Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Magpie]

Just a quick comment.

Although in modern parlance, a dagger usually connotes a two-edged weapon, what actually distinguishes a dagger is that it has a fixed, pointed blade that is specifically designed for stabbing or thrusting, rather than slashing or slicing. Scottish dirks, Rondels, Japanese Tantos are all examples of single edged daggers.

Some daggers, such as the M3 trench knife have one full cutting edge and one partial cutting edge. In the case of the stiletto, and various WW1 trench daggers, there is no cutting edge at all.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If the sternum puncturing wound was suspected to have been caused by a dagger on the basis of the entrance hole's appearance and dimensions, Kileen would certainly have specified as much."

What is this? From the inquest: "His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger". So from where do you get the idea that he did NOT specify this ...?

" In reality, however, the only "reason" he cited for his suggestion of a dagger was the fact that it was a strong instrument of the type required - in his opinion - to cause injury to the sternum."

That, Ben, would be your take on things. Since you speak of what Killeen specified or did not specify, you may be wise to remember that he did NOT specify why he had specified that he believed the sternum wound to have been caused by "some kind of dagger". He did NOT say "the only reason I suggest a dagger is because ..." and so on, did he?

But we can be very certain that the hole in the sternum as such did not deviate from what could be expected by a dagger, and as Killeen DID specify that it would have been a long, strong instrument, we may be equally certain that the dagger-type he spoke of would have been a sturdy and large one. We must also accept that since a dagger is a weapon with two edges, this is by far the most reasonable suggestion for the hole in Tabrams chest.

Now, a pocket-knife is decidedly NOT a "long, strong instrument". Equally, it is not dagger-like. Equally, it has only ONE sharp side. Therefore it is a very poor contender for the chest wound. To be honest, it is not even IN contention.

"It was only faulty on one point - a point wholly irrelevant to the issue of the bayonet theory being later revised. If the "overall value" of something is tarnished because of one error, goodness knows where that leaves other error-ridden documents, such as Dew's memoirs."

As for Dew, you need to keep in mind that his contribution is a contribution made by a first-hand participator; Dew was THERE. He makes errors on some points, but the general picture of his memoirs is still that they are a very remarkable achievment, having been written fifty years after the Ripper scare.
The Home Office annotations, on the other hand, are second or third or fourth or umpteenth hand information - we cannot tell. But we CAN tell that there is a glaring mistake in it, and since the mistake is of such a grave character, one must ask oneself what the source is.

As for the revised bayonet theory you press so hard, do not forget that as late as the 16:th, a report was filed that tells us that as one of the guards implicated in the Tabram affair was questioned, his clothes AND his bayonet were searched for blood.
The obvious question that surfaces here must be: IF it was obvious from the outset that a bayonet could not have caused the wound, then why would that check be made? If it was obvious from the outset that it was not a bayonet, then why did Reid think that the sternum wound PROVED the presence of a military man at that same stage?
There can be only one answer to that question: It was NOT obvious at all that a bayonet had not been used.

The later revised opinion? It is hard to measure what it amounts to. Does it say outright that a bayonet had not been used? No. What it in fact says is that some of the NARROW holes were not caused by a bayonet, but we all knew that from the outset, did we not? So no matter how keen people are to paint Killeen out as "unqualified" for his job, and no matter how many times somebody asserts that it is almost certain that he was wrong, and no matter how many times we hear that a bayonet could not have caused the sternum wound, the evidence remains in total conflict with these allegations and suppositions.

"I suggested that he probably did not exert his full power, which isn't so remarkable at all."

Read that again and ponder it. Not remarkable? The hesitating 37-time stabber. The unwilling killer? Not remarkable?
It is, on the contrary, QUITE remarkable.

"if you mean the sort of bruising that would enable an inexperienced doctor to determine that the full length of the blade had been exerted, that's a considerably taller order."

It would enable ANY doctor, experienced AND unexperienced to do so. When the bruise is there, accompanying the stab, you know that the knife has been thrust in to itīs full length.

"The fact that he referred to an "instrument" suggests obvious uncertainty as to the exact type - knife or dagger, he ruled neither out."

