Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Hi C4

Martha´s face in the photograph I have seen appears swollen.

That's right, although some may say "she was fat"...just because they don't want to accept her as a ripper victim.
Remember there was a press report talking about this swollen face.

[Wickerman]

One knife was used,......

So we've just gone from an absolute...

...which does not mean the knife was for sure a toy.

to a maybe...

It's all very well to express an opinion on the professionalism of the doctors who ACTUALLY saw the wounds. It is also acceptable to ASSUME such a professional couldn't tell the difference between a short, narrow penknife-like blade and a larger, longer, dagger-type blade.

Assumptions are fine, ...it is not fine to suggest such opinions & assumptions have any grounding in fact.

Killeen seems to make the matter quite clear when he is reputed to have stated:

(Killeen)..did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone"

Could not have...

The reason Killeen can afford to be so certain is because ALL the other 38 wounds penetrated tissue, therefore are pliable.
This one single wound through the breast-bone WILL leave a firm hole which directly provides a profile of the blade width and shape. It is unfortunate that the shape of the hole is not described, but at least we have his tangible reason for being so certain.

The fact Killeen suggests "dagger" indicates the hole was not triangular, which would reflect the old long-spike bayonet recently withdrawn from service. It does at least suggest Dr Killeen was familiar with the current issue of bayonet at the local Barracks.

A hole in through the breast-bone is the next best thing to proof of the width of the blade & it may also provide an estimate of the length of the weapon used for that particular penetration.

I guess we have to disagree on your point of 'One weapon' against Killeen's claim of 'Two weapons'. At least Killeen does give reasons.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

A Home Office document included the following statement:

"some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet was first suspected as the weapon. But bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

...Which suggests very strongly that the bayonet theory did not enjoy long-lasting official support.

There was certainly never any suggestion that the Tabram murder evinced military training.

I'm with David on this, and rather suspect that the same knife was used at varying depths and with varying levels of ferocity.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

A Home Office document included the following statement:

"some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet was first suspected as the weapon. But bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

...Which suggests very strongly that the bayonet theory did not enjoy long-lasting official support.

What it suggests is that looking at the skin, the penetration wound was narrow.
- It also suggests someone (with no medical training) may have assumed ALL the wounds were made by a bayonet.

What the opinion does not tell us is why they call the bayonet wounds "unmistakable", is it because bayonet wounds are typically deep wounds, and the 38 wounds were not deep?

- What does "some of the wounds" mean? - does it mean that some of the wounds may have been made by a bayonet, and some were not?

I don't think that quote provides anything by way of professional deduction, pretty much useless as far as opinion goes.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

I don't think that quote provides anything by way of professional deduction, pretty much useless as far as opinion goes

It's pretty useful on both counts, actually.

I should add that this was a note appended to a Home Office document, but we might reasonably assume that anyone appending notations to Home Office documents was more than qualified to do so. Jon Ogan wrote an article on the death of Martha Tabram, and argued that this annotation constituted the "revised official view".

With regard to the "unmistakable" observation, it is clear that the author was in a position to have ascertained - either personally or via reliable medical informants - that bayonet wounds are unmistakable, and that none of the wounds inflicted on Tabram evinced those "unmistakable" signs.

Best regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

HO A49301C f. 160

Ben, your quote omitted a little off the beginning of that sentence.

"Nature of the injuries &c. &c. wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger"

Only then do we read your quote.

"some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet was first suspected as the weapon. But bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

This folio also makes brief description of wounds to the bodies of Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes. And in each case (except that of Eddowes is cut short), attention is drawn to the type of weapons used.

With Nichols:

"..may well have been done by a strong bladed knife"

With Chapman:

"Knife used must have been a small amputating knife or a well ground slaughtermans knife, narrow thin and sharp, blade 6 to 8 inches long"

So this folio appears to be making a distinction between knife/dagger as opposed to a bayonet.
Nothing here suggests only one weapon being used, the observation appears to conclude a variety of knives were used, which possibly included a dagger.
Killeen made no distinction about the singular wound being caused by either a dagger or bayonet.

We seem to have two issues here,..
- Dave excludes the dagger, accepts the knife.
- Ben, you appear to exclude a bayonet in favor of one weapon (knife?) for all wounds.
- Killeen observed knife wounds with one being larger, like a dagger OR bayonet.

HO folio you (Ben) brought into the debate accepts the knife or dagger but casts doubt on a bayonet, without describing what type of bayonet they were excluding.
The folio does not argue against two weapons used on Tabram. The folio only accepts the second weapon may have been a dagger.

How does this contest Killeen?

Regards, Jon S.

[corey123]

I am with David and Ben on this one One knife, unless you believe "Oh I don't fancy this knife anymore, lets use the other"

[Ben]

“The folio does not argue against two weapons used on Tabram. The folio only accepts the second weapon may have been a dagger”

This really isn’t how I read it, Jon.

