Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[lynn cates]

big one

Hello Christer. If I recall properly, a good bit larger than that.

Cheers.
LC

[niko]

Pen-knife ? "nah"

Surely a pen-knife, yes ...?

The best
Fisherman

Hi, I for one don't think that the Whitechapel murderer went on his killing spree just armed with a pen-knife it's illogical to me. Although the other day I saw a brutal attack perpertrated with a small common pen-knife on a person on the internet, no word's to discribe the attack, it was horrifying. All the best, agur.

[lynn cates]

bigger canon

Hello Niko. So you consider Tabram as one with the rest?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

But as far as we know, when the case became that of JtR, Reid's opinion was that Tabram was a Ripper victim.

Good observation there, David.

I haven't seen any evidence that Reid considered "the ripper" to have been a military man, and yet he clearly included Tabram amongst his victims. The Home Office annotation makes it very clear that while a bayonet was "first" suspected as being responsible for some of the wounds, bayonet wounds are quite "unmistakable". The obvious inference being that the bayonet idea was later revised. It only cropped up at all because of the evidence of "Pearly Poll" that appeared to implicate soldiery. It was a classic case of putting two and two together and making five. It was our old friend the "Daily News" who attributed to Kileen the suggestion of a "sword bayonet". The East London Observer merely reported a "dagger"

As Bob Hinton points out in his book, a sword bayonet is a hopelessly unwieldy weapon when separated from the rifle, and thus makes for a rather implausible candidate for the sternum-penetrating wound.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

My question is, "are you are qualified to judge?".

Certainly. I have 125 years of forensic science to support my opinion. And I know a knife can pierce a breastbone, even a cranium.
You want to talk about mistakes made by doctors in our case ? Ok, but open a specific thread, cos there are many.
End of the story.

Differences of opinion are not "mistakes". Two professionals can both make educated guesses using informed opinion without either being judged incompetent.

Beg your pardon, Jon ? Who said Phillips or Bond were incompetent ? They just worked according to the development of their science in 1888.
As for the mistakes, whatever the reason, a mistake is still a mistake. If one expert says "the weapon used was a bayonet" and the other says "it was an atomic bomb", one of them is making a mistake.
So yes, since Phillips believed the killer had great anatomical knowledge, and Bond believed he had none, one one them was completely mistaken, while both were certainly competent. Simply, they had never seen such a case before, that wasn't part of their studies.

[niko]

Pen-knife, dagger, bayonet or knife.

Hello Niko. So you consider Tabram as one with the rest?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, I think Tabram could of been one of the murderer's early victim's but evidence shows that a pen-knife was used (I think) also a larger knife, dagger or bayonet, there is the possibility he then choosed a larger knife for his future murder's, all the best, agur.

niko

[lynn cates]

bifurcation

Hello Niko. Thanks.

Do you attach significance to the stabbing as opposed to ripping?

Cheers.
LC

[niko]

Hello Niko. Thanks.

Do you attach significance to the stabbing as opposed to ripping?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, no special significance, to me it look's like the early victim's were stabbed, where as the later victim's seemed to be slashed and ripped. Tabram was certainly stabbed, why is this ? did the murderer change his modus operandi or is the reason that the murder's were committed by two different hand's, all the best,agur.

niko

[lynn cates]

anger

Hello Niko. Well, some have seen anger in the 39 stab wounds; not in the ripping.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I haven't seen any evidence that Reid considered "the ripper" to have been a military man"

Then you may have missed the snippet I posted earlier, from The East London Observer. In it, it says that Reid considered the wound in Tabramīs chest as something that more or less proved the presence of a military man.

"The Home Office annotation makes it very clear that while a bayonet was "first" suspected as being responsible for some of the wounds, bayonet wounds are quite "unmistakable". The obvious inference being that the bayonet idea was later revised."

I think that the pictures Jon posted on this thread shows very clearly that bayonet wounds - and they are not all the same - can be anything but unmistakable. Bayonet blades that look like dagger blades will inevitably produce wounds that look like dagger wounds. Other bayonets - presumably the ones the author/s of the Home Office annotation had in mind - leave easily identifyable wounds, though.

Incidentally, the only obvious inference I can find in Reids remark from the 18:th is that at the very least one officer in charge felt convinced that a bayonet may have been responsible for the chest wound.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"I have 125 years of forensic science to support my opinion."

