Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

The only persons that show disrespect to Killeen are actually...who we know.
Those who know more than Killeen.
Those who know there were two weapons.
One being a penknife, the other a dagger with two cutting edges.
This, they know. But Killeen did not.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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!"

"Popularly" ...? Wow.

You know, Ben, I think most people realize that multiple stabbings are normally carried out with just the one weapon. But as I have said before, this case is specific, and will not adjust to anyones wishes about getting in the line statistically.
And as long as we realize this, we can start to look at some possible and quite uncontroversial reasons for using two weapons.
Let´s begin with the assumption that it was only one killer who stabbed Tabram. Now, Killeen said that she lived throughout the stabbings, and that would mean, I take it, that none of the smaller wounds were immediately killing.
Killeen reasoned thus - but the killer would not have had the benefit of assessing exactly what damage the smaller stabs had made. Reasonably, if had stabbed away in a frenzy with a smallish blade, such as a penknife, he would not have had any chance to know whether Tabram was dead or not, and that would have meant that she potentially could have survived, at least long enough to spill the beans. Therefore, if the killer had access to another, larger weapon, he may have reasoned that he needed to ensure death in order to save himself, and that would have been enough to explain it all.
If we further make the assumption that it was a soldier who did Tabram in, then he may well have had a sword bayonet, and just like you say, that is an "unwieldy" weapon, so it would not be the best choice for a fast, 37 stab flurry.

But there is no need to settle for just the one killer, is there? Two weapons could also imply tandem killers. And if this was the case - which it perfectly well may be - it would have been strange if they took turns with the same weapon, would it not?

And although two killers are statistically more rare than one, it is in no way unusual as such. The examples are many. And in the case of Tabram - still as case-specific as ever - we have no idea how many people were present on that landing.

So there you are - two very simple and uncontroversial suggestions that makes your troubles go away.

"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."

We don´t HAVE to listen to the papers in this regard, Ben. Killeen was adamant in pointing out that the weapon that caused the narrow wounds could not cause the deeper one at the sternum. It is already a done deal. And if we DO take an interest in the papers, we find only corroboration: "certainly, much the largest and deepest" wound was the sternum one. "Certainly" - that means that there was certainty. "Much the largest and deepest" means that the difference was a very marked one. Done deal. Corroborated.

"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”."

There´s that "popular" thing again. I don´t think that we have votes enough to make the call, Ben, but even if we did, it remains that - just as you point out yourself - she would have been regarded as somebody who in larger or lesser likelihood was regarded as a potential Ripper victim. And the built-in differences with no mutilation and no cut neck ensures that the police would have been a lot more doubtful about Tabram than about the pthers, even if even THEY were discussed.

Therefore, once again, all we may say it that Abberline EITHER believed that she was a Ripper victim, or he believed that she was a potential Ripper victim. And if the latter - much more sensible, at least to my mind - option applies, then we can´t tell just how much he would have invested in the option. It could have been substantial - and it could have been precious little. No matter what, it still remains that it IS a coincidence when a Ripper suspect proves to have lived in the same street as a potential Ripper victim.

And just like what happened to the suggestion of it being extremely odd if two weapons were used, the same thing now happens with this assertion of yours: Like trolls, they burst in the sun.

" I’ll permit you to disagree"

What makes you think I need any permission, Ben?

"not even Kileen himself thought that was a fact."

Enough so, apparently, to sway Sugden. And me.

And what Killeen "thought" we have already discussed: He "thought" that it could not have been the same weapon, remember?

"It was amazingly petty of you, incidentally, to accuse Sally of “smearing” Kileen and “belittling” his work."

That was due to the fact that she insisted that Killeens work was guesswork. I am not sure whether she fully understands the difference between the terms guess and opine, but I AM sure that she does not understand what a professional medico who has made a post-mortem of a murder victim does when he presents his finds at an inquest.

I am of the opinion that he informs the inquest of the resultws of the post-mortem and gives his professional opinion about what has caused the death of the victim at hand.

Sally is of the opinion that he simply guesses things.

What do YOU think, Ben? I have seen Killen pointed out as unfit to do his job, with no intellectually functioning backup at all. It is unscientific AND belittling, and I will defend that view any day in the week.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

With respect, Fisherman, I don't think anybody has claimed that Killeen was 'unfit to do his job'. I think the suggestion is a mere debating strategy on your part in an attempt to show any dissenters to your view as incompetent.

Unless you'd like to point out where anybody has claimed that Killeen was unfit?

And I understand perfectly, thank you. I just don't agree with your view on this occasion, for reasons that are quite sound and logical and have nothing whatever to do with Killeen being incompetent.

You have noticed that several people disagree with you, have you? What do you make of that? Everyone else is wrong, I take it?

