Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[harry]

Jon,
You really are splitting hairs.Regardless of what they might have been called,they were medical people who dealt in medicine,and some specialised.Some called themselves doctors.Some were more experienced than others.Some were more proficient than others.Not unlike today at all.You w ould have every medical officer of that time as equals.Not so.
As you contend Kileen only needed the basics,I doubt not many years at all w as needed,and you nor anyone has ever been convincing that Kileen knew more than the basics.
The size of the wounds are not known,so we are left with what was said.Generally the wounds could have been caused by a knife,is reportedly what Kileen described,except for the wound through the sternum.As there are recorded cases of penknives piercing the sternum into the heart,I have opinioned that such a knife could well have been used on Tabram,and furthermore that such a knife could have caused the lesser wounds.Simple logic,suggesting one weapon,and based in part on what Kileen himself reported.

[Sally]

I think Sally is confusing our modern GP with the 19th century private practice.

Not at all Wickernam, I was merely dumbing it down for those who appear not to understand what a local doctor such as Killeen would have done. A GP is the nearest modern equivalent.

It's kind of besides the point anyhow. Wheeling out the general medical training that Killeen would have received only tells us what we already know (well, at least I do) - that the training was designed to be general, a basic grounding in current medical practice. Any specialisation would have occurred in an individual career path. Such was not Killeens, and so I think it safe to assume that the study of weaponry didn't especially grab him.

And it's still kind of besides the point, because Killeen was a young, inexperienced recent graduate, and not a knife wounds expert - how did he have the time, eh?

And it's still kind of besides the point, because the real point is, as I know I'm hardly alone in stressing - that Killeen didn't know exactly what kind, or how many weapons had been used to kill Tabram. He made an educated assessment, which must be seen in context to have any meaning or value in the present discussion.

Since Killeen's statements were qualified (how many more times) it isn't even a question of him being wrong or right. I'm afraid that whilst the possibility that Tabram was a ripper victim could not have been considered at the time, it has been a real possibility since. No getting away from it.

And Killeen's opinion isn't enough to hang a sausage on - let alone a lone serial killer or a couple of naughty soldiers.

[Sally]

As Sally pointed out,It is the quality and quantity of experience one has,that determines an ability to give professional opinion.Kileen practised as a GP

Exactly so, Harry. And as you have deomontrated, it is quite possible for a penknife to have been the single weapon that was used to kill Tabram.

I'm always baffled by the tendency of some to cling to history as if it is somehow sacrasanct. People were just the same - just as fallible in the past as they are today, Just because a thing was written down in olden times it doesn't become embued with special power to be right.

[Wickerman]

....The size of the wounds are not known,so we are left with what was said....

Precisely Harry, "not known by US", but "known by Killeen".
So on what basis can anyone, over a century later, realistically try to second guess the person who DID see the wounds?

Whether a similar knife has penetrated a breastbone in other cases is beside the point. The second "implement" was longer than the first. The profile (silhouette) of the blade as it penetrated, separated or shattered the bone is also part of the determination, a fact which you seem to casually sidestep.

Simple logic,suggesting one weapon,and based in part on what Kileen himself reported.

Simple logic?
The same "simple logic" that would determine Emma Smith was only attacked by "one man"?, and not three men?
Based on your "simple logic" that evidence of only one weapon was used on her, a blunt instrument?
So much for "simple logic".

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

The second "implement" was longer than the first.

You don't know this. The first implement may have been the longer or the longer blade may have been inserted simultaneously with all the others, one by each assailant, making a whole platoon responsible. Or...it was one long blade what dun 'em all.

Mike

[Wickerman]

You don't know this. The first implement may have been the longer or the longer blade may have been inserted simultaneously with all the others, one by each assailant, making a whole platoon responsible. Or...it was one long blade what dun 'em all.

Mike

Oh right, the killer may have held the knife by the blade thereby shortening its penetrating depth.......38 TIMES! (good grief!)



No, of course "I" don't know that, but I can read.

"There was a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife. The large wound could be caused by a sword bayonet or dagger."

Deep! (deeper than the penknife).
Large! (larger than the penknife).

Howzat! ....for "simple logic"?

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

Jon,

You're avoiding my initial statement that you don't know that the second implement was longer. It may have been the first implement and the other stabs after that, a smaller implement.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, it doesn’t. It depends entirely on the reason given, in each case, for the two-weapon hypothesis."

Aha. Interesting. And not exactly what you said in your earlier post: "No, not because I say so, but because the two knife scenario – the one that supposedly involved 37 stabs with a inferior knife followed by one stab with a better knife that could have been used from the get-go – just isn’t very logical. "

See what I mean? You stated that it was not "very logical" to acc+pt two weapons. And that was of course wrong - it is the more common thing statistically, but that has nothing to do with logic. If two weapons were used, then that was not because it was logic or not. It was casespecific, and as such not related to logic at all.
John F Kennedy was shot in November 1963. He was not shot in any of the preceding months of his life. Does that make it illogical when he WAS shot? I donīt think so. And the fact that he statistically was never once shot and killed before in his life, what impact did that have in November?

