Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Blood spatter in the Tabram murder
Collapse
X
-
"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.”
“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.”
“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 it´s character.”
“Reid was simply an incompetent, rash man who, instead of making his own decision, grounded in what he had seen in Tabram´s body, leaned against the doubtful advice offered by an unexperienced, young doctor and swallowed it uncritically?”
“then why was Reid said to regard it PROVEN that a bayonet was the weapon?”
“I am guessing that fully educated doctors that measure wounds and compare them, normally get things correct.”
“And in what manner does that prove anything about which type of weapon Reid thought was responsible for the sternum wound?”
“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.”
All the best,
BenLast edited by Ben; 03-01-2012, 09:37 PM.
Comment
-
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.”
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
Comment
-
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 I´d 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben View PostAs 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.”
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.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by harry View PostI 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.
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.
Regards, Jon S.Last edited by Wickerman; 03-02-2012, 12:11 AM.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostNOW do you accept that a three-inch blade could have caused the damage in Tabram?
The best,
Fisherman
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.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostNot 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.
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 ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DVV View PostJon, are you suggesting that the wound in the heart has been caused by the "longer instrument" - ie : the famous dagger/bayonet ?
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 ?
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.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostSimply, 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.
edit : I'm not being nasty, Jon, but this is really too much.
Comment
Comment