Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

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?

Fisherman

Houlā, Fish ! stay with us ! 3 inches is equal to 7.62 cm, right ? Enough to reach internal organs, no ?

[Ben]

"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.”

There we go, Fisherman – “Might have” been inflicted with a knife. In other words, if the majority of the wounds were inflicted with an ordinary pen-knife, the same weapon could not have penetrated the sternum, but he wasn’t sure that they were. So it still boils down to “might haves”, “I don’t thinks”, and “in the witness’ opinions”. Still not an “assurance”.

“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.”

It depends what sort of knife. Simple as that. And the police report quoted by Sally (and the Home Office document discussed already) establishes that a “knife or dagger” could have been responsible. Certainly a sturdier weapon, such as a Bowie knife, could have created the sternum wounds. What Kileen never did was rule out all knives on the basis of a non-existent determination that the shape of the sternum wound bore the hall-marks of a two cutting-edged weapon.

“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.”

Don’t keep saying “a knife”, since it creates a false impression. He specified quite clearly the type of knife, which, in his opinion, would not have created the sternum wound, and that was a “pen-knife” or an ordinary knife. Sturdier knives are very much in contention.

“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?”

That wasn’t what I said at all. I’m saying that Reid evidently shared Kileen’s opinion that a “long, strong instrument” would have been required to penetrate the sternum. There is not the slightest indication that wound “shape” had anything to do with either Kileen’s or Reid’s views.

“then why was Reid said to regard it PROVEN that a bayonet was the weapon?”

I’m not remotely convinced that this was Reid’s opinion, as I’ve already said. It is by no means clear that Reid himself concluded that Tabram’s murderer – less still “the ripper” – was a military man. The East London Observer reported simply that Reid had noted the nature of breastbone wound. He may well have pondered the possibility of a military murderer (it was very early days after all), but the wording is ambiguous and there is no direct quote attributed to him. Personally, I’d be rather surprised if Reid ever seriously considered that the evidence of a long, strong instrument “proved” that a military man killed Tabram with a bayonet.

“I am guessing that fully educated doctors that measure wounds and compare them, normally get things correct.”

And I am guessing that stab victims are “normally” murdered by just the one knife, and not two. So I’m afraid that cancels out your argument as to what “normally” happens, since the supposed oddity of a doctor making a mistake is directly comparable to the oddity of a stab victim being murdered by two weapons. Oh no, wait, actually, doctors making mistakes occur far more frequently that multi-weaponed stabbers.

“And in what manner does that prove anything about which type of weapon Reid thought was responsible for the sternum wound?”

The Home Office document would hardly have implied a revision of the bayonet theory if Reid himself did not approve, or was not responsible for, that revision.

“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.”

It is telling us that whichever wounds were initially suspected of having been inflicted with a bayonet, the revised conclusion is that none of them ultimately were. If you’re looking for “simple and uncomplicated”, take this as the central, relevant bullet point of the Home Office document. If you want to unsimplify and complicate things, then you’re more the welcome to conclude that a trivial error invalidates the entire document, but I wouldn’t personally advise it.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“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.”

No, that is quite erroneous on both counts. I’ll deal with the first in a moment, but there is not the flimsiest shred of doubt that the type of bayonet referred to in the Home Office document was the sword variety and not the socket or spike type. We know this for an absolute, permanent certainty. There was only ever one type of bayonet under contention for the sternum wounds, and as we learn from various press sources, it was the “sword bayonet”. The idea of anyone carrying around a socket bayonet in Whitechapel, less still an actual military man, is really quite absurd when you contemplate it. It would have been utterly worthless as a weapon when detached from the rifle, and anyone wandering around London with one of those would have looked like a lost extra from the Sharpe series.

As for the “most widely used” bayonet at the time, Bob Hinton had this to say:

“The standard bayonet of the day, the pattern 1887 Mk I Sword bayonet and the pattern 1887 Mk III Sword bayonet had blades in excess of 18” long.”

All the best,
Ben

[Stephen Thomas]

Tabram was not a Ripper victim.

If she had have been then Macnaghten would have said so.

[Fisherman]

David:

"3 inches is equal to 7.62 cm, right ?"

Yes, and 5 inches makes for 12,7 centimeters. And as I demonstrated, a 3 inch knife can make 5 inch wounds. Enough to reach internal organs? Yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, I have read through your post, and I find that there is nothing in it that is not repetition, which means that I see no reason for me to respond to it once again.

