Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Hi Jon, of course it has been contested, and still is. Asserting that an ordinary knife cannot pierce a breast bone is sheer stupidity. A knife can even go through a head.

Clearly the bayonet belongs to the soldiers theory - that led nowhere.

Most official believed Tabram was a Ripper victim, and none of them has ever suspected the Ripper to have carried two weapons, let alone a "dagger" or a bayonet. Conclusion : they didn't give a damn what Killeen said. And I do not either. Quite safely.

As for Phillips, he is responsible for Dr Jack, wrongest track ever.

[harry]

The question that Killeen should have been asked is could a penknife make two dissimliar looking wounds to different parts of the body? I believe it possible.One other point.A dark ,secluded spot should not automatically indicate a place of sexual activity.Considering that Tabram had spent a rather long day living it up,being human it stands to reason that come the early hours of morning,she would feel signs of tiredness,and chose that spot to rest it being adjacent to her whereabouts at that time? Get away from the notion that all these victims did,was to prostitute themselves at all times.

[DVV]

The question that Killeen should have been asked is could a penknife make two dissimliar looking wounds to different parts of the body? I believe it possible.One other point.A dark ,secluded spot should not automatically indicate a place of sexual activity.Considering that Tabram had spent a rather long day living it up,being human it stands to reason that come the early hours of morning,she would feel signs of tiredness,and chose that spot to rest it being adjacent to her whereabouts at that time? Get away from the notion that all these victims did,was to prostitute themselves at all times.

Hi Harry, I think it's particularly difficult to "get away from this notion" in the Tabram case.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon, of course it has been contested, and still is.

Hold it just a moment, I thought you were suggesting the police contested it, when you wrote this:

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.

That reads to me like you were suggesting the police contested Killeen's conclusions.
I'm suggesting the police did not contest it.
I don't doubt for a moment the two weapon findings are contested here, we would contest black was white, and some do!

Asserting that an ordinary knife cannot pierce a breast bone is sheer stupidity. A knife can even go through a head.

Agreed, can you put a name to this "stupid" one?

I don't see Killeen making that comment, modern authors might have. Another case of misunderstanding Killeen's words I think. But please, if you know a quote where Killeen said that a penknife could not penetrate bone kindly remind me.

What Killeen said was that a penknife could not have made the wound that went through the breastbone, meaning in my opinion, the eliptical profile left by this large weapon was too large to have been made by a half-inch wide blade.
The singular wound was larger & deeper than a 3.5" x 0.5"(?) penknife blade (or clasp-knife?) could make. If someone has misinterpreted this to mean that a penknife could not penetrate bone, that is their fault not Killeen's.

In most reports Killeen's words are given in paraphrase, but this one example appears to offer Killeen's words verbatim, given in the first-person singular:

"I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_observer/elo880811.html?printer=true

Most official believed Tabram was a Ripper victim, and none of them has ever suspected the Ripper to have carried two weapons, let alone a "dagger" or a bayonet.

I don't think you can substantiate that Dave, you might think that, but do you see it in writing?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Jon, I just can maintain that Tabram was considered a ripper victim by the majority (press, police).

Concerning the medics generally, some police officials believed Phillips was right, while some inclined to believe Bond. Nobody cared what Killeen said. Who would put so much faith in a science that was still in its infancy (forensic), especially when the medic in question isn't a specialist at all ?

Evidence has thus more weight than Killeen's hazardous suggestion, and according to the investigators, Tabram was a ripper victim - and nobody, I repeat, thought the Ripper ever carried a bayonet or a dagger. Let's be serious.

Those who believe there was a bayonet usually believe Tabram has been killed by two soldiers.

If Killeen had said "rolling pin", they would look for two pastrycooks.

[Hunter]

LOL...

I really regretted your absence from the boards, David, over part of this past year and the end of that post is part of the reason.

[Wickerman]

Evidence has thus more weight than Killeen's hazardous suggestion, and according to the investigators, Tabram was a ripper victim - and nobody, I repeat, thought the Ripper ever carried a bayonet or a dagger. Let's be serious.

The same could be said about the penknife, I mean, what police official or press account in later weeks suggested for a moment that Tabram had been mutilated with a penknife?

On 29th Sept. Baxter in his summing up of the Nichols murder made a passing reference to the previous murders of Smith & Tabram:

"...In the first it was a blunt instrument, such as a walking stick; in the second, some of the wounds were thought to have been made by a dagger; but in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses are not so different. Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries of Nichols could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp.Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer."

This could be construed that Baxter accepts the dagger theory and the weapon described in the subsequent murders of Nichols & Chapman does not seriously contest the theory.

Macnaghten, in 1894 did refer back to Tabram as being "repeatedly pierced, probably with a bayonet".