The HO annotation made the point that a bayonet was first suspected as having been one of the weapons, but the inference is that this initial suspicion was later rejected on the basis of bayonet wounds being “unmistakable”. This would leave them with the knife or dagger being responsible for all wounds, and the bayonet theory being merely a product of confusion. In no way does the HO missive support the two-weapon hypothesis. It is clear to me that the whole idea of a bayonet’s involvement in the crime stemmed from a prior knowledge that soldiery could have been responsible. This would have been discussed at the inquest, and when Kileen specified that a dagger might have been the offending implement for one of the wounds, a jury member probably asked him if a bayonet could also have done the trick.

The question of a bayonet almost certainly cropped up in pursuance of the “soldier” angle associated with the murder, and not an idea independently arrived at by Kileen himself. Besides which, Bob Hinton has already described in his book how a 19th century sword bayonet would have made a decidedly unwieldy weapon given its length.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

One knife, unless you believe "Oh I don't fancy this knife anymore, lets use the other"

Or even worse, Corey, there's the "Oh I don't fancy this knife anymore, but fortunately, my equally murderous mate here has a much sharper one!".

[corey123]

But do remember, Ben, he only fancied one stab

p.s Jon, if you believe a soldier did it, the bayonet was removed from normal use a bit before the murder.

[kensei]

This is not addressed to any one person, just a collection of thoughts after reading everyone's posts. I do believe that Martha Tabram was a victim of Jack the Ripper but I don't know if he strangled her before stabbing her. (Perhaps he did, because wasn't there a conspicuous lack of defensive wounds to her arms? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) But even if he did strangle her as he seems to have done with the other victims, I do not think that he strangled any of them to death, just to unconsciousness, or maybe not even that far but just enough to weaken them to a state where they could not defend themselves. I believe all the Ripper's victims were alive when the blade first cut into them.

And the ongoing argument on Dr. Killeen's two weapons assessment- I have commented on it before, saying that the forensics then were hardly as advanced as they are today and even today there are occasional mistakes made. If some freak thing just made it look as if the one wound was caused by a second weapon, Dr. Killeen shouldn't be demonized for it because doctors are as human and fallible as the rest of us and sometimes make honest mistakes. (Dr. Lewellyn, after all, failed to take notice of most of Polly Nicholls' injuries when he examined her at the crime scene, noting only a cut throat when her entire abdomen was laced with cuts.) Or perhaps Killeen was right and there were two blades used. He did not insist that the larger one had to be a military weapon, just that it could have been. And even if it was, that does not automatically mean that a soldier was involved, for the blade could have been bought as military surplus or even stolen by the killer.

I'm just pointing out how very many variables and unknowns there are, how almost anything "could have been" and why we shouldn't close our minds to any possibility.

[curious4]

Martha Tabram

Hello again!

Yes, there were definite signs that she was strangled first, swollen face, clenched hands, and a police report, sadly now missing, but published in the Police Illustrated News, stating that identification was difficult because the face was so swollen after strangulation and also explaining why nothing was heard, even by those who lived nearest to the murder site.

As for the bayonet stab wound, why not the same knife used in a different way: held pointing down and with both hands and brought down with as much force as the murderer could manage. This might present the appearance of a bayonet wound.

All good wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

This really isn’t how I read it, Jon.

The HO annotation made the point that a bayonet was first suspected as having been one of the weapons, but the inference is that this initial suspicion was later rejected on the basis of bayonet wounds being “unmistakable”....

Hi Ben.
Yes, but it is unfortunate the writer did not say which bayonet he had in mind. This is why the observation has no value. The most common bayonet issued was the triangular 'long-spike' style.

So yes, we admit a wound from such a weapon would be unmistakable.
However, the recently issued 'dagger-style' bayonet will only produce a dagger-shaped wound. You must admit a 'dagger-shaped' wound is not unmistakable.

So, to qualify the term "unmistakable" he should have stated 'which' bayonet he meant.
However, in the Star, Aug. 8th, the reporter describes the chest wound:

"...certainly much the largest and deepest of any..."

Perhaps then, here we have one of the reasons why Killeen saw the use of a different weapon - the wound was larger and deeper.
And, I suspect the second reason lies behind Killeen's terminology. When killeen say's "knife" he is perhaps suggesting that 38 of the wounds were made by a single-sided blade = knife.
Whereas the single wound through the breastbone was possibly made by a double-sided blade = dagger.

Killeen apparently knew that the military had recently been issued with 'dagger-style' bayonets to replace the 'triangular' bayonet, hence he qualified his opinion by saying "dagger, or "dagger-style" bayonet.

The HO folio we have been discussing, I susect, is referring to the old triangular issue of long standing in the military.

Besides which, Bob Hinton has already described in his book how a 19th century sword bayonet would have made a decidedly unwieldy weapon given its length....

Well, with all due respect to Bob, he should know better.
This is the 1888 dagger-style bayonet, it is neither unweildly, nor a sword-bayonet.



As for the 38 knife wounds (obviously not a penknife), it is not unusual for soldiers to carry a smaller personal weapon, like a dirk, as well as the military issue.
A 19th century 'penknife' was an extremely short blade (1-2" long) designed for tapering quils to a point, for writing with, hence the name - penknife.
So NO, not a penknife wound!