Or bayonet. He did not rule that out either. And he only said instrument because he could not possibly KNOW what kind of weapon that caused the damage. He only knew that it corresponded with a dagger as regards the shape of the wound. But it could have been some sort of sword, a spear with a flat, sharpened end or the leg of a metal chair, ground down to make it sharp or anything else that produced a dagger-like hole. THIS is why he said instrument - because he would be a donkey if he painted himself into a corner in this respect. Inexperienced doctors may do so, but NOT Killeen!

So yes, he WAS uncertain - as he must be - as to what had been used, whereas he was very certain that whatever it was, it had produced a hole that led his thoughts to a dagger. And we all know what that is - a weapon with two edges. Incidentally, the sword bayonet ALSO had two edges, as have most bayonet types. And remember Reids stance, combined with the testing for blood on that guards bayonet - if it had been common knowledge that a knife with just the one edge had caused the wound, then why check a two-edged bayonet for blood? Strange, is it not? And why would Reid, if he had the knowledge that the wound gave away a one-edged knife, feel it proven that a military man had wielded the weapon? Equally strange, Iīd say.

No, you may rest assured that the hole in Tabrams sternum was made by an instrument that had two sharp edges. Itīs by far the best guess, given the surrounding implications, including the term "dagger".

"I'm perfectly content to adopt a critical approach to the evidence, rather than accepting it "

Criticizing WHAT? Killeens age? The measuring methods of 1888? Reid for being so totally wrong in believing it was a military an behind it? The Star for telling us that the sternum hole was MUCH bigger and deeper than the rest? There is nothing to criticize here, Ben! Why pooh-pooh Killeens efforts when you have no indicator at all that the man was not spot on?

I just donīt get it. If there was a shred of evidence telling us that there was reason for doubt - an annotation in somebodyīs memoirs, a differing newspaper article, evidence that Killeen was unsuited for his job, contemporary remarks about the two-weapon scenario, something at all - but it is simply not there!

If your critical approach had yelded something, other than pats on the back from those who ascribe to the same position, it would have been another thing. But as it stands, all that I see and hear is that you suspect that Killeen was wrong. And thatīs not good enough, Iīm afraid, not by any stretch.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"As I've told Fish, daggers usually had two cutting edges, but not always."

Correct - but the exceptions are very, very few and mostly belong to old times, older than 1888. Which means that when you use the term colloquially, you speak of a weapon with two edges.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"You're therefore plain wrong, Fish. If such was the case, Killeen would have just mentioned a weapon with two-cutting edges, not vaguely a dagger OR a sword bayonet.
And we would ALL be absolutely convinced that a distinct weapon had caused the wound.
So what you think ? What prompted Killeen to suggest a dagger or a bayonet, lastly ?
The length of the wound, the hardness of the chestbone or the obvious trace of two cutting edges ?"

Donīt try to give the impression that you know what Killeen would have said or not said, David. Especially as you have not seen the medical report, where things would have been much more detailed. Naming a dagger is naming two cutting edges in everyday language. A knife, a spear, a sharpened screwdriver would all have had it in common that they would have been apt instruments to pierce a sternum. Therefore, if Killeen saw pointedness, sharpness and penetration ability as the only inherent qualities of the weapon, he would not have muddled the waters by saying dagger. For when he says dagger, he adds the quality of two edges, a quality that rules out the knife and the screwdriver. Not only daggers have sharp pointed tips!

Now, David, add to this what you know about Reid: He thought that the hole gave away a military man. Where does that lead you? Was the hole obviously made by a weapon with only one sharp edge? Was that why Reid saw a military man behind it? Was the hole starshaped? Did Reid see a general as the perpetrator? Think, David, think!
And why did they check that guards bayonet for blood? (I think it was Reid himself that did so). Was it because they knew that a one-edged weapon had caused the damage, and accordingly set out to check all TWO-EDGED weapons?

Come on now, David. When Reid said that the hole in Tabrams sternum gave away a military man it was because ...? When Killeen said that the hole seemed to have been made by a dagger-like instrument, it was because ...?

Before you tell me Iīm plain wrong, David, you need to give good answers to these questions. You also need some sort of evidence that tells us that Killeen was wrong. Anything will do.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"As I've told Fish, daggers usually had two cutting edges, but not always."

Correct - but the exceptions are very, very few. Which means that when you use the term colloquially, you speak of a weapon with two edges.

The best,
Fisherman

And then Killeen referred to a "weapon with two edges" or a sword bayonet - whose distinct feature isn't that of a dagger ?

