Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[The Good Michael]

But I will leave it to you to theorize about that, since I don´t delve into things I can in no way substantiate myself.

You just did! Whatever Killeen believed, doesn't make it true. To argue all this blade stuff day in and day out proves nothing. It is senseless, useless, and unimportant without actually seeing the blade used. This isn't ballistics. It isn't science. It's conjecture. To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly. There are many people walking around this earth alive because they sought second opinions from other doctors. Here we have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th opinions and they are all possible. Understand that and move on to another argument.

Mike

[Ben]

Agreed, Mike and Dave.

If people want to "lean against statistics" and conclude that Tabram was killed with more than one knife, they must at least demonstrate some consistency in applying that reasoning. They can't then argue that Kileen was unlikely to have been wrong because it "leans against statistics" for doctors to make mistakes.

It is circular reasoning at its very worst. Mistake-making doctors are far more frequently occurring than multi-weapon stabbers, which is why I'm quite comfortable with my impression that the former happened in this case, and not the latter. The inexperienced Kileen was offering his opinion only, and he may have been wrong, just as other doctors called upon to examine the ripper-attributed corpses were certainly wrong in some instances.

He certainly wasn't emphatic about identifying a pen-knife as the weapon. That was merely a suggestion, and if it was based primarily on the depth of the wounds, the suggestion was a very bad one, for reasons discussed and repeated already. Nor was he remotely emphatic that two separate weapons were used. He simply "did not think" that one weapon was responsible for all wounds.

It is not remotely the case that a penknife or pocket knife can't penetrate a heart, as this rather harrowing case aptly demonstrates:

http://www.ydr.com/local/ci_20050221

And no, none of the wounds pierced the sternum. There was not the slightest suggestion that the sternum wound was the one that was also responsible for the heart piercing, in Tabram's case. Had it been otherwise, Kileen would have specified as much. I dearly hope nobody is seriously suggesting that a Bowie knife can't reach a heart, when we know for an absolute certainty that a "small pocket knife" can?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly."

Not at all, Mike. The height of folly would instead be to habitually DISAGREE with something a doctor said. After all, he IS a professional, he KNOWS his job, he HAS experience and he HAS methods to measure and compare things. If we take all that as useful indicators that he would be wrong, we are on water so deep that it will pour out into the atmoshpere via the Chinese Sea.

How you can believe that the smarter thing to do is to work from the presumtion that professional medicos will get things wrong is beyond me. Don´t tell your own doctor about it. Oh, wait - you don´t go to doctors when you are ill, do you ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Ehhrm ... no.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"A York man was fatally stabbed after the bars closed early Sunday morning on Harrisburg’s Restaurant Row. City police have charged a Harrisburg man with criminal homicide in the case.
The Dauphin County Coroner says the fatal wound pierced the heart. Coroner Graham Hetrick says the murder weapon was a pocket knife, the type that’s easy to conceal.
The blade was less than SIX INCHES LONG."

Ooops. Ooopsie, ooopsie ...! Six (6) inches! But then again, the article says that it was LESS than six inches long. So maybe just two? Or three, at worst?

Thank heaven for research.

http://www.whptv.com/mostpopular/story/UPDATE-2-Harrisburg-man-accused-of-murder-has/5CmCWCLal0Kl41qk8gsZSA.cspx

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"A York man was fatally stabbed after the bars closed early Sunday morning on Harrisburg’s Restaurant Row. City police have charged a Harrisburg man with criminal homicide in the case.

The Dauphin County Coroner says the fatal wound pierced the heart. Coroner Graham Hetrick says the murder weapon was a pocket knife, the type that’s easy to conceal.

The blade was less than six inches long. With the push of a button and a flick of the wrist, the blade is locked in place."

So, a stiletto knife. You can keep them in your pocket too, but it does not make them the type of pocket knife Killeen would have spoken of.

There we go. It would seem the example was TRULY "harrowing".

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

How you can believe that the smarter thing to do is to work from the presumtion that professional medicos will get things wrong is beyond me. Don´t tell your own doctor about it. Oh, wait - you don´t go to doctors when you are ill, do you ...?

Ah... I must have said this. You wouldn't make this up. I'll tell you what, I understand myself and my body more than an overworked doctor who may be thinking about golf. Doctors have made serious blunders with a ton more science behind them than Killeen had. Refute that.

Mike

[Fisherman]

The quality of the argumentation is not very encouraging here for the moment. This "pocket knife" affair was over the top, I´m afraid. That means I am dropping it for now, reserving, though, the right to return to the discussion without being criticized for it.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

You just did! Whatever Killeen believed, doesn't make it true. To argue all this blade stuff day in and day out proves nothing. It is senseless, useless, and unimportant without actually seeing the blade used. This isn't ballistics. It isn't science. It's conjecture.

Precisely, so why can't "they" let history lay where it may. The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.
End of story!
Why?, for the very simple reason you just observed, "we" do not have sufficient evidence nor experience to argue to the contrary.
So there the arguement rests.

To wholeheartedly agree with something a doctor said is the height of folly.

Well, now you just contradicted yourself...

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Yes, Fisherman, a "small pocket knife" which could easily have been the same sort of instrument, blade-wise, that Kileen envisaged for the smaller wounds. I'm not sure quite what significance you're investing in "less than six inches", since the article did not specify how much less.

The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.

