Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You wish to think mine are weak arguements,can't stop you,Just talk.You may use supposedly litery superiority.Doesn't worry me,it rarely solves problems.Certainly doesn't solve the ripper murders,or the facts of Tabram's death.It does show an egoism to appear superior.and a desperation to find a means of overcoming an inferior line of reasoning,But there,I believe you knew that ever since you touted the two men two w eapons rot."

I have no wish to try and appear "superior" in any manner, Harry. And anybody stands the same chance, basically, of finding the keys to the Ripper mystery, be they historians, journalists, camel sellers or postmen. I know that full well!
The reason I gave my background was because Ben spoke of me as a "hobbyist" and when it comes to research and source evalutation, I am emphatically not.

As for you having the weaker arguments in the Tabram errand, that is due to the fact that you have chosen to opt for a solution that flies in the face of the medical expertise of the time and that has no supporting evidence in the contemporary material. When one does so, one - soundly - faces the risk of having oneīs case pointed out as weak by those who move with the evidence. It is a natural thing.

It has no definite bearing on the outcome as such, though. Much as the suggestion supported by the evidence stands a statistically better chance of being correct, it remains that it MAY be wrong too. Not to the extent that I in this case would speak of any two weapons "rot", though, but still ...

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Que?

Hi Bridewell, I understand your point, but in the JtR case, we are all questioning and criticizing medical reports. We are compelled to choose between Bond and Phillips, aren't we ?

Are we? This is a Martha Tabram thread and I was talking only about Martha Tabram. What involvement did Bond have there?

And we know experienced forensic experts (which, again, Killeen was not) could make mistakes, because both can't be right.

But, as only one was present at the Tabram post mortem, where is the conflict?

I believe the IPN was correct - at least, the photo seems to confirm the suggested suffocation -, and today Harry is right pointing out that any kind of knife can pierce a chestbone. I guess 19th century autopsy reports are full of such mistakes.

Any knife can is the same as any knife did, you think?

With your logic, Bridewell, if Bond's profile had been lost, we should all look for a doctor and wouldn't have the right to suspect anybody else.

When did I say that? When did Killeen say it for that matter?

When did Bond pass any comment on the Tabram murder? I can't find any record of it. To the best of my knowledge he examined only two bodies (Kelly & McKenzie), so how does he become an expert on the Tabram murder which may, or may not, have been committed by the same hand?

I greatly respect your opinion on the boards, but I don't see how Bond's opinion on Kelly & McKenzie (whom he did examine) and Nichols, Stride & Eddowes (whom he didn't) has any relevance to (or conflict with) Killeen's opinion with regard to Tabram.

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Hi Bridewell, I was responding to your post, in which you said, in substance, that we are not qualified to question Killeen's opinions.
I pointed out that questioning medical opinions is precisely what we are ALL doing in the case (and I took the relevant example of Bond and Phillips, whose conflicting opinions prove that EVEN an experienced forensic expert could be easily mistaken in 1888, hence our "right" to question a young local doctor).
Just because the police did not call for a second opinion in August doesn't mean we should accept Killeen's conclusions/suggestions.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Bridewell, I was responding to your post, in which you said, in substance, that we are not qualified to question Killeen's opinions.
I pointed out that questioning medical opinions is precisely what we are ALL doing in the case (and I took the relevant example of Bond and Phillips, whose conflicting opinions prove that EVEN an experienced forensic expert could be easily mistaken in 1888, hence our "right" to question a young local doctor).
Just because the police did not call for a second opinion in August doesn't mean we should accept Killeen's conclusions/suggestions."

In the case of Bond and Phillips, David, we KNOW that both could not be right, since they differed in opinion. To begin with, though, they were having different views on a subject that is very debatable - time of death. To boot things, both menīs suggestions may well have been - and probably were - well underbuilt. They were the kind of eminently experienced medicos you so admire, were they not? But two knowledgeable people CAN differ on things and still offer viable suggestions from both sides.
I very much doubt, though, that they would have measured the wounds in Tabram in any other manner than Killeen did. A millimeter is a millimeter.

And speaking about Killeen, the thing about him is that he was NOT questioned. And just like I have told Harry, there is no way that you or me can do so either. We just donīt have the insights that it would take, and there is no way we can aquire them either.

What you have - and all you are ever going to get - is the view that people make mistakes. Well, big deal! Apart from that, your suggestion is emptier than a balloon - and just as inflated.

Itīs really a totally lame case you are promoting, David, and you should have realized that by now.

