Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Malcolm X]

the penknife can also almost cut your head off, it just depends on its quality and how sharp it is.

i'm not sure about JTRs weapons either, i never have been, but i think the Bayonet seems too big, too clumsy, and way way too blunt, i dont even think that it has a cutting edge !

it is therefore definitely not a cut throat weapon at all, that will be far more like the clasp-knife/ penknife/ surgeons knife.

i cant see JTR even going anywhere near a Bayonet, it is totally useless for a cut-throat killer.

[Wickerman]

... Maybe it couldnt reach the depth that a bayonet could but that isnt the arguement here.

Killeen's words at the Inquest with respect to the weapons:

"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. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger,..."

Killeen does not say "penknife", nor "clasp-knife", neither does he say "bayonet".
In the papers the following day (10th) we read:

There was a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife.

Our dilemma is that even the Court recorder, along with any press at the Inquest only provide paraphrase, not verbatim.
So we cannot in all honesty argue that Killeen did not describe each weapon (penknife, claspknife, bayonet) at the Inquest, but neither can we argue that he did.
What we can accept is that the single wound through the sternum was much deeper and the hole broader than all the other wounds on the body.

The Bayonet argument only works well if we assume a soldier was the killer. As all the evidence available appears to clear the soldiers (though not conclusively), we are left with the chicken or egg scenario.

Do we charge the soldiers because one weapon was a bayonet?, or do we accept the weapon was a bayonet because a soldier killed her?

I think it is safer to follow Killeen's words recorded at the Inquest, although only paraphrase, and resign ourselves to the likelyhood that the weapons were a "knife" and a "dagger", and leave the bayonet as an afterthought which came to the fore after the Inquest.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

A sword bayonet would have been very effective and easily concealed if modified by grinding the blade down to a shorter length and honing the edges; still retaining the distinctive point and its rigidity. These weapons were much cheaper to purchase than most well built fixed bladed knives... and, as noted before, easily obtained on the street. Anyone purchasing one of these for any utilitarian purpose beyond that of a simple curio would have to modify it to some degree.

Too much may have been made about the proposed surgical type knife suggested as use in the later murders; possibly emanating from the proposal of some anatomical skill or knowledge by the murderer in the wake of the Chapman murder. A sword bayonet, thus modified, could display the same characteristics noticed in the forensic examinations of the subsequent victims; actually offering more leverage to nick the vertebrae- as was the case with Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

The only type of blade that some of the medicos considered as an impediment to the method of inflicting the wounds observed by them was one that would have a blunt or rounded tip.

As far as any qualifications required that Dr. Killeen may have had in conducting an examination of this nature... we can't be certain. As Jon rightly pointed out, nothing extensive about his examination in situ or postmortem has survived to properly evaluate. He was, I believe, a fairly young physician at the time, compared to the very experienced police surgeons utilized from the Chapman murder on.

[Malcolm X]

a larger weapon was thrust into her with force, but to be concealed, this weapon cant really be much else, other than a Bayonet/ heavy dagger/ heavy knife.

but it can also be a Chisel or a sharp metal peg/ belaying pin, it could also be the existing PEN KNIFE, but used at the end with far more force.

not sure, but it does not look like a cut-throat killer.... i think

[RedBundy13]

So this whole recent discussion is basically about how many weapons were used, right? From there we can go to if there was more than one weapon used there could have been more than one person who attacked her. Now, in my opinion, if there was two or more attackers, why did one person stab her 38-39 times and the other person/s only stab her once? Its going to be argued that the other person/s were holding her while the other stabbed her. I'm still going to be stuck on why then did the other person only stab her once? Was that the coup de grace or something? It just seems weird to me that the other person did that, and only that.
Im not saying it didnt or it couldnt have happened like that, I just think that the simplest explanation is usually the best.

[DVV]

Hi RedB, quite so, I agree. Now it's all about the canon, it's a bias. Those who want to exclude Tabram pretend to put some faith in the medic's rantings.
And yet, there was worse to come : Phillips.

