Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[lynn cates]

body count

Hello Ben. Yes, and that was the popular view until the memorandum was released.

I remember, whilst still a child, that London was supposed to be "piled high" with victims. Rumour, of course.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I'm very sorry to hear about your harrowing experience, and reluctant as I am to press for details, do you mean to say you have actual experience of stabbing something hard with a clasp knife and getting it wrong? Surely that's a testament to the non-durability of that particular weapon rather than clasp knives in general?

Wiggling a blade in a wound leaves very distinct laceration marks in the muscle or tissue beneath the bone. It's very obvious what has been done to remove a blade. Such an action does not fool anyone looking to identify the size of blade used.

But are those laceration remarks really distinguishable from the initial blade thrust? Obviously, if you envisage an extreme example in which so much wigging has occurred that the knife wound looks more like a long tear across the body, is it still possible to determine the width of the blade? I'm decidedly sceptical about that.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I’m mildly disappointed, but not in the least bit surprised, that you reneged on our agreeing to disagree agreement.

No, I’m not saying there was no autopsy report. I’m saying that the autopsy report cannot have contained any reference to the shape of the sternum wound insofar as it conclusively ruled “in” a dagger and conclusively ruled “out” all knives. This never happened or else Killeen, being at least mildly competent (one would hope), would have cited this reason for his dagger suggestion. The only reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the wound in question was not of a nature that enabled Kileen to establish its one-sidedness, or otherwise, beyond reasonable doubt.

Indeed, we may be absolutely certain that no such distinction was made, or else Killeen would have been able to conclude for certain that only two weapons were used. Instead, he was only able to offer his person opinion, “I don’t think…”

“Now, Ben, you say that without a doubt, if there were two cutting edges, then Killeen would have been called upon to say so at the inquest.”

No, not quite. I said that Kileen would certainly have mentioned two-cutting edges when citing his reasons for preferring a two-weapon hypothesis, and we know he did the latter. The point is that when he discussed his dagger suggestion, he cited a completely different reason for favouring it. A dagger, in his opinion, would have qualified as a long, strong instrument of the type that created the sternum wound. It would have made no sense whatsoever to cite this, obviously weaker reason for championing a dagger while withholding a much better reason that established the two-weapon theory beyond any doubt.

I don’t share your conviction that the 37 “minor” stabs would have established that a knife, as distinct from a dagger, was responsible for them. As I’ve observed already, stabbing is not a dainty affair, and human skin does not leave a perfect imprint of the weapon used, especially not if it shifted somewhat inside the wound. Here again, the “one-side/two-side” distinction is a complete non-issue, and one that has never been considered to be a determining factor in Kileen’s judgment until two days ago. Very significant, that.

Killeen was evidently asked he why championed a dagger-type instrument, and the reason he gave was completely different to the one that has recently emerged from an internet message board. You’ll note that the length and strength of the weapon was equally irrelevant to the effects of Tabram’s “health status”, as was weapon-type in general, and yet he still mentioned this reason (length and strength), and no other, in the context of his dagger musings.

“Is there anybody who thinks that the coroner suppressed a wish to instead criticize Killeen for not going further into the exact shape of the wounds? I would hope not.”

Not me. I’m sure the coroner would reasonable assume, as I do, that there was nothing worth “going into” regarding the shape of the wound because it didn’t reveal anything. It’s size and ability to penetrate the sternum, on the other hand, did.

The effusion of blood in the skull and the clenched fists are irrelevant because Kileen did not mention them, whereas we know full well that he DID discuss weaponry in some detail; he DID outline his reason for supporting the dagger theory. It really is a waste of time, in my opinion, to keep reiterating that “knife-sidedness” was only peripherally related to cause of death and thus not worth mentioning. I’m quite aware of that. The point, however, is that Kileen DID discuss matters that were only peripherally related to time of death, and they included details of weaponry, knife type, one knife versus two etc.

“And when Killeen got to the point where he mentioned the hole in the chest and stated clearly that the weapon that had caused it had been dagger-like”

“Dagger-pointed”, actually, and this too is interesting. Why, when he had the opportunity to wax-lyrical about the difference in cutting sides, did he suggest a dagger on account of the appearance of its point, which could easily resemble that of a sharp knife? He observed that the weapon was created by a long, strong instrument SUCH AS a dagger.

The cutting sides of a knife or dagger never head anything to do with Kileen’s judgment.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David:

"then why are you telling us that 'bayonet' and 'dagger' meant 'two cutting edges' to Killeen's mind ?"

I am not telling you that this was so. I am saying that I THINK that the weapon had two cutting edges, and I also THINK that Killeen knew what bayonets, not least sword ditto´s, looked like.

"As for "not to the inquest", well, that is also wrong. Two weapons could suggest two killers (and there comes to our minds the famous 'person or persons unknown'), and that wouldn't have been completely off-topic"

That is perhaps correct. But Killeen, mind you, had already said that there were two different weapons involved! Therefore it was already very obvious to the inquest that two people could have been involved. So the point is moot, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[niko]

Hello Niko. Well, that is interesting.

Do you think the other 30+ wounds with a clasp knife were part of the ritual?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, I supose so !! if the heart stab was a ritual the 30 + other stabs must of been too, differcult to say really. It all depend's if the heart wound was inflicted first or it was the last finishing blow, the difference between being the last blow or being the first blow is that this would mean that Tabram felt the pain from the 30 + clasp- knife or not feeling the pain.