I'm afraid Magpie is right, dagger doesn't mean necessarily "two cutting edges" - and in any case, not to Killeen's mind - unless he was even less qualified than I suspect.

[DVV]

Before you tell me Iīm plain wrong, David, you need to give good answers to these questions. You also need some sort of evidence that tells us that Killeen was wrong. Anything will do.
Fisherman

Regarding the "two cutting edges", Fish, I'm not saying Killeen was wrong : indeed, he never suggested such. That's you only.

[harry]

There is no doubt that the Stenum wound appeared different than the rest.One can accept that.The problem is that we do not know what that difference was.That the sternum was pierced through might mean that considerablly more force was used on that strike,than elsewhere.So not a different weapon,but a different stroke.producing a difference effect.Then there is the matter of withdraw.A bayonet,or dagger type of blade piercing the sternum is very difficult to withdraw.Difficult enough that the extra effort required would leave a distinctly different looking wound,than a wound to other fleshy parts of a torso.

[Fisherman]

Howīs it coming with my questions to you, David? Did Reid regard it proven that a military man lay behind the sternum wound and did he check that bayonet for blood in direct contradiction to the evidence?

Or did he say so and do so because the hole was consistent with a bayonet wound?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Harry, agreed all round, but :

The problem is that we do not know what that difference was.

I think we can take for granted that it wasn't caused by a dagger with two cutting edges, for such an evidence would have been clearly asserted and worded by Killeen.

[DVV]

Howīs it coming with my questions to you, David? Did Reid regard it proven that a military man lay behind the sternum wound and did he check that bayonet for blood in direct contradiction to the evidence?

Or did he say so and do so because the hole was consistent with a bayonet wound?

The best,
Fisherman

Stay on topic, Fish, and be logical : if it was a dagger with two cutting edges it wasn't a bayonet.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Stay on topic, Fish, and be logical : if it was a dagger with two cutting edges it wasn't a bayonet."

Hilarious, David, my dear. But you see, I do stay on topic, since daggers and bayonets may be interchangable when it comes to the general shape of the blade. How many times, incidentally, have I mentioned this on the htread? Three? Four? Five? Oh we,,l thatīs water under the bridge now.

But you are forgetting to answer my question, David? Would you be so kind...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"A bayonet,or dagger type of blade piercing the sternum is very difficult to withdraw.Difficult enough that the extra effort required would leave a distinctly different looking wound,than a wound to other fleshy parts of a torso."

Keep in mind that it was a clear enough imprint for Reid to regard it proven that it had been caused by a military man! Furthermove, no matter how much you wiggle a two-edged weapon, the two edges will stay easily detectable anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"Stay on topic, Fish, and be logical : if it was a dagger with two cutting edges it wasn't a bayonet."

Hilarious, David, my dear. But you see, I do stay on topic, since daggers and bayonets may be interchangable when it comes to the general shape of the blade. How many times, incidentally, have I mentioned this on the htread? Three? Four? Five? Oh we,,l thatīs water under the bridge now.

But you are forgetting to answer my question, David? Would you be so kind...?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish, my dear, it's not about the shape of daggers and bayonets, it's about the two cutting edges you seem to believe in, while Killeen did not.

[Fisherman]

"Fish, my dear, it's not about the shape of daggers and bayonets, it's about the two cutting edges you seem to believe in, while Killeen did not."

On the contrary, David, mon chčr, it is very much about daggers, bayonets AND two cutting edges. What Killeen believed in or not is veiled to us all, some more and some less. And for me, it is also very much about receiving an answer to my questions about Reid. If you do not want to address the matter, just say so.

The best,
Fisherman

[niko]

Hi everyone, I still believe in Killeen's two knife theory, he must of been sure on mentioning a larger blade, otherwise why would he declare this as his professional statement. I supose this would be much clearer today, if back in the day, apart from Killeen examining Tabram's body another Medico would of examined Tabram giving a second opinoin.
I do'nt think that the 38 small wound's were caused by stabbing Tabram with the point of the larger blade which penetrated the breast bone (and heart).

I wonder if Dr. Killeen had an assistant when practicing Tabram's autopsy and that they both agreed on the chest bone wound.

I wonder if the chest bone wound was "wider and deeper" than the rest of the wound's, all the best, agur.

niko