[Cogidubnus]

With respect....

For what it's worth, I'm with Killeen on this one...he was there (no-one commenting here was) ...he was qualified (no-one commenting here appears to be)... he did a post mortem (no-one here did)...and he drew conclusions (funny enough everybody here seems to) - his conclusions appear to be sensibly divided into the matters he could be firm upon, and those upon which he could only express an opinion...the coroner (a man not totally enamoured of the medical profession, it seems) praised his presentation of the evidence...

Frankly, unless you can outright prove the doctor wrong, you've got to think you're some kind of deity to query that sort of evidence after this many years...

[Fisherman]

David:

"The only persons that show disrespect to Killeen are actually...who we know.
Those who know more than Killeen.
Those who know there were two weapons.
One being a penknife, the other a dagger with two cutting edges.
This, they know. But Killeen did not."

Aha! So you mean that telling us that he was unsuited for the job - like you have done - is NOT disrespectful, whereas believing in what Killeen said IS? My, David - it is a strange world we are living in, is it not?

Sally:

"With respect, Fisherman, I don't think anybody has claimed that Killeen was 'unfit to do his job'."

It has been suggested that he was not up to the task when in came to handling the Tabram case, and that is what I dislike. It owes very much to the fact that this is mere conjecture.

You should listen to Mike, who sensibly admits that conjecture is what you are presenting. He also makes the very fair point that conjecture may have been born out of much thinking, which is very true. He also points out that Killeen may have been more or less wrong, which is ALSO a very fair point, and he adds that this is as far as it goes - when it lands in a proposition that the more probable view is that Killeen WAS wrong, it has gone too far.

That is what is on offer for the moment. It may change in the future, but as it stands, this is the end of the road you´ve embarked upon.

"You have noticed that several people disagree with you, have you? What do you make of that? Everyone else is wrong, I take it?"

Everybody who disagrees with me that Killeen was probably right is basing their stance on no evidence at all. That does not mean that they must be wrong. It only means that they have nothing to show for their suggestion.
Those who agree with me, on the other hand, have Killeen, the papers, Reid; all thsee sources that comment on the suggestion of two weapons, do so in favour of the suggestion. That does not mean that we must be right, it only means that we have a lot to show for OUR suggestion.

Put in other words, your suggestion is what normally goes under the name "no-starter" on these boards.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Yawn..

Fish.

It's ALL conjecture. All of it.

And again - who says 'Killeen was wrong'? Where? I must have missed that, too.

Granted, several people have suggested that Killeen may have been wrong (which you've just admitted yourself). May have been, not Was. That's an exaggeration.

Unless you'd like to point out where anybody said 'Killeen was Wrong'?

[Wickerman]

With respect, Fisherman, I don't think anybody has claimed that Killeen was 'unfit to do his job'.

Oh I think Dave would give you an argument on that point

I'm sorry, but the medics have proved to be incompetent (no surprise, Killeen, for example, wasn't a forensic expert), and worse : misleading (Phillips/Abberline 1903, for example).

....There was a knife, and a medic that would have been perfect if Martha had caught a cold. But it was more serious.

Hi Niko, Killeen was as qualified to make this post-mortem as was my music teacher to conduct Mahler 5th with the Wiener Philarmoniker.

Sorry Dave, your posts do not appear to be so memorable, or is it Sally's selective memory?


Ok, just teasing, ladies & gents...

[Cogidubnus]

Jon

You do seem though to have captured the essence of what was being said...Killeen was undoubtedly being quietly and shiftily assassinated...bit like...no!...got it!... Ben...your great great grandad wasn't in London in 1888 was he?

[Wickerman]

Jon

You do seem though to have captured the essence of what was being said...Killeen was undoubtedly being quietly and shiftily assassinated...bit like...no!...got it!... Ben...your great great grandad wasn't in London in 1888 was he?

What I find slightly amusing is they seem to think they speak for the majority.


There's an ongoing lack of respect for those who were directly involved.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

There's an ongoing lack of respect for those who were directly involved.

Not on my part there isn't. Only an unwillingness to accept everything I read at face value, in isolation, or out of context, or without considering it for myself.

In what way does that represent a lack of respect, exactly?

[Ben]

“But as I have said before, this case is specific, and will not adjust to anyones wishes about getting in the line statistically.”

But that’s precisely what you’ve been trying to do very unsuccessfully, Fisherman – “getting in the line statistically”. You’ve asserted that since doctors are statistically correct more often than they are mistaken, we should err on the side of statistics and accept that Kileen was correct. Unfortunately, this is completely trumped and thus utterly nullified by the fact that stab victims are statistically more likely to have been attacked by one weapon than two or more. Moreover, doctors making mistakes is a far more frequently occurring phenomenon than multi-weapon stabbers.

