Tweet
Hi all!
I´d like to comment on a post on Tabram, made some weeks back. In it, DVV wrote "Asserting that an ordinary knife cannot pierce a breast bone is sheer stupidity. A knife can even go through a head."
... to which Wickerman replied: "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."
After that, nothing else was said on the specific matter of Killeen having spoken about this phenomenon.
Which is strange. For indeed, Killeen DID suggest this very thing! Whether it makes him "stupid" or not, is another matter entirely, though, as we shall see.
In the East London Observer of 18 August, Killeen stated, on the wound to the sternum and how it came about: "...of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”
Now, you can react to this statement in one of two ways: You can either say, like DVV, that this is plain dumb – we all know that bone has been pierced by many an ordinary knife-blade.
Indeed! Incidentally, this Killeen would have been very much aware of too.
The other reaction – and a more sound approach to the riddle – would be to ask "but what is an ordinary knife-blade"?
A pen-knife is ordinary. A butcher´s knife is ordinary. A hunting knife is ordinary. A bayonet is ordinary. A clasp knife is ordinary. A bread knife is ordinary. But the resistance power built into the very different blades of these knives varies totally and utterly. Some will be a lot more fragile than others, and more likely to break in contact with bone.
The all-important factor when listening to Killeen here is to realize that he does not say that ANY "ordinary" knife-blade would break in contact with bone. For that he would have known was untrue.
No, what we need to do is to look at all of the relevant details from the paper. And it goes like this:
“There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman. It will be recollected that at the inquest, when asked his opinion as to the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, Dr. Keeling [Killeen] replied that they were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife - all except the wound on the breast bone. As to the instrument with which that had been caused he could not say with any degree of certainty, but of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”
And here we may note that Killeen specifies WHICH type of "ordinary" knife-blade he spoke of: that of a pocket-knife! We also have it on record that Killeen spoke of a pen-knife, and that is of course a knife that very much resembles a pocket-knife in terms of blade size.
Killeen viewed the body in situ, and he subsequently carried out the post-mortem on Tabram. This means that he carefully examined each and every one of the 37 punctured wounds that he reported would have been made by a pen- or pocket knife. We may from this deduct that the wounds inflicted on Tabram corresponded with a blade that was thin enough, short enough and narrow enough to be best described as a pen- or pocket-knife blade.
The 37 wounds were not 15 centimetres deep. Equally, they were not an inch broad. If they had been, Killeen would not have spoken of a pen- or pocket knife.
Killeen knew full well how that blade looked. 37 wounds do not leave you in doubt of such a thing - it is more, much more, than enough to form a very good opinion. And Killeen felt sure that the blade was so smallish that it would have broken if tried at the sternum. One factor that may have contributed to his decision could be that a pocket knife blade is folded into the knife, meaning that the blade is not anywhere near as firmly rooted into the handle as that of a non-folding knife.
To suggest a folding knife would furthermore not be a strange thing to do. Both Millwood and Wilson became victims of folding clasp knives, fished out of a pocket, remember. The same may well have gone for Kitty Ronan, as the same sort of weapon was found on the floor of the room in which she was killed.
Let´s also keep in mind that the risk of breaking the blade was NOT the only divider that Killeen used in describing the differences inbetween the blades. The sternum weapon was – in glearing contrast to the pen- or pocket knife – described by the good doctor as a "long, strong" instrument. And we have it from the Star, on the wounds, that " ...the probably fatal one - certainly much the largest and deepest of any - is under the heart."
So one wound was MUCH LARGER and DEEPER than the others, something that apparently also impressed Reid. Once again: "There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman."
Reid would not have concluded that only military men could pierce bone with a pen knife, would he? Instead, the character of the wound would probably have suggested to him that a bayonet had been used, right or wrong. Why else would he have spoken of the wound pointing to a military man?
None of us are in a position to confirm Reids suspicion, since none of us have seen Tabram´s chest wound. Reid did, though, just as Killeen did. And both of them concluded that the weapon used at the chest was a powerful, long one, thereby differing from the other, smaller wounds.
Who did NOT differ though, were the contemporaries of Reid and Killeen. Not a single voice was recorded as disagreeing on this point, which means that we are on extremely thin ice when we today try to argue that there was only one blade. All the evidence available tells a totally different story.
But it is not a story that makes Killeen (or Reid) stupid. On the contrary.
All the best,
Fisherman
I´d like to comment on a post on Tabram, made some weeks back. In it, DVV wrote "Asserting that an ordinary knife cannot pierce a breast bone is sheer stupidity. A knife can even go through a head."