I do not think it strange that a soldier would use his personal 'dirk(?)' as the initial murder weapon as the sentry guards at the barraks will only inspect his bayonet, not being aware he is carrying a 'dirk', so it will not be inspected if trouble should arise.

We can only hypothesize at this stage, but I think the evidence when viewed correctly does not incriminate Killeen as being incompetant.

Killeen, afterall, was the professional NOT the police, Killeen was a Licenciate of the Royal College of Surgeons 1885, and a Licenciate of the King & Queens College of Physicians 1886.
What qualifications did Swanson have?, Abberline? - any police official?
If you could write you signed up for the Met. with any luck and hard work you could get promotion - without any qualifications.

It is a mistake to take the work of a police official over a licenced professional.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Yes, but it is unfortunate the writer did not say which bayonet he had in mind. This is why the observation has no value".

I disagree. The fact that no particular type of bayonet was specified was obviously intended to imply that all bayonet wounds are “unmistakable”, whether they conformed to the sword variety or the pig-sticker type. Given the observation that some of the wounds were “so narrow” I think we may assume that he was referring to a sword bayonet, and on this subject, Bob Hinton noted the following:

“The standard bayonet of the day, the pattern 1887 Mk I Sword bayonet and the pattern 1887 Mk III Sword bayonet had blades in excess of 18” long.”

He made the point that weapons such as these were intended for attachment to their weapons, and that they become unwieldy and inefficient when used in isolation. This would also suggest that sword bayonets were in use of the time, rather than their dagger-like counterparts. I don’t think for one moment that Kileen had any knowledge of the type of bayonets used by the military at the time, nor do I recall him using the expression “dagger-style”.

It is clear that a bayonet only entered into the equation when it became known that Tabram had been seen associating with soldiers on the night of her death. Kileen initially suggested that a dagger would have a made a likely implement for one of the wounds, and was probably asked by a jury member or the coroner if a bayonet could also have done the trick. It seems very unlikely that Kileen offered the observation independently of this “soldier” knowledge. I wouldn’t suggest that the doctor was incompetent, but he was hardly an expert in weaponry, and it could be observed that he would not have been especially familiar with victims of knife attacks, especially if he was had only been licensed a year or two earlier.

If there had been any appreciable difference in the shape of the wounds, i.e. double-sided versus single-sided, it is unthinkable that Kileen should have failed to allude to this in his testimony as evidence for his two-knives hypothesis. The absence of any such reference should be considered compelling evidence that no such difference existed.

“I do not think it strange that a soldier would use his personal 'dirk(?)' as the initial murder weapon as the sentry guards at the barraks will only inspect his bayonet”

No, but what is strange – unfathomably so - is the suggestion that a soldier would bother at all with his lesser weapon when he had a much better one secreted about his person, only electing to use the latter for one of the blows.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

It is clear that a bayonet only entered into the equation when it became known that Tabram had been seen associating with soldiers on the night of her death....

Hi Ben.
Thats a little difficult to ascertain. The account in the Times of Aug. 10th makes no mention of a bayonet and no mention of the victims identity, therefore it was not known whether she had been with any soldiers.

However, apparently Mary Ann Connelly voluntered at the Commercial Street Police Station on the morning of the 9th that she had been with the deceased on the night of her murder. So here is one source for the soldier story so early on.
Was this brought up at the inquest?, the police certainly knew going into the inquest, but did Dr Killeen know of this circumstance when he gave evidence on the afternoon of the 9th?
On the 10th, the press certainly knew about the soldier story.

Kileen initially suggested that a dagger would have a made a likely implement for one of the wounds,...

Agreed, and I am sorry that we have been off on a tangent following this "bayonet" red herring. Whether there was a bayonet or not was not the original point I was debating.

On post #12 Dave stated only one weapon was used, my response was and still is that the evidence as it survives is consistent with two weapons, a knife (not penknife) and a dagger (or bayonet?).
Two weapons, knife & dagger, the single wound is described as deeper and larger, the result of a weapon which was pointed, longer & stronger built, than the weapon which caused the other 38 wounds.

Incidently, I am not promoting a soldier as the killer, only that a dagger-style bayonet "could" have been the weapon, not the it "was" the weapon.

If there had been any appreciable difference in the shape of the wounds, i.e. double-sided versus single-sided, it is unthinkable that Kileen should have failed to allude to this in his testimony as evidence for his two-knives hypothesis. The absence of any such reference should be considered compelling evidence that no such difference existed.

Such a reference does exist, that the wound was larger and deeper,....."deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument" - Eastern Post, aug. 11th.

No, but what is strange – unfathomably so - is the suggestion that a soldier would bother at all with his lesser weapon when he had a much better one secreted about his person, only electing to use the latter for one of the blows.

Yes, agreed, but perhaps used as the last resort.
What is also a strange coincidence is that a 39 year old woman was stabbed 39 times.

Regards, Jon S.