Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[harry]

Why Tabram? Why was she a victim.To one witness it appeared to be just a bundle lying there.Was it even recognisable as a person,male or female on that dark landing.Was there an intent to kill,and if so when did that intent first enter the mind of the killer.Before he left home or lodgings,when he first observed her,after the first few stabs,or what.Answers might support or discount the chance of the killer being the ripper.And don't say the police at the time were in a better posistion to answer those questions.They only had the same information as we do.None of them were at the scene of the killing as it happened.

[Sally]

Interesting

It's interesting to note that not one, but two recent studies have concluded that Tabram should be considered to be a Ripper victim.

I do like statistics. Reassuring.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“If You have a discussion of a more private nature with somebody, I will respect that as best as I can”

It’s not so much a question of privacy, but whenever another poster asks me a question, in you jump with your answer, along with a cautionary note not to listen to mine. Whenever I address a post to someone else, in you jump again. Just let the thread breathe a bit, Fisherman!

“it STILL applies that you need to be careful applying your wisdom as to what he should, would, could or must have mentioned.”

Very much so, but it is interesting to note that all the other doctors provided information that was quite extraneous to the direct cause of death in later ripper-attributed cases.

“Well, for one thing, I am going to repeat that I have never used any facts at all from Dew´s book, and that it therefore applies that you need to stay away from accusing me of having done so.”

I’ve never made any such accusation, so there’s another excuse for repetition gone. You still defend the use of Dew to formulate theories (which I do with the Home Office document), and you still “use” him in spite of the full and clear realisation that it is, as you once put it, “riddled with mistakes”. Indeed, you now regard it as an impeccable source all of a sudden. So all I have to do is apply precisely the same logic to the Home Office document, which unlike Dew’s memoirs were contemporary to the period and written in an official capacity, and justify my support of its content on the same grounds that you justify your support of Dew.

The reason I state that Abberline must have considered Tabram a ripper victim (he couldn’t prove it, of course, but it must have been his opinion), is because his comments demonstrate as much. They would fail spectacularly to make any sense at all unless that was the case. For instance, Abberline was very obviously referring to Tabram as the “first murder” of Jack the Ripper, and not the first of the 1888 murders of East End prostitutes generally, or else he would have referred to Emma Smith as the first. The same applies to Anderson, who also considered Tabram the first.

“And unmistakable could of course NEVER be mistaken for "all mistakable".

I wouldn’t say never, but I agree, it’s extremely unlikely. Not that it matters, of course. Even if the entry was the laughable “all mistakable” it would still amount to the same thing, i.e. a dismissal of the bayonet proposal.

Sugden cannot possibly have stated as fact that Tabram was definitely murdered with two blades, because he knew full well that even the doctor harboured no such certainty. The only rational explanation (i.e. one which doesn’t involve him being a weirdo) is that he meant that two weapons were used according to Kileen. And do try to avoid that ridiculous nonsense about me fiddling with sources to get a “better night’s sleep”. You might invest too emotionally in internet message board discussions about century old cases, but I certainly don’t. I occasionally get angry when I sense ego-fuelled filibuster and fussy bombastic pedantry emanating from certain quarters, but that’s about it.

You quote Sugden:

"Yet it is most unlikely that the same hand slew both women. As far as we know…”

...He then lists the various factors that appeared to set Smith and Tabram apart, with the two-weapon theory amongst them. “As far as we know”, or put differently, ”as far as we’ve been informed”… Tabram was killed with two weapons. I knew there was a perfectly innocent, sensible explanation for his comments. Don’t ever scare me like that again!

“Wait a second here! The Home Office report is the "evidence" you are alluding to here, right? But this very report is what is being criticized for being riddled with faults!"

Wait a second here! I’ve been rejecting those criticisms for the past ten pages of posts or so because you haven’t been applying them consistently. Remember? I don’t need superfluous “corroboration”, although that’s precisely what I have from Abberline, Anderson, Reid and Dew who all thought Tabram a ripper victim but didn’t consider the ripper to have been a bayonet-wielding soldier. I will continue to conclude, as Jon Ogan and James Tully have concluded before me, that the Home Office document correctly reported that the bayonet theory had been discounted, and I’ll continue to air this view for as long as the naysaying continues, so for the rest of the year I suppose.