He didn't "determine" it, Jon. He opined it. A number of factors oblige us to treat the “two weapon” hypothesis with extreme caution. I’ve just outlined the first – an over-reliance on imprecise wound measurements can easily lead to faulty conclusions. Then there is the relative youth and inexperience of Killeen to consider. Finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet.

An uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of the opinions of those "who were there at the time, is folly, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Precisely, so why can't "they" let history lay where it may. The historical record, accepted by all who research the account was that Killeen determined two weapons used on Tabram.
End of story!
Why?, for the very simple reason you just observed, "we" do not have sufficient evidence nor experience to argue to the contrary.
So there the arguement rests.



Well, now you just contradicted yourself...

Regards, Jon S.

I did? Don't think so. I don't believe in arguing the contrary. I believe all things discussed on this thread are possible. To ignorantly state that a doctor who you didn't speak with, who examined wounds you never saw, that were caused by weapons no one saw, must be correct in his conjecture, iss far too trusting for my tastes. If you want to believe it fine. I believe Killeen may have been right or may have been wrong. How can that be refuted. To argue against that logic is illogical.

MIke

[DVV]

There is something like Ikea with Fish and Jon reasonings. Once you've entered that nightmare, you cannot step back.

[Wickerman]

A number of factors oblige us to treat the “two weapon” hypothesis with extreme caution.

Hi Ben.
It isn't a number of factors though, it is "our" own ignorance of the details.
We don't know how precise Killeen's wound measurments were. It is you who chose to assume they were imprecise in order to cast doubt on his determinations, for your own benefit.

His age has nothing to do with his abilities, he had graduated as a Licenciate from the R. C. S., he was not an apprentice to anyone. Therefore his abilities are not under question.
However, what abilities do you have in order to even raise these questions?

People who conspire to distort the historical record tend to think that to raise a question is the same as providing an answer.
The more questions you raise, the more doubt you attempt to throw at the subject. Yet, the result is quite the opposite. The more questions you raise, the more apparent it is that the you are in no position to judge.
Questions are not solutions.

Because we do not have Killeen's autopsy report we cannot judge how meticulous Killeen was. As is often the case with someone fresh out of college, if anything, they would be extremely meticulous, proceeding "by the book".
The police saw no reason to question his abilities, neither did the Coroner. So why should we?, especially when we have no verbatim data to work with, but only paraphrase from the press.

Finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet.

Oddity?, so the subsequent Whitechapel murders & mutilations which followed must make perfect sense to you?

Ada Wilson & Annie Millwood were both attacked by someone using a clasp-knife. So why so strange that this same weapon is used on Tabram?
The fact he, or an accomplice, pulled out a larger weapon to finish the job, bears no reflection on Killeen.

An uncritical, unquestioning acceptance of the opinions of those "who were there at the time, is folly, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

Oh, no. There is a difference between "uncritical acceptance", and "critical rejection".
"We" can harbour all the doubts in the world, but where "we" differ is, you are drawing conclusions based, once again, on what "you" do not know.

I cannot "find" fault, not that there wasn't any. But it is important to "find it" before you start making judgements based assumptions.
Where "fault" cannot be found it is prudent to give benefit of the doubt to the professional, rather than use the unpredictable actions of a madman to cast aspersions.

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Another case reported in the Jamaica Gleaner.Victim an adult.A vertical incised wound on the left side of the scalp,a little over half an inch long,it's lower limit about three inches above and behind the left ear,e xtending to the bone.The wound penetrated the entire thickness of the bone,and had lifted a flap of bone inside the cranium.The stab wound was continuous with one which had gone through the brain covering and into the brain substance.Extensive force must have been used.The wound could have been caused by a sharp cutting instrument,such as a PENKNIFE. There are several more killings involving penknives reported in the same paper.W itnesse s also describe the weapons as pocket knives.

[Wickerman]

To ignorantly state that a doctor who you didn't speak with, who examined wounds you never saw, that were caused by weapons no one saw, must be correct in his conjecture, iss far too trusting for my tastes.

Hold it Mike.
The status quo is that Tabram was murdered by the use of two weapons. The specifics were detailed out at the autopsy, provided at the Inquest and accepted by the Coroner & police.

The "ignorant" argument is to suggest all these professionals & officials were either, incompetant, irresponsible or duped. This is the argument that originates in "ignorance".
To give the benefit of the doubt to all those concerned and trust in their abilities hardly constitutes a "fringe hypothesis".

Look at it this way, in the case of Rose Mylett, Dr. Bond, in his professional opinion, thought she had died of natural causes. He gave his reasons for his determination.
At odds with him were his peers, among them Phillips, Brownfield & Harris, who determined Mylett had been murdered.

We can, therefore, quite reasonably argue either case because we have professional opinions from both sides of the argument.

With Drs Killeen, or Llewellyn, we have only one side of the story. So the naysayers argument which suggests that these doctors erred in their conclusions has no "educated" support.

In fact, the suggested errors are only proposed in order to support some personal theory, not any reasonable professional misconduct on the part of the named doctors.
This is the extent that people will go to in order to promote or substantiate some personal preference.

There is simply no need for this, unless some contrary professional opinion can be found, as in the case of Rose Mylett.
Could Killeen have made any mistakes?, of course!, but what, where, and to what extent?
More than "uneducated" supposition is required for anyone to take these arguments seriously. "If's, but's & maybe's" amount to nothing.

Regards, Jon S.