... to which Wickerman replied: "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."
After that, nothing else was said on the specific matter of Killeen having spoken about this phenomenon.
Which is strange. For indeed, Killeen DID suggest this very thing! Whether it makes him "stupid" or not, is another matter entirely, though, as we shall see.
In the East London Observer of 18 August, Killeen stated, on the wound to the sternum and how it came about: "...of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”
Now, you can react to this statement in one of two ways: You can either say, like DVV, that this is plain dumb – we all know that bone has been pierced by many an ordinary knife-blade.
Indeed! Incidentally, this Killeen would have been very much aware of too.
The other reaction – and a more sound approach to the riddle – would be to ask "but what is an ordinary knife-blade"?
A pen-knife is ordinary. A butcher´s knife is ordinary. A hunting knife is ordinary. A bayonet is ordinary. A clasp knife is ordinary. A bread knife is ordinary. But the resistance power built into the very different blades of these knives varies totally and utterly. Some will be a lot more fragile than others, and more likely to break in contact with bone.
The all-important factor when listening to Killeen here is to realize that he does not say that ANY "ordinary" knife-blade would break in contact with bone. For that he would have known was untrue.
No, what we need to do is to look at all of the relevant details from the paper. And it goes like this:
“There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman. It will be recollected that at the inquest, when asked his opinion as to the instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, Dr. Keeling [Killeen] replied that they were undoubtedly committed with an ordinary pocket-knife - all except the wound on the breast bone. As to the instrument with which that had been caused he could not say with any degree of certainty, but of this he was sure that it must have been an heavy, dagger-pointed instrument, since an ordinary knife-blade would have been broken by contact with the bone.”
And here we may note that Killeen specifies WHICH type of "ordinary" knife-blade he spoke of: that of a pocket-knife! We also have it on record that Killeen spoke of a pen-knife, and that is of course a knife that very much resembles a pocket-knife in terms of blade size.
Killeen viewed the body in situ, and he subsequently carried out the post-mortem on Tabram. This means that he carefully examined each and every one of the 37 punctured wounds that he reported would have been made by a pen- or pocket knife. We may from this deduct that the wounds inflicted on Tabram corresponded with a blade that was thin enough, short enough and narrow enough to be best described as a pen- or pocket-knife blade.
The 37 wounds were not 15 centimetres deep. Equally, they were not an inch broad. If they had been, Killeen would not have spoken of a pen- or pocket knife.
Killeen knew full well how that blade looked. 37 wounds do not leave you in doubt of such a thing - it is more, much more, than enough to form a very good opinion. And Killeen felt sure that the blade was so smallish that it would have broken if tried at the sternum. One factor that may have contributed to his decision could be that a pocket knife blade is folded into the knife, meaning that the blade is not anywhere near as firmly rooted into the handle as that of a non-folding knife.
To suggest a folding knife would furthermore not be a strange thing to do. Both Millwood and Wilson became victims of folding clasp knives, fished out of a pocket, remember. The same may well have gone for Kitty Ronan, as the same sort of weapon was found on the floor of the room in which she was killed.
Let´s also keep in mind that the risk of breaking the blade was NOT the only divider that Killeen used in describing the differences inbetween the blades. The sternum weapon was – in glearing contrast to the pen- or pocket knife – described by the good doctor as a "long, strong" instrument. And we have it from the Star, on the wounds, that " ...the probably fatal one - certainly much the largest and deepest of any - is under the heart."
So one wound was MUCH LARGER and DEEPER than the others, something that apparently also impressed Reid. Once again: "There is one fact noted by Inspector Reid which seems to prove that the murderer was a military man, and that is the wound on the breast bone of the woman."
Reid would not have concluded that only military men could pierce bone with a pen knife, would he? Instead, the character of the wound would probably have suggested to him that a bayonet had been used, right or wrong. Why else would he have spoken of the wound pointing to a military man?
None of us are in a position to confirm Reids suspicion, since none of us have seen Tabram´s chest wound. Reid did, though, just as Killeen did. And both of them concluded that the weapon used at the chest was a powerful, long one, thereby differing from the other, smaller wounds.
Who did NOT differ though, were the contemporaries of Reid and Killeen. Not a single voice was recorded as disagreeing on this point, which means that we are on extremely thin ice when we today try to argue that there was only one blade. All the evidence available tells a totally different story.
But it is not a story that makes Killeen (or Reid) stupid. On the contrary.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment