Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[bolo]

Hello Fisherman,

I did not say "misinterpreted", Bolo - I said "misrepresented". And that is worse.

I see. As you seem to agree to disagree with my new post in which I presented the same idea in a different wording, the problem should be remedied now.

What I pointed to earlier was that you actually wrote: "he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview."
He never said such a thing, did he? If he had, I can guarantee you that I would not be having this discussion with you!

No, he did not say such a thing in the interview. I meant to say that Abberline, as a possible supporter of the idea of Tabram as a potential Ripper victim (according to Sugden), referred to the first Ripper victim when he mentioned the George Yard murder, not the first Whitechapel murders victim in general because that would be Smith.

Trying to establish how much faith Abberline put in Tabram as a Ripper victim is not possible to do, especially since we both agree that he would arguably not have been dead certain at any rate. So how certain or uncertain WAS he?

I THINK he was quite certain but still agree with you that it is impossible to establish beyond doubt.

In the end, we will be going round in circles trying to find the degree of Abberlines commitment. Better then, to just say that we donīt know the degree of it, methinks.

This seems to be a practical approach given the current state of evidence, so I have to agree with you here. However, the notoriously curious snoop in me wants to know more, that's why I guess that I'll have to linger on the issue a little longer.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"As you seem to agree to disagree with my new post in which I presented the same idea in a different wording, the problem should be remedied now."

It is!

"I meant to say that Abberline, as a possible supporter of the idea of Tabram as a potential Ripper victim (according to Sugden), referred to the first Ripper victim when he mentioned the George Yard murder, not the first Whitechapel murders victim in general because that would be Smith."

As you will have gathered, I thought as much. And I still recommend accepting that there would have been a group of victims, ranging from Tabram to Coles, that represented a potential murder tally belonging to just the one killer. The potentiality as such, though, would have varied from victim to victim. But I am perfectly content to agree to disagree with you on this.

"I THINK he was quite certain but still agree with you that it is impossible to establish beyond doubt."

As long as you accept that others will think differently than you, there is nothing else to do, so itīs a wise move on your part. We all perceive things differently, and as long as we do not suggest wildly impossible things, that is as it should be. It will push our knowledge further in the end.

"the notoriously curious snoop in me wants to know more"

Then that, at the very least, is a common feature inbetween us, Bolo!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

....It is not my assumption that a penknife can pierce the sternum.I have given examples,taken under oath,in a British court of law,by a qualified British surgeon,that a penknife can do so. What more is needed.

It is not that a penknife cannot pierce the sternum, but that THIS particular wound through the sternum could NOT have been caused by a penknife.

"In his opinion the wounds were caused by a knife, or some such instrument, but there was a wound on the chest bone which could not have been caused by a knife. An ordinary penknife could have made most of the wounds, but the puncture in the chest must have been made with a sword bayonet or a dagger."

You need to change your emphasis from assuming he meant, "any penknife couldn't penetrate the sternum", to "a penknife couldn't cause THIS wound in the sternum."

Previously I mentioned to you that you do not know the size & shape of the hole made by the penknife in your examples. And, that neither can I show the size & shape of the hole in Tabram's sternum.

Killeen said that a penknife "could not" have caused THIS wound. Why?, well quite likely because the hole was too large for a mere penknife blade. A dagger blade is considerably larger than a penknife blade.
Surely common sense dictates that he is not about to suggest a "dagger" as the weapon, if the hole in the bone is exactly the same size as a penknife.
Also, it must be born in mind these quotes are probably paraphrase, not Killeen's actual words, verbatim.