When killing a wild boar by knife whilst the dog's haved him pinned down, the fatal blow is assisted to a major artery nomally behind the back of the front leg of the boar, so the animal bleed's to death from 4 - 8 minutes and it's meat will be good for consumption as it has been well bleed. Now if you assist the blow to the heart death will be almost instant, and the bleeding will not be as good unless you hang the boar up and let gravity do it's work, all the best, agur.

niko

[lynn cates]

post mortem

Hello Niko. Well, blood flow would likely determine whether it were first or last.

If it were first, the others were administered post mortem, surely?

Cheers.
LC

[niko]

Hello Niko. Well, blood flow would likely determine whether it were first or last.

If it were first, the others were administered post mortem, surely?

Cheers.
LC

Yes, BUT Dr. Killeen stated that all the wound's were assisted whilst Tabram was alive, must of been a blood-bath, all the best, agur.

niko

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m mildly disappointed, but not in the least bit surprised, that you reneged on our agreeing to disagree agreement."

Well, to be honest, you had a very good chance not to reply and bring new elements of discussion in, had you not? But when you did, I felt that I needed to reply, since you have obviously gotten things wrong.

"I’m not saying there was no autopsy report."

Good.

"I’m saying that the autopsy report cannot have contained any reference to the shape of the sternum wound insofar as it conclusively ruled “in” a dagger and conclusively ruled “out” all knives."

Of course it could. The description was there, you can take that to the bank.

"This never happened or else Killeen, being at least mildly competent (one would hope), would have cited this reason for his dagger suggestion."

Have you not understood why an inquest is held? It is NOT to fill in all details known by the medico in charge of the post-mortem. Please consider all of the material he left out! Pages and pages of it, all of it with some sort of relevance, greater or lesser, for understanding the deed. Killeen had already said that it was a dagger. If he was of the meaning that a dagger is a double-edged weapon and nothing else, then he could not be clearer. The rest is "interpretations" on your and my behalf, but the fact remains that he listed a typically two-edged weapon as responsible for that wound, and there is no gainsaying that, I´m afraid.

"Indeed, we may be absolutely certain that no such distinction was made, or else Killeen would have been able to conclude for certain that only two weapons were used. Instead, he was only able to offer his person opinion, “I don’t think…”

Once again, why not read my posts? And why not tell the whole story:
"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. 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."

What do you think "could not" means here? That it was probably the same blade throughout? Give the full picture, please! And please accept that Killeen would have worded things carefully at the inquest for reasons given earlier.

"You’ll note that the length and strength of the weapon is equally irrelevant to the effects of Tabram’s “health status”, and nor is weapon-type in general, and yet his still mentioned this reason (length and strength), and no other, in the context of his dagger musings."

Well, although he HAD measured the wounds, you will observe that he did not give any measures in inches and so. THAT was irrelevant. It WAS relevant, though, that two weapons had been used, and therefore he told them apart in very general terms. You will observe that David is of the same meaning here - there was relevance in pointing to the possibility of two killers.

"I’m sure the coroner would reasonable assume, as I do, that there was nothing worth “going into” regarding the shape of the wound because it didn’t reveal anything."

Holy smokes, Ben. A hole in the sternum that did not reveal ANYTHING? And still, it had Killeen speaking of daggers and it sent Reid looking for a military man since he felt that the hole PROVED the presence of a military man?

"The effusion of blood in the skull and the clenched fists are irrelevant because Kileen did not mention them, whereas we know full well that he DID discuss weaponry in some detail; he DID outline his reason for supporting the dagger theory."

He went into all detail needed to establish the cause of death and the possibility of two killers. And thank you very much, well done, was what the coroner and the inquest said. He did EXACTLY as much as he needed to. Speaking about edges would only go to show what he already HAD shown.

"“Dagger-pointed”, actually, and this too is interesting."

Don´t try and correct me when I am already right. From the inquest:

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

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Of course it could. The description was there, you can take that to the bank.

Fisherman

Certainly not, Fish. You're the one that takes that to the bank.
It demonstrates that you are more adamant than Killeen on the subject.

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello Niko.

"Dr. Killeen stated that all the wound's were assisted whilst Tabram was alive"

Precisely!

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Alive is an understatement. She was on top form.

[The Good Michael]

at the risk of sounding wishy-washy, I agree with everyone on this thread because Killeen had only his opinion to go on and could have been easily mistaken on all aspects, much like today's investigators and profilers, with much more information can be.

Mike

[DVV]

Killeen had only his opinion to go on and could have been easily mistaken on all aspects, much like today's investigators and profilers, with much more information can be.

Mike

Exactly, Mike, except for the "two cutting edges" that Killeen never alluded to, whatever Fish can argue.
Had it been the case, Killeen would have been as adamant as Fisherman, but as you have pointed out, he was not.

[The Good Michael]

Exactly, Mike, except for the "two cutting edges" that Killeen never alluded to, whatever Fish can argue.
Had it been the case, Killeen would have been as adamant as Fisherman, but as you have pointed out, he was not.

When Fisherman gets an idea, he doesn't like to let go of it. An endearing quality, and one that bodes well for a man going after a marlin or swordfish. If Killeen were alive and read this thread, I'm sure he would have accepted many of the theories and ideas laid out... and then he may have killed himself.

Mike

[DVV]

Golden post my dear !
Indeed, Fish stuck to his two cutting edges as soon as it came to his mind. Two or three days ago, that means.