Should the doctors at the Dallas hospital have ruled him alive and unharmed? Should we deny that he was killed, claiming that it defied logic?

That is not how it works, Ben, other than in your weird, unsubstantiaded, unevidenced proposition.

"Exactly, he’d been offering his opinion only, not “asserting” something as fact, and not being “adamant” about it either. It all boils down to “thinking”"

I think you are dead wrong. And guess how sure I am about that! Discussion over.

"It could not have created the sternum wound if “weapon number one” was a penknife, but here again, he was offering opinion only."

Yes, he was. Whether it was a penknife or not depended on the handle of the weapon, and he did not have that. So he could only opine that it could have been a penknife. You see, Killeen did not jump to conclusions as some of us do. He did however, as can be understood by reading for example the East London Observer, state firmly that it was "no doubt" a pocketknife. And YES, penknives and pocketknives are different weapons, but it should not be too much of an intellectual challenge to understand in what way a pen- and a pocketknife are similar. A hint - it has to do with the blade.

"Because the evidence did not allow for any concrete conclusion"

And still you claim, blindfolded as you are as to what the wounds look like, that it is more probable that Killeen was wrong...? Remarkable achievement, Ben.

"If my auntie had bollocks she’d be my uncle, remember? "

No I donīt remember your aunt. But I DO remember the bollocks.

" Don’t keep saying “it would have been in the post-mortem report”. You don’t know that at all. "

Letīs just say that I a lot more certain of THAT than you may be that Killeen was "probably wrong". For this IS what post-mortem reports concern themselves with.

"But the "work" in this case was less concerned with medical knowledge and more concerned with weaponry"

Only if you think measuring wounds amounts to weaponry.

"On matters of opinion, yes. But he regards it as a fact, as I do, that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim, because it is."

It "is" nothing of the kind, Iīm afraid, and you will have to resign yourself to that. I ran a little check on things yesterday, and just like I thought, it is obvious that it was the press and not the police that counted Emma Smith into the murder tally. We have it on record that when Matthews asked for a report on the murders relating to the Ripper series in October 1888, he was sent material dealing with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. NOT Smith! Thus it seems (see how I say "seems" instead of claiming that it is proven or a fact?) that the police regarded Tabram as the first POTENTIAL Ripper killing. And in that context, why would not Abberline say that it was a remarkable coincidence that Chapman lived in George Yard for some time? It would have BEEN such a coincidence, no matter if Tabram was or was not a true Ripper victim. Noone knew, remember?
Just look at the phrasing if it was made from the negative perspective in this aspect:

"No matter if Tabram was a Ripper victim or not, it remains an odd coincidence that Chapman actually lived in the very street where she was killed."

Are you having any trouble at all to see the relevance in such a sentence? Iīm not, thatīs for sure.

By the way, since you say about Sugdens opinions that you may disagree with him "On matters of opinion, yes. But he regards it as a fact, as I do..."

...you may need to realize one of the things that Sugden regards as a fact: "Tabramīs murderer used two weapons, a pen-knife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or bayonet." (Sugden, p 34)

Of course, Sugden words this in a way that leaves it very open to interpretations.

Or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fisherman, you THINK you are right. You probably WANT to think this too. Wish it, sort of. The snag is that it is not proven at all. I'm sorry for your sake, I really am, but there you go."

Yes, you are correct: I DO think I am right. And I do hope so too, since a medico put his reputation on line by stating it. You should not be sorry for me, though, since in this contest that you suggest, itīs me and Killeen against you. Say no more ...

" What I do object to is the constant over-egging of Killeen's pudding."

And the fact that you are rejecting his evidence and expertise and education does not bother you at all...?No objections there? THAT is okay, but to put faith in him is not?

" Killeen didn't know exactly what kind, or how many weapons had been used to kill Tabram. He made an educated assessment"

Uneducated is more what it sounds like, according to you, Sally. If it was educated, why would it be wrong?
And no, no doctor who only has a wound to go by will know exactly what weapon it comes from. Does that baffle you in any way?
But most if not all qualified doctors will be able to tell what TYPE and SIZE of weapon it was that made the damage anyway! Especially if they are able to make educated assessments.
And they are, thatīs why they are doctors.

"Once more (with feeling) he made qualified statements, not definitve ones. This means that he was guessing. Estimation, Speculating, call it what you will. Essentially it's the same thing."

Get yourself a dictionary, Sally, and get to know these words more intimately. They are related, but not the same, see? And "guesswork" was not Killeens line of work. It was estimations, as exact such ones that could be made. It was professionalism, not guessing away. Show the man some respect, that is my advice to you. But I estimate (not guess) you wonīt take it. You prefer to - baselessly - smear him and belittle his work. It is in cases like that I fell itīs a sad thing that itīs a free world. It opens up for indecencies that really should be hindered. But there you are!