“Maybe you think it was misheard, just like "one" or "some"?”

I need only observe that it was a press report, not an official document, that wasn’t even quoting Reid directly. A very poor source.

“Sugden had no other reason than the one given before on this thread. And that is not sufficient as we all know by now.”

If it is perfectly sufficient for a qualified historian, it ought to do for the hobbyists.

What do you mean “by now”? I hope that’s not you complimenting yourself on shining the torch on the imagined error of Sugden’s ways?

“So what does he mean with that series of nine killings?”

Nine unsolved murders of prostitutes in the East End, fairly obviously.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Anderson for instance talks about "five successive murders" and us not having "the slightest clue of any kind". He wrote this in mid October

Correct, Jon.

Those five successive murders were Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes, which you must find extremely interesting in light of your earlier observation that the later memoirs of police officials have no bearing on their thoughts in 1888. Here we find total consistency. Tabram was considered by Anderson to have been the first murder both in 1888 AND at the time of writing "The Lighter Side.." On both occasions, he excluded Emma Smith despite the fact that she was another unsolved Whitechapel prostitute murder, evidently because he did not believe her to have been killed by the same individual.

It is quite possible that some elements within the police still clung to the soldier theory, but the weakness inherent in the Daily Telegraph article is that it doesn't quote any police source directly. Contrast this with the known remarks of actual individuals in support of Tabram as a ripper victim.

Circumstances are not evidence, this is why they call such observations "circumstantial evidence"

Huh?

So it's not evidence...and that's why they call it "evidence"? Really?!

I think you'll find that circumstantial evidence is so-called because it meets the definition of evidence. There is a great deal in the way of circumstantial evidence in support of Tabram as a ripper victim.

Regards,
Ben

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

I see now that I mistook this question in my earlier answer, Bolo. In answer to what you REALLY asked, I will say that no, this does not mean that Abberline was necessarily referring to the first murder in the Ripper series. It only tells us that the police thought that they had enough on Smith to rule her out more or less conclusively. After that, what they were left with was a number of murders where it could NOT be ruled out that the Ripper was the killer.

pardon my ignorance but this does not make too much sense to me. If you think that Abberline had enough on Smith to rule her out, it does not seem logical to say that he was referring to the first in the Whitechapel murder series instead of the Ripper crimes.

In retrospect, it was always more or less accepted that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were the Rippers victims. Stride, most would include her too, but there WAS uncertainty on her behalf, we know that.

Are you talking about the police and Ripperologists or the general public? If it is the latter, I fear that I cannot follow your line of thought. From what I have read in various Ripper books and Casebook documents, public opinion on the extend of the Ripper-related crimes WITHIN the series of Whitechapel murders varied from Nichols/Chapman/Eddowes/Kelly to including Smith and several cases after MJK or combinations thereof, I fail to see a generally accepted group of Ripper victims here.

Of course it goes without saying that Abberline did not rate Smith as a Ripper victim, yet he probably knew as good as his fellow Londoner and tens of thousands of people in the UK and abroad who followed the events that she was considered the first one in the series of Whitechapel murders by the people and the press. I'm convinced that Abberline, in acknowledgement of this fact, would have called Tabram the second victim in the series if he indeed wanted to refer to the Whitechapel murders as a whole, yet he called her the first one in the Gazette interview because in my opinion, as the incentive behind the article suggests (the possibility of Chapman being Jack the Ripper), he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview.

And Tabram was always the odd one out when it comes to methodology, plus there was good reason to see her as a victim of military men. But since this was never conclusively proven, she remained viable as a potential Ripper victim, and she holds the exact same status today.

Agreed, apart from the military connection which seems a bit thin to me.

The group of women killed by knife in Whitechapel was a group that had a small number of entrance demands - unfortunates, killed by knife in the same approximate area was who would fit in. But fitting in with those parameters did not mean that you must have been a Ripper victim, and we can safely bank on the suggestion that the police would have realized this too.