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi Ben,

Hi Boris,

You may rest assured that you’ve neither misinterpreted NOR “misrepresented” any of the sources. On the contrary, you are absolutely correct. There can be no other rational explanation for Abberline’s comments than the one you’ve outlined: he considered Tabram a ripper victim. His comments are rendered meaningless if that were not the case. He considered it extremely remarkable that Klosowski lodged in George Yard when the “first murder” was committed, and we've already established that Abberline could not have meant murders generally, because Tabram was NOT the first of those. Logically, therefore, he meant the first likely ripper murder, and the fact that he considered the George Yard connection “extremely remarkable” also only makes sense if that were the case.

thanks Ben, my thoughts exactly.

I'm still quite surprised that this is a matter of discussion at all. After Fisherman's intervention, I pulled all my Ripper books from the shelves and re-read the Tabram chapters because I thought that I had missed or confused something but couldn't find anything that I might have misrepresented. I guess I should have worded by thoughts more clearly.

If anyone of you happens to speak German, I'd be happy to re-post my thoughts in a less ambigous way.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"I pulled all my Ripper books from the shelves and re-read the Tabram chapters because I thought that I had missed or confused something but couldn't find anything that I might have misrepresented."

Bolo, you are perfectly welcome to think whatever you want about how much faith Abberline put in Tabram as a Ripper victim! The only misrepresentation that has been around was the one I mentioned earlier, when you wrote:
"he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview."

This would mean that Abberline had said "I rate Tabram as the first murder in the Ripper series" and he simply never did. Therefore it would be a misrepresentation to claim that this was the case. Abberline spoke of "the first murder", but he did NOT name any specific killer for Tabram, nor did he specify the series - it could have been the Ripper series, but it could equally have been the series of knife killings that went from Tabram to Coles.

As for the rest of your thinking, I acknowledge that it may be correct - but the alternative remains an open possibility.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Gosh, what a lot of posts from you this morning, Fisherman!

“But that does NOT mean that Killeen was a bad doctor.”

But I never suggested he was a "bad doctor". I pointed out that he was inexperienced, and suggested that this inexperience might well have impacted on his Tabram-related opinions. It is only reasonable to surmise that a more experienced doctor is less likely to make errors of judgement than a new entrant to the medical profession. Why else would experience be cited as a positive factor in defence of someone’s opinion? You do it yourself when citing your decades of journalistic experience.

There is nothing improbable about Tabram being suffocated. It would account for both the pictorial evidence and the absence of any noise heard by nearby residents. I never stated it as fact that she was suffocated, however, and I shouldn’t have to point out that a doctor might be inexperienced without being "incompetent".

“No, I donīt. So I once again ask you to point me to what I use from Dew”

Well, if you now contend that you’re not using Dew at all to formulate your theories, that’s a step in the right direction.

“Bolo, for example, is a strong believer in Abberline really believing Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, but when I explained my reasoning to him, he immediately recognized the viability of my point.”

I’m not quite sure of the point of this argument, “Yes, they disagree with me, Ben, but not as emphatically as you do!”. Okay, but they still disagree with you, and for good reason.

“Sugden is NOT corroboration, he is just somebody else who mentions source A".

…yep, and someone who considers "Source A" conclusive – as I do – that Abberline included Tabram as a ripper victim, because it IS conclusive, or ought to be considered so.

“And yes, I have formerly spent 14 years working, not as a writing journalist, but as a researcher, providing my journalist colleagues with the adequate material, much of it dating back a hundred years or more, they needed as a background for their articles.”

I can believe that, no problem. But that’s not “evaluating sources”, is it? That’s researching the information and providing it for other people to write about. In fact, I’d wager that you were also obliged or encouraged to report the opinions of experts and historians when researching history, not offer up a conflicting opinion of your own and set yourself up as a substitute historian or expert.

“Here is Killeen, just for you: "...such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone".”

Yes, but if you remember, he only suggested “such an instrument”. He did not commit himself to it. He was saying that if he was correct in identifying the weapon as a penknife-type instrument, it couldn’t have created the sternum wound, and that’s fair enough. His opinion – and it was only that – allows ample room for the possibility that he did not identify the weapon correctly, which means he harboured no certainty that a penknife was the weapon responsible, and no certainty that two weapons were involved in the murder. This is why I’ve suggested on a number of occasions that we avoid the suggestion that Kileen was “adamant” about anything. Shape had nothing to do with Kileen’s assessment, or else he’d have said so. His assessment was concerned with the size of the wound and the apparent strength of the weapon required to create it, and fortunate it is that we have his reasons on record, since it dispenses with the need to grope around for alternative explanations for his opinions.

“Perhaps Killeen was of the meaning that the effusion of blood would probably have come about as Tabram fell to the floor during the onslaught with the knife? This must surely be a very good explanation to why the effusion was there.”

I’d rather hope he wasn’t of that meaning, since it would fail to account for the lack of screams. If I fell to the ground whilst being stabbed, I’d make sure that anyone nearby knew about it. The blow to the head was far more likely to have been a preventative measure on the killer’s part, to avoid the outcome of her screaming out and interfering with his knife plans.