Guess, bt the way, why a coroner never asks professional witnesses to come forward and make a guess? Could it be because such a thing would be extremely respectless. Still, Sally, this is what YOU do. And not because you know the appearance of the evidence. You donīt even do that, but that does not hinder you, does it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

" on what basis can anyone, over a century later, realistically try to second guess the person who DID see the wounds?"

I will answer that for you, Jon, since I feel nobody else will: They cant. And the fact that they do just that just the same, only tells us that they choose not to care at all about realism.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

For what it's worth, I don't like the "probably wrong" idea either. "Possibly wrong"? Sure.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Jon,

You're avoiding my initial statement that you don't know that the second implement was longer. It may have been the first implement and the other stabs after that, a smaller implement.

Mike

I'm not particularly interested in which weapon was used first, simply that one weapon was longer than the other. No-one today can reasonably insist which came first, we can all offer opinions, but nothing more than that.

If (IF) the smaller wounds bled to any significant degree then this is a reasonable indication that the smaller wounds came first, while her heart was still beating.
This is the only indication I can imagine Killeen would have used when he claimed that "all" of the wounds were inflicted during life. Obviously, therefore, the final stab was with the "longer" instrument through the heart, which caused her death.
Which is what I meant by the "second implement was longer", but I think you know this.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I never suggested that those who accept the two-weapon hypothesis weren’t applying logic. I said that the actual scenario, popularly associated with Tabram and the two weapons, isn’t very logical. Stab, stab, stab, stab, stab with crap knife…oh, wait, I’ve had this good knife with me all along! Not impossible, just illogical. Your mileage may very, but I have a far easier time accepting that one weapon was used, as is the case with the infinitely vast majority of stab murders, than I do an implausible scenario involving two weapons. Your Kennedy analogy was so shockingly unrelated to anything I’ve said or even vaguely hinted at that it’s not worth addressing, and NO, do not attempt to explain it any further as it’ll waste time and make it worse.

Kileen’s testimony was reported differently in various newspapers. Some quoted him as citing an “ordinary knife” as the offending weapon for the majority of the wounds. In other press accounts, he is more specific. Whatever the wounds communicated with regard to the blade supposedly involved in creating them, they were not of a nature to set them apart conclusively from the sternum wound.

As for Abberline's thoughts on Tabram, yes, it appears that the popular police perception at the time was that she was, in all likelihood, a victim of the “Whitechapel murderer”. In fact, the only dissenting police voice of any seniority was that of Macnaghten, writing six years after the murder, and it would be ludicrous to champion his view over those of all his contemporaries. With the discovery of the memoranda, the “canonical” idea became popular for a time, but I can't imagine that's the case today. Abberline cited the George Yard detail as a perceived “plus” in favour of Klosowski being the Jack the Ripper, but if he didn’t think Tabram was killed by Jack the Ripper aka Klosowski, the George Yard connection would not be a “plus”, would it? It wouldn’t be “extremely remarkable”. It wouldn’t be a coincidence in favour of his candidacy. In short, it would be a complete non-issue.

Of course nobody “knew”, but Abberline’s comments make clear at least that he was of the opinion that Tabram was part of the series. So that’s that I’m going to “resign myself”, thanks, but I’ll permit you to disagree.

“...you may need to realize one of the things that Sugden regards as a fact: "Tabramīs murderer used two weapons, a pen-knife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or bayonet."

But not even Kileen himself thought that was a fact.

It was amazingly petty of you, incidentally, to accuse Sally of “smearing” Kileen and “belittling” his work. Citing a biological, anatomical reality such as Kileen’s relative youth and inexperience is not even vaguely critical. It is a basic truth that may well have impacted upon his judgment with regard to Tabram. Nor is it an “indecency” to highlight the lack of evidence suggesting that he had any detailed knowledge of weaponry, which wasn’t even a requirement for a doctor anyway. The only person belittling anybody - "get yourself a dictionary" - is you, and the most audacious thing of all is that you regret the fact that Sally can’t be “hindered” from expressing her opinion!

Absolutely unbelievable.

[Sally]

Ho Ho Ho...

Get yourself a dictionary, Sally, and get to know these words more intimately. They are related, but not the same, see? And "guesswork" was not Killeens line of work. It was estimations, as exact such ones that could be made. It was professionalism, not guessing away. Show the man some respect, that is my advice to you. But I estimate (not guess) you wonīt take it. You prefer to - baselessly - smear him and belittle his work. It is in cases like that I fell itīs a sad thing that itīs a free world. It opens up for indecencies that really should be hindered. But there you are!

See now Fisherman, THAT'S what over-egging the pudding is. I'm sure you know perfectly well that I haven't shown Killeen any disrespect - the idea is preposterous, much like this thread. It did make me laugh though

Citing a biological, anatomical reality such as Kileen’s relative youth and inexperience is not even vaguely critical. It is a basic truth that may well have impacted upon his judgment with regard to Tabram

Quite so, Ben - and no amount of dissembling is going to change the FACT.

And thanks for the support

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"For what it's worth, I don't like the "probably wrong" idea either. "Possibly wrong"? Sure."

Heureka, Mike! Thanks for applying some much needed sense!

The best,
Fisherman