Well, shortly after Alice McKenzie was slain in 1889, both Dr Bond and Monro expressed their considered opinions that she was killed by the same hand who also was responsible for the Whitechapel murders and reported accordingly to Anderson. Monro then went to re-establish plain clothes patrols and ordered reinforcement of the Whitechapel constabulary. Since McKenzie is not commonly accepted as a Ripper victim by most of us, the fact that two prominent figures of the 1888 investigations rated her case as the work of the Ripper seems to point to a police whose idea of the extend of the Ripper/Whitechapel murderer killings were not as clear-cut as we may think.

Regards,

Boris

[Wickerman]

Those five successive murders were Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes, which you must find extremely interesting in light of your earlier observation that the later memoirs of police officials have no bearing on their thoughts in 1888.

This is where you are confusing two separate issues. "Five successive murders" relates to Whitechapel Murders, not "Ripper" murders.
Anderson makes no claim that they were perpetrated by the same man. Just that they remain as a group because the police had no clues.

Here we find total consistency. Tabram was considered by Anderson to have been the first murder both in 1888 AND at the time of writing "The Lighter Side.." On both occasions, he excluded Emma Smith despite the fact that she was another unsolved Whitechapel prostitute murder, evidently because he did not believe her to have been killed by the same individual.

No, you jump to conclusions again. What Anderson writes is that the 2nd "of the crimes known as the Whitechapel murders", only later in a subsequent paragraph does he refer to the "Jack the Ripper scare in full swing". At no point does Anderson provide any personal opinion as to which was the first "Ripper" murder, as opposed to "Whitechapel" murders.
We do know that McKenzie was included among the Whitechapel murders, but that Anderson, in his opinion, excluded both her and Mylett from the "Ripper" series.
So, to emphasize, Anderson "does not" tell us in either writings that we have briefly touched on, who he thought was the first "Ripper" victim.
He only refers to the second "Whitechapel" murder, and they are not the same.

So it's not evidence...and that's why they call it "evidence"? Really?!

Yes, really!
And I was even being overly generous, because Timing, Location, Weapon-type, & Victimology don't even constitute Circumstantial Evidence.
A number of points of 'circumstantial evidence' must point in a particular direct to be of any use, which your selected points do not.

A lot of "unfortunates" (Victimology), lived in that area (Location), in August (Time). And, as the knife (Weapon-type) was the most common type of weapon used then none of those criteria you suggest help define a "Ripper" murder from a "Whitechapel" murder, of which Smith, McKenzie & Coles were also included.

There is a great deal in the way of circumstantial evidence in support of Tabram as a ripper victim.

Whether she was, or was not, will depend on the criteria used. As there is no established criteria then we only have wishfull thinking, personal preference and guesswork.
Suffice to say, there is no evidence, direct or indirect (circumstantial), with which to make any firm judgement.
Which is consistent with what the Daily Telegraph published, and we have no contemporary contrary police opinion with which to contest it.

You really need to separate your understanding of what was broadly known as the series of Whitechapel murders, from the exclusive and narrow selection within this group known as Ripper murders.
Tabram was certainly a Whitechapel murder victim, but not so certain a Ripper murder victim.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Excellent points there, Boris. Agreed entirely. Some spot-on observations from Harry too.

Hi Dave (Cog),

Apologies for the late reply.

It is possible that the Home Office entry was a whitewash, but I'm disinclined to think so. The detail that bayonet woulds are "unmistakable" strikes me as a somewhat obscure detail to invent from the aether, and there doesn't appear to have been any incentive for fabrication on the part of the Home Office.

Hi Sally,

Good point regarding modern thinking on the Tabram murder. I believe respected criminologist Bob Keppell also accepts her as a ripper victim.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It's interesting to note that not one, but two recent studies have concluded that Tabram should be considered to be a Ripper victim.

I do like statistics. Reassuring.

Well, statistics are popular because they can be manipulated to say anything you want.

If, as I suggested earlier, the "dagger" blow which killed her was from the knife that had actually been taken from her, or fell from her clothing, then this suggests the killer was a "clasp-knife" killer.
Therefore, we could lump Tabram tentatively with the earlier "clasp-knife" crimes against Ada Wilson & Annie Millwood.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

This is where you are confusing two separate issues. "Five successive murders" relates to Whitechapel Murders, not "Ripper" murders.

