Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

A rephrasing of this would be:
The main argument - but not the only one - behind the two weapon assertion is that a fully qualified, professional doctor examined the wounds in Tabram´s body, both in situ at the murder site and much more thoroughly by means of a post-mortem examination, and declared that two weapons had been used.

Sounds a lot different, does it not?

The best,
Fisherman

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

Was Killeen an experienced doctor ?
No.
Was he a forensic expert ?
No.

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"I don't know for sure, neither did Abberline, but Sugden says that the inspector thought she was and cites a few sources for it, that is good enough for me."

Sugden cites one source and one source only, if I read him correctly. And that source is inconclusive, since it takes interpretation to understand. And the understanding is a different one depending on who you ask. Therefore, much as I respect if YOU think that Abberline gave away a belief in Tabram as a Ripper victim, I think you can understand why I don´t think so, and respect that I have a completely rational ground for my stance.

"Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to say that Tabram was the first Ripper victim beyond any doubt, or that Abberline knew beyond any doubt that she was but I think it's safe to say he believed that Tabram was the Ripper's premiere.
This led me to conclude that Abberline referred to Tabram as the first Ripper victim in the 1903 Gazette interview, which seems logical, given that the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing.
I don't think that I have misinterpreted any existing material with this."

I did not say "misinterpreted", Bolo - I said "misrepresented". And that is worse.
However, they way you present the material in your new post, I disagree, but respect your stance. 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!

As for "the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing", I think that we ned to keep in mind that the "coincidence" wording points not to Chapmans definite involvment in the Tabram murder, but instead to his POTENTIAL such. 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?
After having had our respective guesses at that, we must ask ourselves "Did Abberline HAVE to be more than 50 per cent sure that Tabram was a Ripper victim to mention the coincidence as such? Or would it be enough to accept Tabram as a POSSIBLE Ripper victim to do so?
And after THAT, Bolo, we once again would need to assess just how possible the Ripper connection was for Abberline.
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 don´t know the degree of it, methinks.

The best, Bolo!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion."

A rephrasing of this would be:
The main argument - but not the only one - behind the two weapon assertion is that a fully qualified, professional doctor examined the wounds in Tabram´s body, both in situ at the murder site and much more thoroughly by means of a post-mortem examination, and declared that two weapons had been used.

Sounds a lot different, does it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi 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.

No, I don't know for sure, neither did Abberline, but Sugden says that the inspector thought she was and cites a few sources for it, that is good enough for me.

Ben already posted these quotes/sources here: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=727 .

That is why it does not seem too far-fetched to conclude that Abberline referred to the first murder in the Ripper series in the Gazette article.

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?

Again, please refer to the link to Ben's post with the corresponding quotes and sources.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to say that Tabram was the first Ripper victim beyond any doubt, or that Abberline knew beyond any doubt that she was but I think it's safe to say he believed that Tabram was the Ripper's premiere.

This led me to conclude that Abberline referred to Tabram as the first Ripper victim in the 1903 Gazette interview, which seems logical, given that the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing.

I don't think that I have misinterpreted any existing material with this.

Regards,

Boris

[DVV]

And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion.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.

Agreed entirely, Harry. Nothing more is needed.

As for the "circumstancial evidences", since it would be a bit rude to point out that Jon is utterly wrong, I'd rather say Bridewell is utterly correct.

[Bridewell]

This is not evidence Ben. Circumstances are not evidence, this is why they call such observations "circumstantial evidence", that it does not constitute evidence at all.

Regards, Jon S.

Sorry, but this is wrong. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It is not sufficient, on its own, to convict, but circumstantial evidence can be, and is, admitted in British criminal courts.

How much weight is placed on circumstantial evidence is a matter of judgement, but it is emphatically not correct to state that circumstantial evidence is not evidence at all.

Regards, Bridewell.

[harry]

And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion.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.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I do not believe the intent to murder was ne ccessarily present in either that of Millwood or Tabram."

That is understandable, Harry, as long as you believe in a one-weapon scenario, and as long as you make the assumption that a penknife can pierce the sternum and as long as you likewise believe that a medico would, after having performed a post-mortem, describe the traces of that penknife as having given the impression of being a long, strong instrument.

But if you look at it all from the other side, that is to say the side that believes that Killeen was correct, then we have a scenario where the finishing blow to Tabram was a stab through the sternum with ANOTHER weapon than the penknife (a long, strong instrument, as it were) - and finding a deed with a much clearer intent to kill would be a hard thing to do.

So it´s all about interpretation once again, by the looks of things, one interpretation that has support from all of the contemporary sources that has anything to say in the errand, and one that has no such support at all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

The most that can be said about the difference between Millwood and Tabram is that one died and one survived.Both attacks had similarities.I believe that after having killed Tabram,the Ripper had crossed a divide,that the intent to kill became foreemost in his thinking.The throat cutting in the case of Nicholls,and later victims showed that.Sure Millwood died soon after,but according to medical evidence,not from the weapon attack.So no,I do not believe the intent to murder was ne ccessarily present in either that of Millwood or Tabram.The intent ,in those two cases,was to cause harm,without thought of the extent that harm would be.

[Cogidubnus]

Sadistics

Only the Statistics know...

Who are these people?...subpoena them immediately!

McCarthy

[Sally]

The men with statistics say 'Yes'

Was Tabram a Ripper Victim?

Only the Statistics know...

[Ben]

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.

No, Jon.

It's the other way round. There is always the possibility that she wasn't, but that is only guesswork. Everything else; crime scene evidence, victimology, weapon type, timing, location, speaks very strongly in favour of Tabram being the early work of the killer responsible for the later victims.

Criminologically speaking, everything communicates in favour of her being a ripper victim, and every argument against is very seriously weakened as a result of applying WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT SERIAL KILLERS. This is the absolutely crucial point that should inform our judgment on the Tabram issue. In fact, it should inform our judgment on anything relates to criminology and the Whitechapel murders. If you want to research the history of the East End, architecture, Victorian police practices, or the victims' histories, be my guest. But if people want to pronounce judgment on matters that relate to victimology and suspectology, it's essential to educate yourself on other serial cases, as well as true crime in general. If people don't do that, their opinions are essentially worthless, and amount to creative writing at best. Time and time again, I find that that the people who are most thrusting and dogmatic in asserting their views are those who simply haven't done enough background reading on a subject they purport an interest in.

Anderson is telling us there were "5 successive murders from which we had no clue".

He certainly meant "clue" to the identity of the likely murderer. It is quite clear that the police were in possession of some clues in each case, whether they came from eyewitness accounts, medical notes or other sources. In every murder case, the police were not entirely devoid of clues. Crucially, however, there is no evidence that the police were in possession of any clues that would pinpoint the likely offender in any of the murder cases. We may be certain, therefore, that Anderson meant five successive murders that were attributed to one individual, and that he excluded Emma Smith owing to the belief that she was killed by someone else. Anderson reinforces this point when writing the "Lighter Side...". He counts Nichols as the second of the "Whitechapel murders", a comment that would only make sense if he used the expression "Whitechapel murders" to apply to those victims considered to have been killed by the same person.

Circumstantial evidence requires firm evidence in order to be recognised.

No.

That's just wrong.

Circumstantial evidence is a "recognised" form of evidence. That's why they call it evidence. The clue is in the description, folks.

Regards,
Ben

[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

[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

[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