Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Wickerman]

Oh good, so you do want to go through all this again, Jon?

Sure, we've been over everything else ten times or more, what the heck, it's snowing outside anyway...

In which case, I guess I'll just have to copy and paste my previous response:

But your cut 'n paste did not address the point I was making, besides, Macnaghten was still talking about a 'bayonet' in 1894.

"...the body had been repeatedly pierced, probably with a bayonet."

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/memo.html

Like I said, there was no change of opinion, you have misunderstood the point in the file.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

a bayonet type weapon is perfect for that large wound, but not for the rest, because you also have to consider that the bayonet is far heavier, thus will go in further and damage the bones as well...the clasp knife wont, it's not strong or heavy enough.

unfortunately, the Bayonet is also liable to be much more blunt that the clasp knife, in fact, the Bayonet could be totally blunt, they usually were! in contrast, the clasp knife if razor sharp, will cut you all the way down to your spine, it just depends if the killer has a sharpening stone, if so, that clasp knife will be very nasty indeed.

the killer has switched knives at the end to finish her off, this is very strange, simply because if you vision Tabram right now, you can see that she's already dead or almost !

this still does not look like JTR to me, it simply feels totally wrong.

[Ben]

Sure, we've been over everything else ten times or more, what the heck, it's snowing outside anyway...

In which case, I suppose I should be flattered that the prospect of another repetition battle with Ben is more enticing than snowman-constructing.

Macnaghten was still talking about a 'bayonet' in 1894.

But he was also talking about "five victims only" in 1894, in contrast to what the majority of police officials were saying at the time of the murders. In any case, we know full well that the weapon initially suspected of being a bayonet did not "repeatedly" pierce the body.

I'd thoroughly recommend a read of Jon Ogan's article:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-tabramogan.html

He also tackles the Home Office document, and concludes, as I do, that the wording:

"Some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet WAS FIRST suspected as the murder weapon. BUT bayonet wounds are QUITE UNMISTAKABLE."

...indicates a "revised official view" on the subject of the bayonet.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I would tend to agree with Ben on the bayonet issue but as has been pointed out, in his early phase the Ripper may not have been sure of the best weapon to use and so took more than one with him. The possibility of different weapons - and I would suggest it is no more than a possibility - does not imply multiple culprits.

[Wickerman]

Ben.
There are so many confusing issues about this Bayonet subject.

First, it must be emphasized, Dr Killeen did not suggest a bayonet might be the "other" weapon.

In Killeen's opinion... "...one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, "

This was his wording at the Inquest, and was reported as such in the press on the 10th & 11th. Only later did the suggestion arise from elsewhere (press/police?) that this singular weapon might have been "a dagger or bayonet".
However, it should be emphasized once again the bayonet was not Killeen's professional medical opinion, so cannot be laid at his door a "misdiagnosis" of the evidence.

Given that two soldiers were initially suspected, and given that military issue was "one clasp-knife" and "one bayonet", then it is a reasonable conclusion for anyone to draw at the time that Killeen's "dagger-type" instrument might have been a bayonet.

First, there were any number of bayonets available on the streets in Victorian London, children were seen playing with them in the streets. An old bayonet could be bought at the market for a penny.

Second, whoever first suggested a bayonet was obviously not being too specific. British, French & German knife-bayonets were both available and suitable. However the older slim-blade 1840's & the more common triangular spike bayonet would leave an "unmistakable" wound.

So, to bring clarity to the "bayonet" argument, which "bayonet" are we talking about?
The fact is, we do not know. So, when a police official suggests that "a bayonet" wound is unmistakable, we need to know which bayonet he is talking about. The reason being, a knife bayonet is precisely that, "a knife" (or dagger), and will only leave a wound profile which mimics a "knife" or "dagger" profile. Therefore, the difference is indeterminable, which is what was meant when the press reports subsequently introduce the "dagger or bayonet" hypothesis.

So, if Killeen's professionalism is the point of debate you can drop the "bayonet" issue, as this suggestion came from elsewhere.

My point still remains, and yes Jon Ogan fell into the same trap, that the HO file is wrongly suggesting "some of the wounds" were caused by a bayonet type instrument, which is patently incorrect.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Really?

One knife was used, and Killeen's "dagger hypothesis" is just one of his various mistakes.

A penknife penetrated the breast-bone? Surely not.

[Bridewell]

Was Martha a Ripper victim? If she wasn't it means two such killers operating simultaneously in the same area and I think that unlikely. Yes, MacNaghten said there were five victims and five only, but why is his opinion the "be all and end all"? He wasn't even a police officer at the time of these events. My recollection is that Abberline, who was, thought that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Who is more likely to be right?

The criticism of Killeen mystifies me. He conducted the post mortem examination because he was qualified to do so. Had he not been, he would not have been allowed to do so. His opinion must carry great weight, surely? He was a qualified medical practitioner who saw the body and conducted a detailed examination of it

Is it good practise to dismiss his expert opinion simply because it conflicts with MacNaghten's? Same question ; which is more likely to be right, the medical practitioner who conducted the PM and saw the evidence at first hand, or a man appointed to high office in the Metropolitan Police with no previous experience of relevance to this issue?

[Ben]

then it is a reasonable conclusion for anyone to draw at the time that Killeen's "dagger-type" instrument might have been a bayonet.

Indeed, Jon. This is precisely my point. The bayonet idea only entered into the equation once it transpired that Tabram had been seen out and about with soldiers on the night of her death, and not because the wound itself suggested a bayonet. With regard to the specific type of bayonet, Bob Hinton devoted a considerable chunk of his chapter on Tabram (in his book, From Hell) to the issue of weaponry. He made the point that the bayonets in issue at the time were the of the sword variety, and were generally 18 inches in length, making then very unwieldy weapons when removed from the rifle. I think it is only fair to assume that the HO document annotator, being more familiar with the type of bayonets doing the rounds the time then we are, knew precisely what he was talking about when he observed that bayonet wounds were unmistakable. Evidently, for those in a better position to know than we are, the differences between a sword bayonet wound and knife/dagger wound was perfectly "determinable".