No, Jon.

Definitely not.

If Anderson were referring to unsolved prostitute murders in Whitechapel and nearby, he would have referred to "six successive murders" when writing in October 1888, and not five. He would naturally and logically have included Emma Smith as the first of these murders. The fact that he did not allude to Smith is a certain indication that he meant five successive murders committed, in all probability, by the same hand. He didn't change his opinion from 1888 until the time of writing his memoirs.

We do know that McKenzie was included among the Whitechapel murders, but that Anderson, in his opinion, excluded both her and Mylett from the "Ripper" series.

Yes, and he didn't do that with Tabram because he included her in the ripper's tally, as noted by historian Philip Sugden. The fact that he referred to Nichols as the second murder assures us that he meant the victims slain by the same individual, and not unsolved East End prostitute murders in general. Otherwise, he would rationally and non-idiotically have referred to Nichols as the third murder. I'm very surprised that people are still struggling with this.

And I was even being overly generous, because Timing, Location, Weapon-type, & Victimology don't even constitute Circumstantial Evidence.

They most certainly, emphatically do. According to your argument, there would be no circumstantial evidence to connect any of the victims. They would all be isolated cases with "no evidence" to connect them, according to you. Nobody with any knowledge of serial crime history dismisses Tabram out of hand as a ripper victim. They know considerably better from experience. Her murder would constitute a near textbook example of a knife-mutilating serial killer's methods in their relative infancy. From a criminological perspective - and without intending any disrespect, I have more insight into that topic than those arguing with me - the argument in favour of her inclusion is stronger than the argument against.

A number of points of 'circumstantial evidence' must point in a particular direct to be of any use

No, because that would be direct evidence, from which circumstantial evidence is distinct.

I don't make a "firm judgment", and I have no "certainties", but I consider it more probable than not that Tabram was a ripper victim.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Well, statistics are popular because they can be manipulated to say anything you want.

If, as I suggested earlier, the "dagger" blow which killed her was from the knife that had actually been taken from her, or fell from her clothing, then this suggests the killer was a "clasp-knife" killer.
Therefore, we could lump Tabram tentatively with the earlier "clasp-knife" crimes against Ada Wilson & Annie Millwood.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon.

I think that one's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, sorry. True, statistics can be used to advantage depending on what one is trying to demonstrate; but can also be a valid way of determining trends and connections as objectively as possible. It isn't possible to produce statistics that are entirely without bias, because statistical tests are devised by humans, statistical excercises are determined by choices, etc. It is however possible the diminish the role of that bias to the point where it becomes insignificant. That's the point.

To go back to your example: if you were trying to determine how many of the Whitechapel victims were likely to have been victims of a killer using a clasp knife, it would be difficult to use statistics to make any case about Tabram because we don't know enough about the weapons which killed her. In fact, a statistical excercise which attempted to show which knives had been used in each of the murders and to draw conclusions about the killer from that would fail; because information about specific weapon type is insufficient, because the use of a knife to murder is not in and of itself unusual; and because one person may choose different knives on each or some occasions and still be responsible for all the murders in the dataset.

An excercise that takes uncommon factors common to all or some of the victims is more use statistically in demonstrating how many victims are likely to have been Ripper victims.

Statistics are not a perfect tool, but a pretty good one in my book.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

I think that one's a bit of a sweeping generalisation, sorry.

True Sally, but I was responding to your generalization of what two recent studies had concluded about Tabram. As you did not raise anything specific, neither did I.

In fact, a statistical excercise which attempted to show which knives had been used in each of the murders and to draw conclusions about the killer from that would fail; because information about specific weapon type is insufficient, because the use of a knife to murder is not in and of itself unusual; and because one person may choose different knives on each or some occasions and still be responsible for all the murders in the dataset.

Agreed, so perhaps you can explain this also to Ben, who seems to think "weapon-type" is circumstantial evidence. The reason it is of little to no value is precisely what you outlined, and we have no defined "weapon-type", beyond the term, "knife".

An excercise that takes uncommon factors common to all or some of the victims is more use statistically in demonstrating how many victims are likely to have been Ripper victims.