[Hunter]

It is unlikely that a street prostitute would have willingly gone to a secluded location with more than one man at a time. They knew how the gangs operated and tried to avoid the circumstances that placed them at risk. She would have asked the other man to wait in the street until she was finished with his friend; similar to the situation described by P.C. Barrett outside the entrance to George Yard at apprx. 2 a.m. on the fateful morning.

If two assailants were involved in the Tabram case, then it was probably by accident than by design on the victim's part; either being stalked until cornered or taken by surprise and not without a struggle.

Soldiers did travel together to avoid being rolled by a prostitute or her accomplice; one of them waiting within earshot in case his mate called for help. There was usually a lot of noise made when such an altercation occurred.

People can and do lie to avoid possible repercussions to themselves; especially if they live there. Its possible that the Hewitt's may have not been completely forthcoming in their recollection for that reason. They certainly knew the rules of survival in such a neighborhood. We will never know. Its possible they were telling the true also.

There's just not enough information to make a solid and valid judgment with this case. What we do know is that, even here, murders of that magnitude and ferocity were rare... and we do know what followed against the same type of individual and with a similar weapon, but a dissimilar method.

[DVV]

Hi Hunter

It is unlikely that a street prostitute would have willingly gone to a secluded location with more than one man at a time.

True.

There's just not enough information to make a solid and valid judgment with this case. What we do know is that, even here, murders of that magnitude and ferocity were rare... and we do know what followed against the same type of individual and with a similar weapon, but a dissimilar method.

Now that we know more about serial killers, I'd say chances are in favour of JtR. It may be his first, second or third murder.

[Wickerman]

...... Those who want to exclude Tabram pretend to put some faith in the medic's rantings.

Dave.
Calling the opinion of a professional into question when there is no contrary medical opinion to use as evidence that he may have been mistaken does not add credence to your argument.

It is a common failing on these boards that current theorists think they know better than those who were present, "...the police were fools, the doctors incompetant, and witnesses were liars".

Why?
Because modern theorists cannot make their 'square peg' fit a 'round hole' without manipulating the sources.
It is quite acceptable to present two opposing opinions where found and take one side over the other, but where no contrary opinion exists I don't think it is acceptable to invent one just to support an argument.

There is no reason to question Killeen's interpretation of the wounds.

Sorry Dave but this line of reasoning only shows a deficiency in an argument. Sound theories are supposed to be supported by all available evidence, not run counter to what is known.

Time of Death is still a contentious issue today (Phillips) so there is no incompetance on that issue, but wound diagnosis is a totally different matter.

Wounds are cut open, the width & depth can be traced through the tissue and the muscles. If a doctor gives us a description of the blade then we can be sure he has traced the wound through the body in order to come up with the dimensions in his autopsy report.
Give them some credit Dave, they were far more capable than many current theorists make them out to be.

All the best, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

if you take a really quick look at the other murders before Tabram, none of them look like JTR and the ones after MJK dont much either.

stabbings to the legs and the abdoman, objects thrust into the vagina, a victim strangled by cord, a house robbery that went wrong etc, and one murder similar to Stride, just about, and a few of these survived, only to die later of their injuries.

if JTR downgraded after MJK, his murders would still look quick and efficient, but this lot dont.

beforehand ? no, even as a beginner they still look too idiotic to be JTR

[DVV]

Dave.
Calling the opinion of a professional into question when there is no contrary medical opinion to use as evidence that he may have been mistaken does not add credence to your argument.

It is a common failing on these boards that current theorists think they know better than those who were present, "...the police were fools, the doctors incompetant, and witnesses were liars".

Why?
Because modern theorists cannot make their 'square peg' fit a 'round hole' without manipulating the sources.
It is quite acceptable to present two opposing opinions where found and take one side over the other, but where no contrary opinion exists I don't think it is acceptable to invent one just to support an argument.

