly WAS of this type.

This is very clear evidence that we have is a RECORDING of Killeen and not his exact words. It therefore also applies that some things may have been left out.

Precisely Christer, it isn't very difficult to understand is it? We can find plenty of examples of press reports differing on content across all the Inquests.
With Ben its a case of only seeing what he wants to see.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Sally:

"I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim"

That would be because there is no such problem. The only problem around is that we have it asserted that she MUST have been so, and that it could NOT have been soldiers who did for her.

No, No, Fish, I don't think so.

You can't speak in absolutes here, can you? No of course not. Who's saying MUST have, and CANNOT then? (here we go again )

I just think on the balance of probability, all things considered, Tabram MUST have been a Ripper victim.

No, not really, just kidding - but I consider it likely all things considered, y'know? I still don't see what the objections are - no, ok, I see what they are, but not why they count for much.

What do we do about that, much larger, problem, Sally? What do we do when somebody on the shakiest of gounds tries to present a case that flies in the face of all the collected evidence?

I dunno Fish, what do we do about that?

If we're talking about Tabram being a Ripper victim, why is the pro argument on the 'shakiest' of grounds then?

If we're talking about Doctor Tim, then I think we've established that he didn't speak in absolutes either.

No fishing this weekend then? Hey, you don't think it could've been a fish knife that killed Tabram do you? Actually, maybe I'd better stop there, or this'll turn into a Bad Barnett thread, and we don't want that.

[Bridewell]

Dear Ben

Ben!

You forgot to point me to the part where Sugden states that Abberline believed that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Could you help out?

The best,
Fisherman

I'd quite like an answer to this one, Ben. It's not that I doubt your word, but I've read before that Abberline believed Tabram's to be a Ripper murder, but I've never located the source. Is it a first-hand quote from Abberline himself, or a claim by a later source that this was Abberline's view? The first would, I think, present a stronger case than the second.

Regards, Bridewell