I am not suggesting the bayonet was used, merely that no consensus has survived down to us indicating what the police thought, one way or the other. A dagger-type weapon is the more consistent with available evidence.

Regards, Jon s.

[Wickerman]

Concerning the medics generally, some police officials believed Phillips was right, while some inclined to believe Bond. Nobody cared what Killeen said. Who would put so much faith in a science that was still in its infancy (forensic), especially when the medic in question isn't a specialist at all ?

The police follow medical opinion, whether Bond, Phillips, or Killeen. The doctors are the only professionals involved. Neither Oxford nor Cambridge were turning out professional policemen, they learned on the job.
Doctors were taught at college, they were proven professionals in a field fraught with uncertainty.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, Lincoln's Inn Fields. The College was built in 1835, from the designs of Sir Charles Barry, at a cost of 40,000l., and was greatly enlarged in 1852. The Society was incorporated in 1800, and consists of Fellows (F.R.C.S.), Members (M.R.C.S.), and Licentiates in Midwifery (L.M.R.C.S.) A court of examiners periodically meets to test the qualifications of medical students in anatomy and surgery. Candidates who "pass receive a diploma, and are allowed to practise as surgeons, and register as such under the provisions of the Medical Act of 1858.

If Killeen suggested two weapons and gave measurable reasons for doing so, you can take that to the bank.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Dr Killeen was trained in Ireland and held a Licentiate from the Royal College of Surgeons (1885), and a Licentiate from the Kings & Queens College of Physicians (1886).
A Licentiate is described at RCS as:

The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland was granted a Charter on 11th February 1784. This Charter gave the College the power to control the practice of surgery and to make provision for surgical education.

In 1844 a supplemental Charter was obtained from Queen Victoria. The chief provision of this was the institution of the Fellowship which divided Graduates into Licentiates and Fellows. The latter could only be obtained by examination taken a minimum of three years following graduation. This is essentially the Charter by which the College works today.

The Medical Act of 1886 confirmed that graduates had to be educated in surgery, medicine and obstetrics and so the Conjoint Board between the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians came into existence. The graduates received Licentiates in these three subjects....

http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?a=635&n=156&p=109

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Thank you, Jon, for providing this information. Killeen certainly met all of the qualifications for his profession. As I mentioned in another post, the only caveat- if there is any- may be his short tenure at that time and the extent of his experience in crime scene investigations which required certain learned on the job skills beyond the normal everyday practice.

Certainly, this could have been his first case of this nature and he still could have made the correct deductions as to the nature of the wounds. He noted that one particular wound was noticeably distinct from the others and without his more detailed official report to examine, I would give him the benefit of the doubt until some other evidence arrives to contradict that.

[DVV]

Hi Jon and Hunter

sorry but I see no particular forensic expertise in Killeen's background.

He may have been a decent surgeon, but do we call the nearest surgeon around whenever there is a murder ?

Add to this, I repeat, that forensic was still in its infancy. Now we know an ordinary knife can pierce a skull.

We would make a mistake taking medics words for the gospel truth. Their opinion is just a more or less fragile evidence among others. It was the job of the police to choose among evidences of various kinds.

And indeed, that's what they did, making later Tabram a Ripper victim and then implicitly turning down the bayonet/2 weapons theory.

As soon as September 1888, Swanson could write : "Dr Keeling of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found 39 wounds on body, and neck and private part with a knife or dagger."

Which means : she has been killed by quite a solid knife.

[harry]

Dave,
While I go along with with the accepted claim that all the victims did engage in prostitution to some extent,I also accept that normal feelings such as tiredness had their effect too.Being a time of milder weather the date Tabram died,and bearing in mind the number of poor and homeless unfortunates in the Whitechapel district,I would assume that many more also sought a dark if uncomfortable spot to rest that night.Such a situation might well have drawn a killer,aware of this fact,to seek a victim in such places.
regards.

[DVV]

Hi Harry, I certainly agree it is a possibility, but a remote one, especially in Tabram's case. It was a bank holiday, she just got money from the soldier, and I can't see why she wouldn't have slept in the lodging house. Moreover, she was found on the first floor of the buildings, not the ideal place to bump into.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon and Hunter
sorry but I see no particular forensic expertise in Killeen's background.
He may have been a decent surgeon, but do we call the nearest surgeon around whenever there is a murder ?

What you need to answer that last question is to look into the proceedures & responsibilites of the Coroner. I believe it is the Coroner "of the district where the body resides" who makes the required paperwork out to the medical professional "in who's area the body resides", to conduct a post-mortem.

This being the case we can be assured that the Coroner is satisfied that the selection of medical professional's available for each area within his district are suitably experienced.

