Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Streams of edges, mind you.

[Wickerman]

The spike bayonet was not in use by the military at the time, and thus was certainly not the type of weapon referred to in the Home Office document that was supposed to have created "unmistakable" wounds.

Ben, if you had cared to look up the history of the socket bayonet yourself you would have learned that the socket bayonet was still in use in the early 20th century.
Please take a look at this triangular socket bayonet, still in use into the 1900's.

http://arms2armor.com/Bayonets/mh1876.htm

If you also care to look at "page 3" on this link, the "knife" bayonet I have repeatadly pictured on here is described and shown mounted, issued from 1888.

http://www.infantry-weapons.org/docs/Bayonet_History.pdf

"Socket bayonet for use on the .303 caliber M1895 Martini-Enfield rifle. The Pattern 1895 bayonets were altered Pattern 1876 bayonets, originally made for the caliber .577-450 Martini-Henry rifle.
This example was converted at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock (RSAF Enfield) in January 1900. This example saw service in the Middle East, probably Egypt.

According to Skennerton, Pattern 1895 bayonet conversions were only done at Enfield, with 86,234 conversions done between 1895 and 1902."

http://www.worldbayonets.com/Bayonet_Identification_Guide/Britian__Pre_WWII_/britain_pre_wwii_2.html

The socket-type was the 'premier' bayonet associated with the British military for well over 150 years. It had a long life because it was strong, light and enabled the soldier to swiftly use his musket/rifle as a spear.
Unlike the sword-bayonet which was cumbersome, heavy and awkward for the soldier to use in an attack. Defensively, he only need stand and point, but on a bayonet charge this "sword" attachment was heavy.

The socket bayonet was, even in 1888, the most widely recognised and widely used British military bayonet. The HO very likely had this version in mind when the "unmistakable" comment was written.

Of all the variety of bayonets available to the British military, the wound this bayonet leaves, a triangle, is certainly "unmistakable".

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

I would beg to disagree with your last sentence Jon.In extracting a bayonet,at least in my time in the military,it w as taught that twisting the bayonet was the sometime best method,and this would leave anything but a clean and concise wound.And so would twisting a knife or dagger.Another thing to take into consideration is the relative position of both victim and assailant,and in Tabrams killing,we do not know what that was. We might guess that mostly she was lying on her back.As to having a mental image of things.I was once taught to take a mental image in remembering names.A baker for name Baker for example.I met this person and made a mental picture of the surname,Meeting this person about six months later,I said,"Good morning mrs Cox,how are you" "I am fine" she replied,"and you were almost correct,but my surname is Dix"

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There was no such “assertion”, Fisherman. Kileen said simply that he did not “think” that two weapons were responsible."

You can read, Ben, I know that. So please read this: "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."

I have posted it before, but on those occasions you may have failed to see it. That is why I post it again. It is from the inquest. It says that the weapon that provided the 37 smaller wounds could not have made the larger one. So the assertion most assuredly was there.

It is, of course, worded differently in different sources. The Daily News says "In the witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently with a penknife", and that means that it was Killeens opinion that the wounds were made with different weapons.
The East London Advertiser writes "In his opinion the wounds were caused by a knife, or some such instrument, but there was a wound on the chest bone which could not have been caused by a knife. An ordinary penknife could have made most of the wounds, but the puncture in the chest must have been made with a sword bayonet or a dagger." And that means that Killens opinion was that the kind of knife that had made the smaller wounds could not have made the large one.
The East London Observer, most illuminating and enlightening on the topic, says "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", laying firmly down that a knife - a weapon with a typical impring with one sharp and one blunt edge - would not cause the type of wound that was found in the sternum. Please notice that it does not say that the knife that was used 37 times to provide small stabs could not pierce the sternum - that too was Killeens view, added at another occasion - but instead that a knife as such would not cause THE TYPE of wound ("such a wound") that was present in the sternum. That means that a knife was quite incomparable to that particular wound, owing to itīs character. Killeens further stating the larger hole did not correspond with the smaller ones, is redundant but useful substantiation of this.

"He didn’t react at all to the “shape” of the wound ... The East London Observer merely passed on his supposed opinion, echoing Kileen’s, that a heavy-duty weapon must have been responsible for the sternum wound."

Wow! How do you KNOW all these things, Ben? I mean, itīs not as if you SUGGESTED this a possibility, you just lay it down, BANG!

I mean, I for one would have thought that a man like Reid would have KNOWN full well that there are OTHER heavy-duty weapons than bayonets, but apparently you know better?
So THAT was it, Reid was simply an incompetent, rash man who, instead of making his own decision, grounded in what he had seen in Tabramīs body, leaned against the doubtful advice offered by an unexperienced, young doctor and swallowed it uncritically?

