Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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.

[DVV]

Sagesse populaire

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

David:

"The Ripper murders was a daunting task for all medics at the time, Fish."

In a sense, yes. But NOT in the sense that wounds were suddenly harder to measure than in other cases. But nice try anyway, David!

"It may be clear, in your opinion, that the last stab was that given with the dagger-bayonet. It would have gone through the sternum and reached the heart. Unfortunately, that crucial wound is listed among the others, and Killeen never clearly said that this stab was at the same time the last one, the only one caused by a different weapon, and the ultimate cause of death."

And still it is universally recognized as a very differing weapon! And no wonder, since Killeen ALSO said that the blade that caused the smaller wounds could not have caused the sternum one. This alone tells the large wound apart from the others. And what more did he say? Yes, thatīs right, he said that the wound to the heart would in itself be enough to kill, plus he added that Tabram lived throughout ther stabbing series.
It leaves precious little manouvering space for anybody like you, David, none of it offering up any useful alley.

"What is crystal-clear, on the contrary, is that he didn't notice the signs of suffocation."

Apart from the Police Illustrateds SUGGESTION, no other source noticed it either. No biography mentions it. No other medico says anything about it. Nobody at all.
That leads me to the conclusion that the PI may have been uncorrect - that is often the case with just the one source that lacks the corroboration that one would expect to be there. Itīs much the same thing like the suggestion of one weapon, the suggestion of a bayonet being discarded, of Abberline believing in Tabram as a Ripper victim etcetera, all coming from your direction - you always seem to face the bitter fate of being robbed of any corroboration. One has to ask oneself why, David, surely you can appreciate that?

"I cannot agree, Fish, because the story of the following murders tells me otherwise."

The story of the following murders provides you with evidence that Killeen was wrong? How does THAT work, David?

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

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

As it stands, though, this is not a realistic possibility. And on the whole, since very many autopsies do not call for top quality forensic expertise and/or twenty years of experience, itīs a good thing we can let that number one authority take a breather now and then.

Certainly, Fish. We all need more time for leisure. But it's a competitive world, you know.

Killeen was only faced with a daunting task and a very difficult decision in your world, David, yours and a few others.

The Ripper murders was a daunting task for all medics at the time, Fish. And moreso for a young doctor who was not a forensic expert.

In MY world, he had a comparatively easy task, and fulfilled it in a very clear and useful way.

It may be clear, in your opinion, that the last stab was that given with the dagger-bayonet. It would have gone through the sternum and reached the heart. Unfortunately, that crucial wound is listed among the others, and Killeen never clearly said that this stab was at the same time the last one, the only one caused by a different weapon, and the ultimate cause of death.
I'm therefore not sure he "fulfilled his (easy) task in a very clear and useful way."
What is crystal-clear, on the contrary, is that he didn't notice the signs of suffocation. Or perhaps he noticed them but didn't bother mention them at the inquest, as you have suggested ? - But this I can't believe, that would be worse, in terms of mistake.

But do I really have to reiterate this so many times? Can we not just agree that there is no evidence at all in contemporary sources, in biographies, in press reports, that supports you suggestion, and leave it at that?

I cannot agree, Fish, because the story of the following murders tells me otherwise. It tells me that, as experienced as Phillips could be, the police felt the need for a second opinion - Bond's. It tells me there was a serial killer in the East End who used to suffocate his victims before using his knife.

If so, I promise to listen carefully to the Killeen-the-poor-sod-could-not-fill-his-suit suggestion the second you produce that evidence!
Deal?

Alas, no deal. See above, my friend.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish, don't you believe autopsies should be conducted by forensic experts ?
And in difficult or extraordinary cases, by expererienced forensic experts ?"

I fail to see that this question has been touched upon by me. But since you ask, in a perfect world there would be resources enough to ensure that the worldīs best and most experienced forensic expert did ALL autopsies. As it stands, though, this is not a realistic possibility. And on the whole, since very many autopsies do not call for top quality forensic expertise and/or twenty years of experience, itīs a good thing we can let that number one authority take a breather now and then.

Killeen was only faced with a daunting task and a very difficult decision in your world, David, yours and a few others. In MY world, he had a comparatively easy task, and fulfilled it in a very clear and useful way.

But do I really have to reiterate this so many times? Can we not just agree that there is no evidence at all in contemporary sources, in biographies, in press reports, that supports you suggestion, and leave it at that?

If so, I promise to listen carefully to the Killeen-the-poor-sod-could-not-fill-his-suit suggestion the second you produce that evidence!

Deal?

The best,
Fisherman