If you mean you opinion that a normal knife can pierce bone, I donīt see that anybody contests this.
But since you do not know what the blade looked like that put the 37 smallish holes in Tabram, the argument as such is rendered useless. The only thing you have on record is Killeens assertion that he believed that the character of the blade was such that he believed that it would probaboly have broken in contact with bone.
And that points to one thing and one thing only - the blade was thin and narrow. And, in fact the THINNER and the NARROWER it was, the better it will tally with Killeens judgment. That is not rocket science.

The broader and thicker it was, the worse it would tally with the same judgment. That is just as little rocket science.

We do not have the measurments to go by, that is true. But we DO have clear and unambiguous evidence telling us that there were two weapons involved. Killeen says it, and he is completely certain about it. Reid points out the chest wound as being a singular one. The papers tell us that it was much deeper and larger than the other wounds.

And still you claim that this is wrong? Fine - if you can supply any evidence at all. One single contamporary view that Killeen was wrong would work wonders for you, David. Can you produce it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As for the Home Office annotation, it apparently reads:

"Some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet was first suspected as the murder weapon."

... which goes to show that the Home Office apparently had locked themselves to a faulty assumption: that all bayonets wounds are narrow. Thay are of course not. There are narrow bayonets, and there are broad ones.

And of course, if the Home Ofiice had decided that only one type of weapon - a narrow one, with an unmistakable imprint - could be passed of as a bayonet, then they would accordingly have to dismiss any other dissimilar wound caused by any other dissimilar type of bayonet (and they were around in all sorts of shapes and forms) as not relating to a bayonet thrust. And patently wrong they would be!

The only valuable point the Home Office makes here is when thay say that "some" of the wounds were so narrow that they were originally thought to have been made by a bayonet, thus giving away that there were more than one type of wounds in Tabramīs body. That, at least, had obviously been accepted. But on the whole, it is clear that the Home Office had confused things. I would not think it unrealistic that the narrow wounds they speak of are the 37 small ones - and the rest is confusion and poor source work.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Nice to see you back Fisherman. A bayonet was at first suspected.Perhaps so, but the wording might indicate that a later suspicion was not so certain.

[Fisherman]

I would not invest too much in that Home Office wording, Harry, to be honest. It does not add up with what we have on record from the inquest, and clearly some confusion clings to it.

What I find interesting, and what has not been discussed before, is the stance Reid represented on the 18:th. At that stage, he considered the wound in Tabramīs chest as proof, more or less, of a military man being responsible.
Now, the paper does not outright say "because the shape of the hole told Reid that it could only have been made by a bayonet", but when one considers the alternative explanations to Reids decision, there is really nothing else to suggest, the way I read it.
Could it be that Reid was of the meaning that only military men stab through breastplates? That does not sound like a viable suggestion to me.
Could something else about that wound have given away a military man? If so, I would like to know what that something could have been. I, for one, cannot come up with a useful suggestion, but if anybody else can, it would be interesting to hear it.

Incidentally, what Ben says is interesting in a particular fashion. If Reid thought that Tabram was a Ripper deed, and if that means that he at a later stage did not believe that her killer was a military man (which he DID firmly believe on the 18:th of August 1888, as laid down by the East London Observer) - then he must obviously have revised his view at some stage.
If so, what does that mean?
Well, if - as we have eminent reason to believe - Reid believed on the 18:th of August that the hole in Tabrams chest proved that a bayonet had been used, and if he later in life did NOT believe that Tabram had been slayed by a military man, then it means that we are left with two options:

1. He changed his mind about the hole in the chest, opting for another weapon than a bayonet being responsible for it. If so, we can draw the conclusion that bayonet wounds and wounds made by other weapons such as a dagger were suddenly interchangable to Reids mind.

2. He stayed with his conviction that a bayonet was resonsible for the chest wound, but concluded that the bayonet had not been used by a military man, but instead by the Ripper. Such a thing would be quite possible, given that anybody could buy a bayonet on the East end streets.

The third alternative would of course be that Reid accepted that the Ripper was a military man, but that would not tally with Bens suggestion.

Thanks, by the way, for welcoming me back!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish

And still you claim that this is wrong? Fine - if you can supply any evidence at all. One single contamporary view that Killeen was wrong would work wonders for you, David. Can you produce it?

The best,
Fisherman

Of course I can, my dear.
Easy.
You'd certainly understand that since no other forensic was called in for a second opinion, nobody has "forensically" contested Killeen.
However, and that is quite telling, bayonet = soldier suspect, and almost ALL investigators involved in the Ripper case soon considered Martha her early victim.
You are therefore puting more faith in Killeen's word than they did.