If you should come up with something new or interesting, I will reply in due course, but until that happens, I have a detail Iīd like to bring up if you can spare the time to answer it.

I am fascinated by the stance you and David have chosen. Even if you had only chosen to suggest that there was the off-hand chance that Killeen was wrong, it would have been a strange proposition. But to brazenly claim that it is somehow much more credible that he failed to do his job is of course another thing altogether.
Out of curiosity - just how much substantiation and hard evidence do you reckon you need to have behind you before you make an allegation like this?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

As for the “most widely used” bayonet at the time, Bob Hinton had this to say:

“The standard bayonet of the day, the pattern 1887 Mk I Sword bayonet and the pattern 1887 Mk III Sword bayonet had blades in excess of 18” long.”

Ben, with all due respect to Bob, he was not around in 1888,...put simply, Bob Hinton does not know. Bob is just a middle-man between the correct information and our debate.

What you need to do is locate Bob's reference for that claim. Check out his source, then you will see where he or you have gone wrong.
In academia, you never accept claims, you always check the sources.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

I am fascinated by the stance you and David have chosen.

I'm equally fascinated by your stance, Fish.

Even if you had only chosen to suggest that there was the off-hand chance that Killeen was wrong, it would have been a strange proposition. But to brazenly claim that it is somehow much more credible that he failed to do his job is of course another thing altogether.

You got us wrong, I think. Killeen wasn't "wrong", I mean, not as much as you are.
He made a suggestion that turns out to be unlikely. But you are wrong saying Killeen meant "two cutting edges" when he suggested "a dagger or a bayonet"....or worse (for your theory) : "a knife or a dagger".

As for Killeen "failing to do his job", I'd say that forensic wasn't really his job, and mistakes are often possible with forensic, especially 125 years ago.

[DVV]

In academia, you never accept claims, you always check the sources.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon.
Waow.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Harry.
You do realize, that both the flesh & muscle twist with the blade.

The edges of the triangular bayonet are not sharp so will not shear any flesh away by the slight twist.
Also, the triangular bayonets have a "fuller" on the top side, this is the grove that assists the soldier to withdraw the bayonet with little resistance, but you know this.

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.

I think we all prettywell accept Tabram was on her back when she was stabbed with the dagger, so the killer only need stamp his foot on her chest to withdraw the blade, assuming it became stuck. If the blade pierced the breastbone, twisting was not an option anyway.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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

The best,
Fisherman

All very true Fish, except that the ribcage will not give in the same way.

Certainly there is some flexibility but punch a knife into the abdomen and the tissue & intestines will most certainly give way, as you have been mentioning. Not the same with the heart, being behind the ribcage, the same argument does not hold here. A longer blade would be needed, sadly he never said how long the "longer instrument" had to be.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Not the same with the heart, being behind the ribcage, the same argument does not hold here. A longer blade would be needed, sadly he never said how long the "longer instrument" had to be.
Regards, Jon S.

Jon, are you suggesting that the wound in the heart has been caused by the "longer instrument" - ie : the famous dagger/bayonet ?

Or would it prove that I'm right saying that the knife wasn't a toy, and, having injured the heart, could well have gone through the chestbone as well ?

[Wickerman]

Jon, are you suggesting that the wound in the heart has been caused by the "longer instrument" - ie : the famous dagger/bayonet ?

Simply, yes.

Taking Killeen's words verbatim:
"......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".

Or would it prove that I'm right saying that the knife wasn't a toy, and, having injured the heart, could well have gone through the chestbone as well ?

What do you mean by "toy"?
I don't read it as if the wound to the heart was a different wound to the wound through the breastbone. So, I assume this "dagger" pierced the breastbone, then pierced the heart. A 6" blade should suffice, and it wouldn't be a "toy", assuming there was such a thing as a toy knife.

Old socket-bayonets were being bought for a penny in Petticoat Lane market, kids were seen playing with them in the street.
Does this make the bayonet a "toy"?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Simply, yes.

Taking Killeen's words verbatim:
"......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".

Regards, Jon S.

No comment, of course.

edit : I'm not being nasty, Jon, but this is really too much.

[Ben]

If she had have been then Macnaghten would have said so.

Again, Stephen, I really wouldn't cling to Macnaghten. His opinion that Tabram was not a ripper victim ran contrary to the accepted wisdom of the police in 1888.