But wait a second here, donīt you usually (and correctly) argue that the bayonet stuff was NOT any idea of Killeens? You normally say that he was adamant on the dagger point, nothing else, and that the suggestion of a bayonet was something he simply was too shy to protest against when he had it suggested to him, more or less.

So if Killeen was NOT very much convinced that a bayonet would have been the weapon, throwing the dagger supposition overboard in the process, then why was Reid said to regard it PROVEN that a bayonet was the weapon?
You see, it does not add up. Not at all, in fact. If Reid had gone on Killeens advice, he would have had no reason at all to point his finger specifically at a soldier.

"I’m afraid you have no evidence beyond guesswork that this is the case at all"

Correct! I am guessing that fully educated doctors that measure wounds and compare them, normally get things correct. I am further guessing that when these doctors tell us that two wounds differ so radically that they suggest that this owes to different weapons having been used, they will more often than not be correct.

Do you want to contest this? Are you of a different opinion? Because if you are not, I donīt see any rational reason for telling me that I am "just guessing" this.

So, Ben, ARE you of a different opinion? DO you think that the major part of these estimations are incorrect? Is, to your mind, in fact a doctorīs estimation that two weapons have been used more likely to be correct than not in your opinion? Whatīs YOUR guess, Ben?

"But that particular “police bigwig” revised his opinion, and did not ultimately consider the ripper to have been a “military man”."

And in what manner does that prove anything about which type of weapon Reid thought was responsible for the sternum wound? How does that show us that he revised his opinion about how that wound looked? Is it not true that civilians may kill with bayonets? Or what IS your point here?

"“Generally”? Really?"

Yes, really, in the overall sense that I am working from the premise that when the Home Office says A, they mean A and not B. I think that this is a theory that will hold water eminently. But you, on the other hand, seem to be working from TWO premises:

1. If the Home Office said it was so, then it WAS so (that is to say we need to accept that the bayonet theory WAS discarded. It is effectively proven, the way you see it). Since it was in a Home Office report, we may take this particular aspect to the bank.

and

2. The Home Office wrote that SOME of the narrow wounds (plural, and relating to only a portion of the smaller holes in Tabram, but absolutely NOT to the sternum one) were originally believed to have been bayonet-made, but that was later discarded. And this you accept as absolute proof that we can deduct that they REALLY meant that the larger hole was what they were talking about.

A simple man like me is more often than not confused by things like these. I tend to think that the confusion regarding which hole was what tells us that the report as such is either unreliable or talking about something else than you think.
Either way, it does never mention the sternum wound at all, and since the sternum wound was the one that invited the whole bayonet discussion, we are effectively left with a document that does not bring up the key factor in the bayonet/no bayonet discussion. And I, simple and uncomplicated, usually want so called written proof to at the very least mention the elements they are supposed to prove.
That may be ignorant of me, I donīt know. Maybe Einsteinīs theory on relativity lies hidden in the the American declaration of independence, I am in no position to definitely say. But if it did, I would feel a whole lot better about any assurance that this was so if the declaration said "Einstein" and "relativity". It would be a strong pointer, at any rate.

On a more serious note, Ben, the annotations as such do imply that there was perhaps some sort of discarding of some bayonet suggestion at some stage, nothing else. And they do it only in relation to "some of the narrow wounds". This means that we may not for a second regard it in any way proven that the bayonet suggestion was discarded in relation to the sternum wound. It would be a "guilt-by-association" reasoning, and I for one am keen to avoid such things.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

The mistake I feel Kileen was making was that he was convinced that a small more delicate penknife had made all but the wound to the sternum,and that such a weapon could not have made the more pronounced wound to the heart.So a small penknife was his starting point from which he made comparison.Had he started out with the poposition that a large weapon had made the Sternum wound,and then considered whether it could also make the lesser wounds,his opinion may,like some of ours,consider one weapon to have caused all wounds.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

Are you of the meaning that Killeen made a mistake when he judged the 37 lesser wounds to have been made by a knife of a very modest size? Do you also ascribe to the view that it would have been a long, strong instrument only poked in to the depth of, say 3 inches? And if so, what long and strong instrument has a three inches long tip that makes a doctor think of pen-knives? I personally think that such an instrument would be a very odd one. Can you think of one?

Also, if we allow for such an instrument (and that would mean that it was no broader than perhaps ten millimeters or so, three inches up the blade), then Killeen would still have seen this when looking at the heart. Unless, of course, the blade was wiggled extensively, meaning that the traces in the heart were wiped out.

... but then again, if this was the case, Killeen would equally have seen that too.