I think it’s rather immaterial what most stabbers “normally go to”. If the success of the attack was predicated on keeping the victim silent, as it certainly was in Tabram’s case, it was obviously necessary to subdue her first, and a blow to the head or a throttling action would achieve this. Altogether, the chances of the “effusion” NOT being the result of deliberate action on the part of the killer must be considered extremely remote. As such, it was incumbent upon the doctor present to mention this detail at the inquest in connection with the victim’s death. It had as much validity as speculations over weapon type, which was not Kileen’s area of expertise.

Let’s not go back to the argument that an “uncontested” opinion must be considered a likely one. You know full well that you don’t buy into that dogma yourself, or else you wouldn’t embrace certain theories that also militate against “uncontested” professional opinion from the time.

Bolo did not misrepresent anything. That Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim is the inescapable inference from his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview. There is no other rational explanation. Bolo no more misrepresented Abberline than historian Philip Sugden did in the “Complete History”. Abberline most assuredly did not mean the “series of knife killings that went from Tabram to Coles” or else he’d have specified as much. His comments only make sense if he considered Tabram the “first murder” attributed to the ripper.

Kileen would not have measured anything in "millimetres", by the way.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Ben,
Quite agree with every thing you say.As for the wounds,Killeen was probably correct in his opinion of a penknife type weapon.Question is,was he aware of the extent of damage such a weapon could inflic,to be able to state that it could not have inflicted the sternum wound.Or,vise versa,that the blade that created the sternum wound could not have inflicted the rest.I maintain that only the production of the blade would allow a proper comparison to be made.
David,
Don't be daunted by the offensive remarks of Fisherman.It's his usual style of arguement when he has no sensible challenge to what is written.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I never suggested he was a "bad doctor". I pointed out that he was inexperienced, and suggested that this inexperience might well have impacted on his Tabram-related opinions."

Or not. And thatīs it - the discussion can go no further. Nobody denies that Killeen could have been wrong on some count, to some larger or lesser degree. And just how earthshattering is that?

How much of a Ripper-find of the year is it? If it wins the contest, I will enter the competition next year with the suggestion that Albert Cadosch may have used the Times to wipe himself after his visit to the loo. Iīm sure that somebody else - perhaps you, Ben? - will claim that it was more likely to be the Daily Telegraph.

This has to be the mootest and most pointless discussion ever on Casebook: "The doctor said A, but one must realize that it could have been B."

Cleopatra poisoned herself, but we must accept that she COULD instead have succumbed to a tropical disease. They are more common, so it is the better suggestion, in fact. The ones who found her must have gotten things wrong. People do that quite often.

Orville and Wilbur Wrights plane flew 400 yards, but one must realize that it may have been 370. Nobody could fly a plane before that, so the lower figure is more likely to be correct. They must have measured it wrong. People make mistakes.

Hannibal trecked over the alps with elephants, but one must realize that it could instead have been oxen. And since elephants are much less common, the better guess is that it was oxen. Those who spoke of elephants may have exaggerated by mistake.

Is this how we are to rewrite history from now on? Is this an acceptable approach to things?

"There is nothing improbable about Tabram being suffocated."

Oh, yes there is - there is the complete absence of any mentioning it in any other source than the Police Illustrated. And since only the ONE source suggests this, whereas ALL the others are silent on the matter, I think we should employ a very useful attitude: People get things wrong every now and then - that would have been what happened here too.
By the way, are you really of the opinion that if YOU can diagnose a suffocation from a 124 years old photo, a professional doctor could not do the same, actually examining Tabram? If the signs are so very clear in that photo, the how could Killeen possibly have missed it? It would not amount to inexperience only, it would be a total disaster. And no policeman, like Reid, for example, seasoned detective and 42 years old, with lots of experience and quite probably with many suffocated victims on his CV - would he also have missed what you so easily pick up on? Remarkable, to say the very least!

"if you now contend that you’re not using Dew at all to formulate your theories, that’s a step in the right direction."

Wrong answer. You have invested heavily in telling people that my use of Dew compares to your use of an obviously erroneous Home Office report, so I once again ask you to provide proof of this. Otherwise, people may think we are on equal footing in our use of sources, and we are no such thing.

"…yep, and someone who considers "Source A" conclusive – as I do "

,,,which was not the point. The point was that you boldly stated that you had corroboration - and you didnīt. Glad to see that you finally admit it now.

"I can believe that, no problem. But that’s not “evaluating sources”, is it?"

Oh, so you think that no evaluation of the sources is involved when a journalist chooses what material to provide his writing colleagues with? You think that a journalist researcher will not check and doublecheck before he delivers any material, and that he could not care less if Hannibals elephants are changed for oxen in the article that is written afterwards?