Exactly, "uncommon factors". Not the month (August), not the part of town (Location), not her 'trade' (Victimology), as none of these are "uncommon factors". I only hope Ben has learned something from your post, he refuses to listen to me.

But, to your points, yes with respect to anything "uncommon" which may tie any group of victims together we could have an opportunity to uncover something worthy. But what criteria to use?

That said, there is nothing conclusive about Tabram's murder, even taking into account the two studies you mentioned, nothing beyond personal opinion to include her as a Ripper victim.

I feel we must treat her as a separate murder due to lack of anything persuasive to think otherwise. There's always a possibility she was, but that is only guesswork.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

If Anderson were referring to unsolved prostitute murders in Whitechapel and nearby, he would have referred to "six successive murders" when writing in October 1888, and not five.

No, no, no Ben!
Read his words again.
Anderson is telling us there were "5 successive murders from which we had no clue". Which means for one of them they did have sufficient clues, as we both know there were 6 in all to that point.
Our question today is, which one of the six did Anderson think the police had sufficient clues?

1) Was it Smith, because she claimed to have been attacked by 3 men?, or

2) Was it Stride because Schwartz claimed to have seen the assault in progress?

They most certainly, emphatically do.

No they do not, circumstantial evidence is "indirect" evidence, which can be interpreted a number of ways.

If "Fred" is seen walking away from a murder scene, is it because:
1) Fred was the murderer?
2) Fred discovered the body, and left sharpish, so as not to get involved?
2) Fred walked past the the body not seeing it in the dark?

Fred's presence is circumstantial and can be interpreted in many ways. Circumstantial evidence requires firm evidence in order to be recognised.

Fred's presence would be raised to "firm evidence" if Freds fingerprints were found on the knife and her blood on his hands, assuming he claimed to not have picked up the knife.
Then, Fred would be "nicked"!

I don't make a "firm judgment", and I have no "certainties", but I consider it more probable than not that Tabram was a ripper victim.

Great, so we can agree to disagree, purely from a point of view of preference with no evidence on either side.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Very much so, but it is interesting to note that all the other doctors provided information that was quite extraneous to the direct cause of death in later ripper-attributed cases."

They also left out a lot, Ben. Every doctor that testified at the different inquests did. And since an inquest is meant to establish the cause of death, it can be argued that Killeen may have been the man who was best fitted to answer to the demands. Superfluous chit-chat of course is something WE benefit from, but the truth of the matter is that it was not called for at any of the inquests.

" You still defend the use of Dew to formulate theories (which I do with the Home Office document), and you still “use” him"

I´m getting curious now, Ben. Exactly WHAT is it I use from Dew?

"So all I have to do is apply precisely the same logic to the Home Office document"

Yes! Please do!
The logic I applied was to present evidence that corroborated or gainsaid the supposition that Hutchinson had mistaken the days.

So if you present evidence that supports or dismisses the suggestion that a bayonet was discarded as being responsible for some of the narrow wounds in Tabram, then you have done what I did! Same logic!

What I did NOT do, was to take an uncorroborated suggestion for good at face value. That is NOT the logic I used. I added work, testing, corroboration, etcetera.

It will be interesting to see you do the same, instead of just saying thank you very much, let´s not check for corroboration.

"The reason I state that Abberline must have considered Tabram a ripper victim (he couldn’t prove it, of course, but it must have been his opinion), is because his comments demonstrate as much. They would fail spectacularly to make any sense at all unless that was the case."

As wrong as it was yesterday, I´m afraid. And there is nothing at all spectacular about saying that the George Yard connection was a coincidence, no matter what he believed. That stands.

"Sugden cannot possibly have stated as fact that Tabram was definitely murdered with two blades"

Read again, Ben.

"You quote Sugden:
'Yet it is most unlikely that the same hand slew both women. As far as we know…'
...He then lists the various factors that appeared to set Smith and Tabram apart, with the two-weapon theory amongst them. “As far as we know”, or put differently, ”as far as we’ve been informed”… Tabram was killed with two weapons. I knew there was a perfectly innocent, sensible explanation for his comments. Don’t ever scare me like that again!"