“Therefore, if the killer had access to another, larger weapon, he may have reasoned that he needed to ensure death in order to save himself, and that would have been enough to explain it all.”

That’ll be the weapon he could have used from the outset, presumably? So all this stabbing that he engaged in with the "smallish blade"; the one that was failing to kill Martha Tabram, and which was causing him untold panic over the possibility of his victim surviving and dobbing him in – he could have avoided these problems by using his bigger, better weapon from the beginning of the attack? He had the option, and chose to use the crapper one. What a silly, silly sausage he must have been to make such an oversight. Really. Doesn't that seem a tinsy bit far-fetched to anyone? I’m reminded of those tacky Power Rangers (or whatever) programs. “Oh no, our special powers will never get us out of this. It’s over, guys. Oh no, wait, maybe if we use our super-special-amazing powers! Hey, it works!”.

No, I’m not going to make the assumption that a sword bayonet was used. It clearly wasn’t, as was made clear in the Home Office document. If it was an unwieldy, unlikely weapon for the multiple stab wounds, it was an equally poor candidate for the sternum wounds, as Bob Hinton observed in his book.

As for the double-killer, two-knife idea, I can’t help but wonder why Sergeant Stab was supplied with a lovely “long, strong instrument” while Corporal Cutter had to be content with a puny pocket-knife.

I’m afraid your suggestions, far from making my “troubles go away”, are more perplexing than ever.

“Killeen was adamant in pointing out that the weapon that caused the narrow wounds could not cause the deeper one at the sternum”

No, definitely not. That is factually incorrect. There’s that “adamant” word again that you keep misusing. There is no evidence that Kileen was "adamant" about any of his opinions – and that was what they were, opinions. What you mean to say is that the weapon that he suspected of causing the narrow wounds could not cause the deeper one at the sternum. The distinction is a crucial one.

"Certainly" - that means that there was certainty”

He was certain that one of the wounds was “much the largest and the deepest” – that’s all he was certain of. But one of a series of wounds can “certainly” be larger and deeper than the others and still be inflicted by the same weapon.

“Therefore, once again, all we may say it that Abberline EITHER believed that she was a Ripper victim, or he believed that she was a potential Ripper victim.”

They were all “potential” ripper victims, though, weren’t they? Even Eddowes and Chapman were suspected by a doctor and a coroner as having been killed by different people. There was no certainty. In the case of Abberline, however, his feelings about Tabram’s inclusion in the “ripper’s" tally are beyond rational dispute. Had it been otherwise, he would never have cited the George Yard connection as a pro on favour of Klosowski having been the ripper.

“That was due to the fact that she insisted that Killeens work was guesswork.”

But that’s precisely what it was. An opinion arrived at in the absence of all the necessary information. It may be educated, professional guesswork, but that’s all that it amounted to. If this misunderstanding was the basis of the disparaging remarks you hurled at Sally, you ought to apologise.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Not on my part there isn't. Only an unwillingness to accept everything I read at face value, in isolation, or out of context, or without considering it for myself.

In what way does that represent a lack of respect, exactly?

Well, speaking for myself, I have never called a witness a liar.

[Ben]

Frankly, unless you can outright prove the doctor wrong, you've got to think you're some kind of deity to query that sort of evidence after this many years...

So do you think Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people, Cogs?

Do you think Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00?

I only ask because if you don't accept either of these proposals, I guess you must be "some kind of deity", at least according to you.

Unfortunately, if your suggestion is that everything the 1888 doctors said must be correct unless we can "prove" them wrong, you'll end up in one heck of a pickle when contemplating ripper-related matters. It would mean Eddowes and Chapman were killed by the same AND different people, Kelly was killed between 1.00 and 2.00 AND after 5.00, Eddowes was killed by someone who deliberately sought a kidney, but had no design on any particular organ, and so on.

Can't say I envy being a "deity", if that's the case.

Edit: "it was an equally poor candidate for the sternum wound", I meant, of course.

[harry]

Jon,
What has Emma Smith's attack have in common with that on Martha Tabram.The weapons were different,and Smith was able to attest in part to her attackers.There is no comparison between the blunt instrument and a knife,but there is comparison between a weapon such as a knife used in one crime and a weapon such as a knife used in another.I am not sidestepping anything.I have argued that a penknife can pierce the sternum.Tabrams sternum was pierced.A penknife could have done it,or are you argueing such an occurance in Tabrams case was impossible?Kileen himself states the other wounds could have been caused by a penknife type weapon.I am tired of hearing but "you weren't there".I wasn't at Waterloo either,but I have a fair idea of the weapons used and the injuries sustained.

[Cogidubnus]

Was it Sergeant Stab and Corporal Cutter, or was it Corporal Cutter and Private Prick?