If I'm wrong on any of those points, I deserve a good thrashing!

And, in an attempt to be tactful here might I add that it matters not a hill of beans how critical any forum member chooses to be concerning Killeen's experience, we are not suitably experienced to judge.

The police who take direction from Killeen's conclusions made no objections.
Killeen's superiors and more experienced peers (due to his youth) apparently saw no reason to step in and take charge.

Add to this, I repeat, that forensic was still in its infancy. Now we know an ordinary knife can pierce a skull.

"Forensic" is an all encompassing term. A medical professional's ability to determine the width & depth of a knife wound by sight did not rely on the dawn of the 21st century.

We would make a mistake taking medics words for the gospel truth. Their opinion is just a more or less fragile evidence among others. It was the job of the police to choose among evidences of various kinds.

And, therefore, if the police had born any doubts they had the perfect right to call for a second opinion. To the best of our knowledge they did not, hence they saw no need to do so.

then implicitly turning down the bayonet/2 weapons theory.

There is no later summary of the nature of Tabram's wounds, therefore we are still in no position to judge the contemporary police opinion.
We find four instances of passing opinion;
- "a dagger used to mutilate"
- Tabram choked to death.
- "perhaps pierced by a bayonet".
- "with knife or dagger"
Brief comments which amount to nothing usefull to sustain an argument whether 1 or 2 weapons were used.
In other words, nothing to counter Killeen's initial conclusions.

Dave, your quote by Swanson in September, ie; "knife or dagger" carry's no weight due to the fact Swanson then writes about checking "a bayonet" belonging to soldiers at the Tower.
The police were looking for a weapon, whether knife, dagger or bayonet. The police did not care whether they found a penknife, claspknife, dagger or bayonet.

Neither should we suppose that Swanson was anticipating future debates over how many weapons were used. That his reference to "knife or dagger" should be taken as his firm opinion only one weapon was used.
The fact the police also checked bayonets speaks to the reasonable conclusion they were open to any type of "knife" which might incriminate the villian, or villians.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hunter]

Why certain doctors were called

One quick point about the physicians and how they came to be a part of all of this.

In the first two murders, the nearest local physician was summoned by the constable who arrived on the scene; obviously someone that constable was familiar with. This was done because in most cases a victim was usually alive and may need medical assistance. Although Tabram and Nichols were obviously dead, the constables were following a standard procedure and this is how Killeen and Llywellyn came into the picture.

In case of death, they would also be expected to conduct the post mortem as it was thought they would be the best to do so, having the benefit of already examining the body in situ. In extraordinary cases the Divisional Surgeon may be called in to assist, but the murders of these women weren't considered that at the time.

In most murders, the forensic evidence (though helpful) was not considered of paramount importance because the culprit was usually apprehended by the detectives conducting the investigation. Finding the perpetrator revolved around interrogation of family and/or acquaintances of the victim, witnesses and establishing the prior movements and antecedents of the victim. Most murder cases were (and are) solved very quickly by the detectives in charge.

In the Chapman murder, an inspector (Chandler) was the first policeman at the scene and he correctly determined that there was now something unusual taking place and summoned the Divisional Surgeon, Bagster Phillips. Still, we have to consider where even he had to conduct his post mortem and no one considered a second opinion, outside of Phillips, necessary.

At the Stride murder, once again a constable (Lamb) was the first officer at the scene and once again, the nearest available physician (Blackwell) was summoned to get someone there quickly. By now, it was obvious the murders may be linked so Phillips was called to attend before the body was removed and to assist Blackwell with the autopsy; being familiar with the previous murder.

About the same sequence in Mitre Square; Watkins sent Morris for assistance with Dr. Sequeira arriving within minutes. As soon as Insp. Collard was notified, he sent for Dr. Brown before even leaving for the scene. And we know that Saunders and Phillips arrived later at the mortuary.

The circumstances had changed considerably since Tabram's murder and would be even more manifested with the Kelly murder; where they waited for Dr. Phillips, added Bond and several others as well. The forensics had become of paramount importance because what had usually worked before was not working.

If what we have with Timothy Killeen seems insufficient in some way, its only because no one could foresee the chain of events about to unfold. The procedures followed were what were in place and had worked the overwhelming majority of the time and the Deputy Coroner considered Timothy Killeen capable for what was required. Would a more seasoned physician, familiar with knife wounds have been more appropriate? Maybe... but who? Even the most experienced physician in the area who had dealt with all manners of assaults and unnatural deaths (Bagster Phillips) has his detractors today.

I'm sure if they had the hindsight and forensic knowledge that even the modern amateur sleuth has today, they would have done things differently and we might not be talking about Jack the Ripper at all.