Obviously, if it has been demonstrated that a penknife CAN penetrate the sternum, then these discussions have presumed emphasis on the wrong point.
It doesn't help to keep pushing the wrong emphasis when a more logical interpretation is available.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Fisherman,Jon,
FULLY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL.Only two years out of medical school.Could have caused two of the wounds herself.Which two?One wound could have been made by a left handed person.Which one?No provenance there.The blow to the sternum was intentional.Well all the stabs were intentional.Chance alone would dictate that among the many to the upper body,one would pierce the sternum.No need for me to change the emphasis on anything.One wound,that to the sternum could not have been caused by the same blade that w as used to cause other wounds.Killeens OPINION not mine.The weapon used was not in evidence to compare.'likelythe hole was too large'Do you know that for fact Jon.Do you know how large it was,and do you know the maximum a penknife can produce to say it couldn't be a penknife.Killeen did not say a penknife could not have caused the sternum wound.It w as his opinion that the weapon that caused most of the wounds,which Killeen LIKENED to a penknife type weapon,could not,and opinions,even of professionals,can sometimes be wrong.There is little difference between some penknife blades and some dagger blades except maybe n lenghth,but as the wound to the sternum needs a blade of only a few inches,lenghth is not a problem.

[DVV]

Hi Harry, you're right, but they like their bayonet. Aaaarfff.
How strange to read again: "Killeen was fully qualified" when he was even not a forensic expert.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"One wound,that to the sternum could not have been caused by the same blade that was used to cause other wounds.Killeens OPINION not mine."

How can you have an opinion on this matter, Harry? You never saw the wounds, so what is it that you opine? On exactly what do you ground your opinion about the specific wounds we are dealing with?
That a penknife can pierce a sternum? Okay, then - letīs say that it can.

But just like Jon states, if Killeen - who saw the wounds - could easily see that the larger hole was three times as big as the smaller ones, then that would have been a very good reason for him to conclude that the blades differed far too much to possibly have been one and the same. Therefore and on that basis, he would have opined this.

But how can you be of a different opinion when you have not seen the wounds and know nothing about the differences inbetween them, size- and shapewise??? From where do you get the knowledge you need to offer any opinion at all? Itīs like you offered an opinion on which index finger on Jesusī hands was the longest; statistics may say that the left hand index finger is normally longer, but how does that impact your specific knowledge about Jesusīhands?

What you do, Harry, is to suggest that Killeen could have been wrong, based NOT on the wounds and their appearance, but instead on the very general observation that people sometimes misjudge things.

Well, they do. So far, so good - this means that Killeen MAY have made a mistake.

Right - so how do we go about strengthening the suggestion of a mistake into something that looks like more certainty? Exactly - we gather evidence from contemporary sources that further evidences that a mistake was made. We look, to begin with, for any deviating opinions on the matter, coming from the medical expertise best suited to make these calls.

And that turns up nothing in the Tabram case. Not one single medico goes on record saying that they disagree with Killeen, or that he may have been wrong.

Next, we turn to the police - did anyone of these, either in police reports from the time or in biographies from later days, state that the suspicion was there at some stage that Killeen may have been wrong? Did they mention his young age and suggest that this may have led him wrong?

And we are left with another blank.

Last - papers, gossip, oral tradition; anything at all, that could have presented the view that Killeen got it wrong. These are sources that habitually will produce "alternative" scenarios, as we can see from the many conspiracy thoughts adhering to the Kennedy killing, for example. No lack of fantasy there!

But lo and behold, not even the sources where speculation is rife has ANYTHING at all to offer in this respect.

And what does that do to the suggestions that a mistake was made by Killeen? Does it eradicate it? No, it does not - anybody is allowed to think anything, substanceless or not.
But it clearly and emphatically indicates that there is nothing tangible at all to support the suggestion as such, and that it therefore must be rejected as a viable explanation until the point that evidence can be presented that offers some sort of confirmation of the relevance in doubting Killeen.

When that evidence is added, Harry, you may even be able to offer an opinion on the wounds. But as it stands, you may only offer general observations about the propensity to be mistaken every now and then. And I for one would not argue with that, since I think you are as good an example yourself as anybody could ask for - to my mind, you are very much mistaken.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Sagesse populaire

Hence the old French saying : "Dans le cul, la baïonnette !"

[DVV]

You really should close that deal with me. It will save you a lot of time and face.
The best,
Fisherman

'Morning Fish.
No.
You're not in position to deal.
Much like Sarkozy in front of Angela M.