As you note, the bayonet suggestion did not originate with Kileen, which reflects very well on him, considering how unlikely it is that a bayonet of any sort was involved in the murder of Tabram.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... With regard to the specific type of bayonet, Bob Hinton devoted a considerable chunk of his chapter on Tabram (in his book, From Hell) to the issue of weaponry. He made the point that the bayonets in issue at the time were the of the sword variety, and were generally 18 inches in length, making then very unwieldy weapons when removed from the rifle....

I don't doubt that Ben, but "dagger" style bayonets were available, they were used in the Boar War, 1880-1902.

This particlar style was an 1887 issue:


This, issued in 1888:


You can find these anywhere on the internet. The 1888 version is one I ordered several years ago, but returned it because although it was the 1888 style the one they sent me was from the 1900's.
If I'm not mistaken I think Stewart Evans bought that same one.
I can't believe Bob Hinton did not know they were available, but, thats life.

However, any wounds made by either of these weapons cannot be described as "unmistakable", but the more common spike bayonet would certainly produce a triangular "unmistakable" wound. That, I think, is what the HO file is alluding to, quite wrongly though.

Incidently, that HO file was dated Nov. 29, so almost 4 months after the Tabram murder.

(Quote)
HO 29 Nov. 88 A49301C 160 8g

Tabram (? 37) date.8.88.

Time
2a.m. and 4.50a.m. probably before 3.30 a.m.

Place
landing at George Yard bldngs, a tenement house in Whitechapel

Nature of injuries &c. &c.
wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger
Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable
(End quote)

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Now, just briefly, the more commonly known bayonets used by the British Military, and which would certainly produce an "unmistakable" wound would be either one of two.

First, this issued from 1840 would fit the description given in the HO file, ie "narrow wound"
(..Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested..)




Second, this spike (triangular) shaped bayonet from 1875:



Either one of these could have been the intended reference (wrongly) of the HO file.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Thanks for those, Jon.

I think a distinction ought to be made between weapons that were available and those that were commonly available, and I'd urge caution as far as the internet and google images are concerned because they may create a misleading impression as to how frequently occurring the featured weapons were during the period we're interested in. Bob's observation, unless I'm mistaken, was that the MK sword bayonets (I and III) were the standard issue at the time, and it would have been these mainstream-circulated weapons that the writer of the HO document was likely referring to. Either way, the writer is not remotely "wrong" on the subject. He would have known the most commonly available bayonets at the time, and would, accordingly have made his bayonet-related observation in reference to those.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.
I think what is important to acknowledge in the HO memo is that the writer (it is unsigned) has confused the specifics of the wounds on Tabram.

At least, according to what has survived, it appears Killeen identified 38 wounds as 'small', typical of a common knife, and the one through the breastbone as larger & deeper, associated with a dagger.

(H.O.)
" wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger"

In so far as that line goes, there are no issues, however the following..

"Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

It is this line which is "wrong".
Three & a half months previous, the speculation had been that only "one" (not, "some"), might have been from a bayonet, and because the wound was "broad" (not, "narrow").
So, two errors of fact make this line of little value.

Lastly, whoever made the suggestion (dagger OR bayonet) was, I would have to say "obviously" suggesting two "similar" weapons, so similar that distinction between the two was impossible.
Therefore, whoever made the suggestion was not doing so because this particular wound in the breast was "unmistakably" different to a common dagger.
Rather, the suggestion was being made because the bayonet he had in mind was "so similar" to a common dagger.
That, in longform, is essentially the point I was making.

At the end of the day, we both seem to agree that it is the presence of soldiers shortly before Tabrams death that possibly prompted the "bayonet" suggestion by someone (press, police?), but not Dr. Killeen.

Killeen may have agreed to a question put to him later, after the Inquest, but only because in his opinion the "bayonet" being suggested to him was physically no different to the "dagger" he had in mind.
Our dilemma is that we do not know "which" bayonet was the one being suggested to the doctor.

The possibility will always be there that Tabram was killed by a soldier, but mainly because of her recent known associations, not because of the wound descriptions.
On the other hand it is quite possible that Tabram was killed by a local man who simply carried two knives.
We have several examples of people arrested by police who, on being searched, were found to be in possession of several knives. Apparently, it was not so unusual.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I think what is important to acknowledge in the HO memo is that the writer (it is unsigned) has confused the specifics of the wounds on Tabram.

Yes, he made the same error as Macnaghten in asserting that the weapon initially suspected of being a bayonet was responsible for more than one of the wounds, which of course it wasn't. But no, the whoever made that note on the HO document was not offering any comment as to how many weapons were used.

Glad we're in agreement with regard to the origin of the bayonet theory.

Regards,
Ben

[RedBundy13]

A penknife penetrated the breast-bone? Surely not.

Why couldnt a pen knife? I would bet a paper clip could penetrate the breast-bone, if enough force was behind it... A pen knife that was well maintained could punture the breast plate if it was swung by a strong adult. Maybe it couldnt reach the depth that a bayonet could but that isnt the arguement here.

[DVV]

Hi RedB, well said. They make me laugh with their penknife and their bayonet. For the record again, this penkinife has stabbed Martha 38 times (39, imo) without breaking. And it was the knife a MURDERER chose to KILL.

There was no penkinife, no bayonet. There was a knife, and a medic that would have been perfect if Martha had caught a cold. But it was more serious.