I fail to see how we can make a suggestion like this work rationally. I also fail to see why would even try to do so, since nobody expressed any doubt at all that Killeen was right at the time. No policeman, no doctor, no member of the public writing letters to the editor went on record expressing any disagreement with Killeens findings. And the responsible parties of the police would have taken a look too, as implicated by Reids stance.

The allure, Harry, that strange allure - what IS it?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The mistake I feel Kileen was making was that he was convinced that a small more delicate penknife had made all but the wound to the sternum.

Hi Harry, not exactly.
He said the wounds could have been done even by an ordinary penknife, that's quite a difference.
And : qui peut le plus peut le moins.

[Fisherman]

If I was to tell you, David, that such a wording would have implicated that the wounds were so small that they could have been done EVEN by a pen-knife - would you protest?

Of course, if one rummaged around and used a pen-knife to cut open as wide holes as possible, we could have three-inch broad entrance holes. But would that be a very viable suggestion in a stabbing of 37 wounds, and would it have Killeen suggesting a pen-knife? Furthermore, would it make Killeen deduct that this knife would have broken if tried at the sternum?

My own, very personal hunch is that he KNEW that the knife was a small one.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Furthermore, would it make Killeen deduct that this knife would have broken if tried at the sternum?

That's indeed what I think he did deduct (instead of deducting one cutting edge in the small wounds, and two in the biggest). And here, precisely, lies his mistake (over speculation rather than mistake, I must say, since he was less adamant than you are), because he wouldn't know the knife would break. How could he ? The length and width of a blade don't prove a knife to be a penknife, a folding knife, or a knife with a fixed blade. He wouldn't know therefore how sturdy it was.
Hence the dagger/bayonet being a mere, candid and hazardous speculation.

My own, very personal hunch is that he KNEW that the knife was a small one.

Small ? Relatively small, then, because it injured many internal organs. It went far beyond the tissues, and Martha was rather fat.
In any case, small does not mean fragile.

[Fisherman]

Just one question, David, before I comment on your post. Since you press the point that Killeen said, and I quote you, that "the wounds could have been done even by an ordinary penknife", it would be interesting to hear which semantic construction makes the most sense to you:

A/ The wounds were so small that they could have been done even by an ordinary penknife

or

B/The wounds were so large that they could have been done even by an ordinary penknife

Just asking, as usual. If one never asks, one never learns.

"Relatively small, then, because it injured many internal organs. It went far beyond the tissues, and Martha was rather fat."

She was also lying flat on the floor, meaning - as Sam Flynn, bless him, pointed out on the old boards - that the body would have been compressed. The body would also have been further compressed when/if the power of the fist holding the knife punched it downwards to the floor. This means that the blade would not have had to travel many inches to pierce the internal organs. A fair estimate - at least to my mind (we seem to differ very much in what we call fair nowadays) - would be that around three inches certainly could have done the trick. And three inches tallies very well with what can be described as a normal pen- or pocket-knife blade.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Since you press the point that Killeen said, and I quote you, that "the wounds could have been done even by an ordinary penknife", it would be interesting to hear which semantic construction makes the most sense to you:

A/ The wounds were so small that they could have been done even by an ordinary penknife

or

B/The wounds were so large that they could have been done even by an ordinary penknife

You should realize, Fish, that Killeen never said, really NEVER, that the weapon (I don't dare to say knife, for the sake of your theory) that went through the chesbone couldn't have produced the other wounds, before asking me that question.

Having said that and hoping you'll give it some thoughts, I have no problem to repeat that my opinion is that the wound in the chesbone was perhaps larger than the others because it was given with greater force. As for Killeen, I fail to see in his comments any evidence that the depth of the wounds was the main reason why he suggested two weapons. It seems to me that he had in mind the supposed "hardness" of the chestbone. But there again, something shorter than a bayonet, or less thick than a dagger, could have been equally sturdy.

Just asking, as usual. If one never asks, one never learns.

Mais certainement mon cher ami.

She was also lying flat on the floor, meaning - as Sam Flynn, bless him, pointed out on the old boards - that the body would have been compressed.

God bless Gareth for that excellent Welsh joke, I concur.
Now seriously, so many internal organs injured with a minuscule toy ?