[Fisherman]

Haha! Good one, David! You French donīt invest much in poor Sarkozy, do you?

No, my friend, you are correct: there will be no deal as long as you have nothing to sell!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I foresee a chaotic future for France.
A base de baïonnettes, hélas.

[Fisherman]

Did you know, David, that we once had a king here in Sweden who purportedly sported a tattoo saying "A bas le Roi"? In French, as it were, and not in Swedish.

Maybe one of the bayonets issued by the British Empire went "a bas" in Tabramīs body, so you may have a point there!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Didn't know the tatto story, nice one.

But I foresee many things.
I see a man fishing in the Baltic one frosty morning and suddenly realizing how grotesque is the bayonet theory.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I foresee many things.
I see a man fishing in the Baltic one frosty morning and suddenly realizing how grotesque is the bayonet theory."

I never use a bayonet on the fish I catch, that WOULD be grotesque, just like you propose.

But I always use TWO knives when I tend to the fish. Strange, is it not? I use an extremely sharp filleting knife to open up the fish and take out itīs innards, and then I change to a slightly bigger filleting knife that is not as sharp, when I take the skin off the fillet. Itīs less easy to cut through the skin by mistake that way.

Statistically, it is very unusual, I take it. And you only have my word for it, so maybe you should question it...?

Then again, I am much older than Killeen and when I gut things - be that fish or half-baked theories on the Ripperīs victims - I do so with many years of experience behind me.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Can you guess which king it was? With the tattoo, I mean? DS.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Where do you get the larger hole was three times bigger than the smaller ones?.That's not opimion thar's imagination.When you write for instance,that the sternum wound was a deliberate stroke to pierce the heart to make sure she was dead, that is opinion.You were not there to see or hear of the killers intentions.You nor Jon was there to observe two weapons used,but your opinion is there was.The only knowledge any of us have is what has been handed down in written form.It contains opinions of persons that were there.Those opimions sometimes differ.How can you say I have no right to opinion?Why only me?

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Where do you get the larger hole was three times bigger than the smaller ones?."

I got it from my imagination, just like you say. I have no idea whatsoever how much larger the hole was, and the point I was making is that neither have you.
And therefore you cannot offer any opposing view to that of Killeen! That is what I am after - the hole can have been three times as large. It can have been two times, four times and five times as large too. The snag is that you and I donīt know, whereas Killeen did.

To be able to offer a differing opinion we need to know the differences involved in shape and size. Until we do so, we can not offer any opinion at all, apart from the very lame one that people make mistakes.

"When you write for instance,that the sternum wound was a deliberate stroke to pierce the heart to make sure she was dead, that is opinion."

Not really, Harry. It is a suggestion, which is weaker. If you want to opine, you need better ground to stand on, and we have that in Killeens assertion that the 37 stabs were inflicted while Tabram still lived. That means that we can reasonably safely put the sternum stab AFTER these 37 stabs, and that also means that it adds some little credibility to the suggestion that it WAS a coupe de grace.

"Neither you nor Jon was there to observe two weapons used,but your opinion is there was."

Wrong again. It is Killeens opinion, based on his examination and the post-mortem. I just accept what Killeen said. To be able to offer an opinion of my own on the matter, I would need to see the wounds - and even if I did, Killeen would be a much better judge than I am, given his education and experience.

"The only knowledge any of us have is what has been handed down in written form. It contains opinions of persons that were there."

And that goes for the case on the whole. The police opined that there was a serial killer on the loose.

"How can you say I have no right to opinion?"

You cannot offer an alternative opinion to Killeens on the wounds - you can offer a suggestion, no more than that. To offer an opinion, one must see the wounds first.

"Why only me?"

Donīt despair, Harry - the exact same thing goes for us all - we cannot offer an opinion on the wounds. We can offer opinions on how frequently people get things wrong, and on how damning it is to be young when a doctor. But on the wounds we can offer no opinion at all. An opinion here must take itīs starting point in a comparison between the large wound and the small ones - and we cannot do that, can we?

The best,
Fisherman