There is no reason to question Killeen's interpretation of the wounds.

Sorry Dave but this line of reasoning only shows a deficiency in an argument. Sound theories are supposed to be supported by all available evidence, not run counter to what is known.

Time of Death is still a contentious issue today (Phillips) so there is no incompetance on that issue, but wound diagnosis is a totally different matter.

Wounds are cut open, the width & depth can be traced through the tissue and the muscles. If a doctor gives us a description of the blade then we can be sure he has traced the wound through the body in order to come up with the dimensions in his autopsy report.
Give them some credit Dave, they were far more capable than many current theorists make them out to be.

All the best, Jon S.

Hi Jon

I'm sorry, but the medics have proved to be incompetent (no surprise, Killeen, for example, wasn't a forensic expert), and worse : misleading (Phillips/Abberline 1903, for example).
We know much more at the present time, undoubtedly.
And medics could disagree in 1888 , when involved in the same case- they can't all be right, can they ?
If I'm correct, in one case it was suggested that abdominal injuries were inflicted first, right ? Just an example out of many.

So I haven't the slightest doubt regarding that infamous bayonet : there was none.

[DVV]

if you take a really quick look at the other murders before Tabram, none of them look like JTR and the ones after MJK dont much either.

It doesn't mean it wasn't the same guy, Malcolm.

a house robbery that went wrong

If this is a reference to the Wilson case, then I tell you there was never a house robbery gone wrong. Or rather, evidence and witnesses will tell you so.

no, even as a beginner they still look too idiotic to be JTR

[DVV]

It is a common failing on these boards that current theorists think they know better than those who were present, "...the police were fools, the doctors incompetant, and witnesses were liars".

Why?
Because modern theorists cannot make their 'square peg' fit a 'round hole' without manipulating the sources.
All the best, Jon S.

Wrong, Jon. It's not only modern theorists. Most of the investigators believed Tabram was a Ripper victim, ie : they did not believe Killeen was right with his bloody bayonet. One killer, one weapon, that was their opinion in 1888.

[Wickerman]

Wrong, Jon. It's not only modern theorists. Most of the investigators believed Tabram was a Ripper victim,

Hold it a minute Dave, don't you remember the debate about how quickly a sharp knife can be dulled by extensive cutting? I think in relation to the Kelly murder. Justification for this killer carry more than one knife - reasonable.

Why do "you" think that any police suspicion that Tabram was a Ripper victim automatically discards Tabram being killed by two weapons?

ie : they did not believe Killeen was right with his bloody bayonet. One killer, one weapon, that was their opinion in 1888.

Is this your interpretation, or do you have a direct quote somewhere specifically referencing the Tabram murder?

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I'm sorry, but the medics have proved to be incompetent (no surprise, Killeen, for example, wasn't a forensic expert), and worse : misleading (Phillips/Abberline 1903, for example).
We know much more at the present time, undoubtedly.

Hold on a second Dave, are you comparing Killeen to Phillips? - there were no forensic experts in 1888!
Or, are you comparing Killeen to a modern pathologist? - thats comparing apples to oranges, in order to make such a comparison we are required to use his post-mortem notes, which don't exist.
Such a comparison therefore cannot be made.
A pathologist cannot assess 19th century competance without knowing precisely what the wounds looked like.

On both counts Dave you are way off base.

And medics could disagree in 1888 , when involved in the same case- they can't all be right, can they ?

They do today don't they?, ever had a "second opinion"?
Disagreement does not imply incompetance.

If I'm correct, in one case it was suggested that abdominal injuries were inflicted first, right ? Just an example out of many.

Llewellyn?, yes he did and subsequently changed his mind didn't he?
This is not engineering Dave, there are no unchanging formula's, professional's today make errors of judgement, this does not mean they are incompetant.

So I haven't the slightest doubt regarding that infamous bayonet : there was none.

The singular wound was from a dagger, and that was never contested.

Regards, Jon S.