Where do you get everything from? Is this how you do things yourself? If so, you need to realize that others may do it differently!

"He was saying that if he was correct in identifying the weapon as a penknife-type instrument, it couldn’t have created the sternum wound"

He WAS? Where did he say that? I canīt find that source.

"His opinion – and it was only that – allows ample room for the possibility that he did not identify the weapon correctly"

That we canīt tell, since the room that was offered must be related to the apparition of the wounds. It is very simple, Ben. It is not until we have that knowledge that we can tell whether the room was ample or almost non-existant. That is why I speak of a moot and pointless discussion. I could take it one step further and say that it is even an impossible discussion. We could just as well quibble over the length of Julius Ceasarīs sword. As long as we do not have the measures, it will all be fruitless, moot and pointless guesswork.

"This is why I’ve suggested on a number of occasions that we avoid the suggestion that Kileen was “adamant” about anything. Shape had nothing to do with Kileen’s assessment, or else he’d have said so. "

Can you see what is deeply disturbing with this combination of arguments? We need to avoid to say that Killeen was adamant on anything (which he was, in fact), but YOU may be as adamant as you please in stating that shape could not have had anything to do with Killeens assessment. I think you just produced a true classic here, Ben!

"I’d rather hope he wasn’t of that meaning, since it would fail to account for the lack of screams."

There ARE other ways of silencing people, actually. Holding a hand over somebodyīs mouth for example. One of the stabs to the throat may have incapacitated her in this respect, etcetera.

"the chances of the “effusion” NOT being the result of deliberate action on the part of the killer must be considered extremely remote."

... which is probably why so many people speak of the possibility that she banged her head against the wall or the floor. They all make a useless and bad guess. Such a thing would be, how did you put it ...? Ah, EXTREMELY remote.

"Bolo did not misrepresent anything. "

He did. And you do the same now, by denying it.

But what about my question to you about Nichols, Ben? I need an answer to that one. It is very important to another subject, as I will show you in some time. But I need you answer first!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"David,
Don't be daunted by the offensive remarks of Fisherman.It's his usual style of arguement when he has no sensible challenge to what is written."

David daunted...? You are kidding, Harry! If you are not daunted by speaking for a totally unevidenced choice of argument B as opposed to the documented and evidence argument A, then I fail to see that you will be daunted by anybody pointing out that you are probably on the wrong track altogether. And there is nothing offensive in saying that Davids suggestion is a very lame one - what else could it possibly be? "People make mistakes", that single sentence carries the total weight of the argument, and no matter how we look upon it, that is not a very powerful argument, is it?
Myself, I would consider it a lot more offensive - and controversial - to speak of the "two weapons rot", since two weapons IS the recorded official view, totally uncontested back when it was written. Shall we call all we donīt like a "rot" from now on? The Phillips rot, the Abberline rot, the Reid rot, the police rot, the Ripper rot, the Dew rot - oh, wait, that should read the Dew Spew, a totally inoffensive tarnishing of a man recognized as one of Britains finest detectives.

You are not by any chance being ever so slightly one-eyed here, Harry?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Sorry the word "rot" seemed more offensive to you Fisherman.Even a schoolboy in my day would have found the word of minor significance.Still i'll withdraw it if it offends your sensibility.First mistake i've ever made on these boards.Probably sidelined at the time by trying to imagine a left handed man,a right handed man,and Tabram taking turns stabbing with the penknife.I could have had the one eye partially closed.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Sorry the word "rot" seemed more offensive to you Fisherman."

I can live with it - itīs the accusation that I would be offensive I dislike.

"Even a schoolboy in my day would have found the word of minor significance."

I went to school in Malmö, Sweden. And my schooldays were accompanied by Swedish, not English. Therefore I may not be as aquainted with the full meaning of a British word as you are, Harry. The times I have heard or seen the word "rot", it has carried a likeness to "mess" and the word "rotten". And I really donīt think we should call the official line laid down by a doctor witnessing at an inquest a mess, at least not until we can prove that it was. And we canīt.

"First mistake i've ever made on these boards."

Good on you - I have made many myself.

"I could have had the one eye partially closed."

Or totally, perhaps?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David,
Don't be daunted by the offensive remarks of Fisherman.

Hi Harry. No worries about that. I'm currently praying for our lost sheeps, the bayonetists.

[Fisherman]

Lost sheep, David, are sheep that have absconded from a heard of (probably black) sheep. Those who did not, are free (probably white) sheep. And white sheep donīt mingle with black. Plus, trying to sort me in with the black ones donīt come sheep.

Good to hear though, that I did not scare you away from the boards with my offensive posting!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

David,
I didn't really think you w ould be.I guess the bayonet bearers will one day turn up with the left handed stabber.
Regards.