[Fisherman]

David:

"You should realize, Fish, that Killeen never said, really NEVER, that the weapon (I don't dare to say knife, for the sake of your theory) that went through the chesbone couldn't have produced the other wounds, before asking me that question.
Having said that and hoping you'll give it some thoughts, I have no problem to repeat that my opinion is that the wound in the chesbone was perhaps larger than the others because it was given with greater force. As for Killeen, I fail to see in his comments any evidence that the depth of the wounds was the main reason why he suggested two weapons. It seems to me that he had in mind the supposed "hardness" of the chestbone. But there again, something shorter than a bayonet, or less thick than a dagger, could have been equally sturdy. "

He said that a weapon such as the one that made the 37 minor wounds COULD NOT have made the sternum wound. So he went the other way around.
He did not say that the weapon that caused the sternum wound could not have made the smaller wounds - more than implicitally. He DID say that the smaller weapon could not have made the larger hole since it did not correspond with this wound. That means that the blades of the two weapons were obviously dissimilar, so that should cover the issue.

"Mais certainement mon cher ami."

Et? What is your answer to my question? Which phrase makes better sense to you?

"Now seriously, so many internal organs injured with a minuscule toy ?"

Yes. Which of the organs is it that you think would not be able to reach with a three-inch blade, given that the victim was on the floor and had the body compressed both by the laws of gravity and the punch downwards? Are you having any particular problem with one or more of them? I weigh in at 105 kilogrammes, and I am not a thin guy. But if I measure the distance from my back to my belly STANDING UP, I get around 30 centimeters. If I was to lie down on the floor, that would diminish to some degree. If I furthermore was to have a fist punched into my stomach, then that would dig itīs way down to a very noticeable degree.
There is nothing strange with a three-inch blade being able to puncture lungs, liver, stomach etc in a woman lying down on a floor, David. You need to check these things out before you comment on them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Iīll help you out here, David, with some information from the net:

From "Forensic Autopsy of Sharp Force Injuries" (http://emedicine.medscape.com/articl...082-overview):
"It is entirely possible for a knife with a 3-inch-long blade to produce a wound that is 4 or 5 inches deep."

This, David is due to Gareths "joke", as you kindly put it. Compression and punching power is what takes the blade into the body, reaching a depth that exceeds the blade length by up to 66,6 per cent.

NOW do you accept that a three-inch blade could have caused the damage in Tabram?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Iīll help you out here, David, with some information from the net:

From "Forensic Autopsy of Sharp Force Injuries" (http://emedicine.medscape.com/articl...082-overview):
"It is entirely possible for a knife with a 3-inch-long blade to produce a wound that is 4 or 5 inches deep."

Well, that let me free to speculate that Eddowes, that poor skinny creature, could have been butchered with a needle.

This, David is due to Gareths "joke", as you kindly put it.

Oh dear, you know I like Gareth very much, and you and I know perfectly what was his position concerning the precanonicals. If there was no slashing, there was no ripper in his opinion.

NOW do you accept that a three-inch blade could have caused the damage in Tabram?

It could, that I've never denied. What I disagree with, is the idea of a fragile knife. This Killeen wouldn't know. That was beyond his expertise, and as far as we know, it was sturdy enough (understatement).

[Fisherman]

David:

"It could, that I've never denied."

A-ha...? So when you wrote "Now seriously, so many internal organs injured with a minuscule toy?", you were not implying that it would be impossible for a three-inch blade to do the damage we are discussing?

You could have fooled me, I must say. But itīs very good to know that we are now agreed on the point that a pen- or pocketknife with a three-inch blade could have caused all the damage Tabram was subjected to, apart from the sternum wound. That means that we do not have to discuss that particular point any further, and thatīs a relief.

Now, as for your next point, "What I disagree with, is the idea of a fragile knife. This Killeen wouldn't know."

It is completely correct that Killeen could not have known what the blade was made of, and therefore he could not have established itīs frailty to any exact degree.
On the other hand, he DID say that the blade would have broken in contact with the sternum.
Logic dictates that an "ordinary knife", as it was worded at the inquest, can be an extremely sturdy weapon. An "ordinary knife" may have a blade made of top quality steel, four or five millimeters thick. And such a knife would, if sharp, travel through a sternum with ease, if wielded with power enough.
Logic dictates that Killeen knew this too. And logic dictates that we may therefore be sure that Killeen did not mean ANY ordinary knife - he meant the specific knife that had been used for the 37 stabs, and the East London Observer tells us that Killeen spoke of an ordinary POCKET-KNIFE.
Ordinary pocket knives have ordinary pocket knife blades. Ordinary pocket knife blades are blades that are narrow, thin and around 2-3 inches long. Ordinary pocket knife blades are also a lot less sturdy than the blades of "ordinary" large knives. Depending on the material they are made of and the way they are fastened to the handle, they will differ in strength, but overall, they are blades that are not strong. And they are very unsuited for stabbing through hard chestbones. They will typically break.

...and in this respect, Killeen would have known that the blade we discuss would have been comparatively frail.

The best,
Fisherman