You should avoid these antics, Ben. They do not speak favourably of your methods. Not at all, in fact. Here is the passage again, in extenso:

"Yet it is most unlikely that the same hand slew both women. As far as we know Tabram was murdered by a lone killer. Smith was the victim of a gang of bullies. Tabram´s murdered used two weapons, a pen-knife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or a bayonet. The injuries on Emma Smith were inflicted, not with a knife but with some blunt instrument, possibly a stick".

The ONLY thing "as far as we know" alludes to is the supposition that Tabram was killeed by a lone killer. And that is compared to the information that Smith fell prey to a gang of three or four, NOT presented as any "as-far-as-we-know"-detail. There is no further "as far as we know" applying beyond the opening sentence.

And you know what? "As far as we know" would still mean that Tabram was killed with two weapons, to the best of our knowledge - "as far as we know".
But don´t even try and criticize this, since it does not apply in the discussion. Sugden is adamant: Tabram was killed by two weapons.

" I don’t need superfluous “corroboration”, although that’s precisely what I have from Abberline, Anderson, Reid and Dew who all thought Tabram a ripper victim but didn’t consider the ripper to have been a bayonet-wielding soldier."

You don´t HAVE any "superfluous" corroboration that Abberline thought Tabram a Ripper victim, I´m afraid. In fact, you have no corroboration at all for it, superfluous or not.

"If it is perfectly sufficient for a qualified historian, it ought to do for the hobbyists."

If you believe in qualified historians' all deductions, then more fool you. Like I told you, they DO differ in opinion.
And when it comes to research work and souce evaluation, you are the hobbyist - not I. I am a journalist and researcher with many a decade of professional work in the genre under my belt. It is as adequate a background as you are ever likely to find for this kind of work.

"What do you mean “by now”?"

I mean now that I have pointed to a different explanation, accepted by, for example, Bridewell and Bolo. To me, that indicates that I made myself very clear and presented a good case. You must forgive me for not asking your opinion, though. You do not seem capable to take in how it works, which is a great pity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

" If you think that Abberline had enough on Smith to rule her out, it does not seem logical to say that he was referring to the first in the Whitechapel murder series instead of the Ripper crimes."

Was Tabram a Ripper crime, Bolo? Do YOU know? I know I don´t. And I am very certain that Abberline did not know either.
It all boils down to what would constitute a Whitechapel murder, I think. The police obviously did NOT regard Smith as potentially belonging to the Ripper tally, whereas they DID think that Tabram MAY have done so. And they will have thought so in varying degrees. Some will have thought that Tabram very probably belonged to the tally, others will have been on the fence and yet others will have thought that she was probably not a Ripper victim, but even so, they must have realized that there were too many similar variables involved to definitely write her off, the way they would have done with Smith, more or less.
Abberline will have answered to one of these descriptions - but I cannot tell you which of them. Certainly, he did not say that the George Yard connection was more than a coincidence, or that it pointed to a link, much less that it evidenced such a thing or - worse - proved it. He settled for an expression that he knew he could easily defend - that it was a coincidence. Behind that expression, any degree of certainty may have lain.

"Are you talking about the police and Ripperologists or the general public?"

The police, Bolo!

" he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview."

He DID? I must have missed something, then - in MY copy, it says "the first murder", not the first Ripper murder.
We need to be cautious with things like these, Bolo, or we will be misrepresenting the material, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Reasonable doubt?

It is possible that the Home Office entry was a whitewash, but I'm disinclined to think so. The detail that bayonet woulds are "unmistakable" strikes me as a somewhat obscure detail to invent from the aether, and there doesn't appear to have been any incentive for fabrication on the part of the Home Office.

Hi Ben
It's the alleged distinctiveness of the bayonet wounds that makes me feel it might just have been a whitewash...the old fashioned triangular section bayonet which had recently been replaced would certainly have left a distinctive wound (shape)...as would probably a sword bayonet (size)... how so a then modern toothpick bayonet? To me it smells a bit of a "Couldn't be one of our boys...over to you Cecil" moment...

Incidentally I believe some regiments still preserve the treasured order "fix swords"...a bit like "Bugle Major, sound the double" in the light infantry...

All the best
Dave