Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

And how can you assert such a claim?

Because Kileen would have said so. It would have been the primary reason for his two-weapon hypothesis. Why two weapons, Doctor? Aha, because one wound was definitely not created by a knife. This never happened. The only reason he cited for the two weapons theory was the apparent length and strength of the weapon required, in his opinion, to penetrate the sternum. Size and durability, yes. Shape, no, or else he'd have specified as much.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“That is, IF it WAS a sword bayonet - which it well may have been.”

Which it very probably wasn’t, actually, according to the Home Office document, which rejected the idea that a bayonet had any involvement in the murder. If it made for an unwieldy, implausible weapon for the multiple stab wounds, it made for an unwieldy, implausible weapon for the sternum wound too. Bob Hinton, whose knowledge of weaponry is superior to ours and almost certainly Kileen’s, doesn’t consider a bayonet a very likely weapon either. I don’t dispute that soldiers may have carried clasp knives, but a sturdy clasp knife is also perfectly capable of injuring a centimetre-thick sternum.

The more you compare the sword bayonet to ancient cannons, the more you emphasize the already established reality that the former had nothing to do with any of the wounds inflicted on Martha Tabram. If the killer had a handgun and a ship’s canon, he wouldn’t use the latter at all. Just so with the pocket-knife and sword bayonet respectively.

“But if the former stabbed Tabram in a frenzy, and if the latter arrived at the scene and helped out to finish Tabram off, and dragged his frenzied partner from the scene”

So this is your preferred scenario for the Tabram murder now, is it? “Hey, Sarge, what are you doing, mate?! You’ve gone crazy! Get off her. If you want to kill a prostitute, THIS is how you should do it!”. What kindred spirits they must have become at that point. At first, they were simple chums who shared the good things in life – drink and prozzies, but in the early hours of the morning, they discover a shared affinity for homicidal mania. Maybe they both liked tennis too. Honestly, come back “Scavenger theory”, all is forgiven.

Most accounts of Kileen's evidence do not report him as having declared " no doubt" that the weapon used was an ordinary pocket knife. If you examine other sources, it it quite clear that he thought the wounds would "probably" have been caused by an "ordinary knife". It is equally clear that he was only prepared to offer his opinion that two weapons were used, instead of one. And that IS guesswork, like it or lump it. It's opining in the absence of all the facts, and nobody begrudges him that.

“But rational dispute is exactly what you have been presented with.”

Oh, is that what you thought it was? It’s just that it came across as you simply latching onto a tangential post from another member and starting a separate, unconvincing argument with me about it. Abberline was most assuredly, irrefutably citing the George Yard connection as a plus in favour of Klosowski-as-ripper. We know this because he described those perceived pluses as “remarkable”. He considered it “remarkable” that the murders continued in America after the Whitechapel murders supposedly ceased, and considered it an indication that Klosowski crossed the pond in search of more body parts to give to his American doctor. It is one example of a “coincidence” that is supposed to lend support to Klosowski-as-ripper. The George Yard connection is another one, according to Abberline.

The primary focus of the Abberline interview was the promotion of Klosowski as the likely murderer, and Abberline was citing the evidence in favour of that theory. If he did’t think Tabram was killed by Klosowsk-the-ripper, the George Yard connection means NOTHING. It’s a non-observation, a non-coincidence, non-“remarkable”, and pitiable in its utter worthlessness and irrelevance.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I agree! I think that there are exactly two people agreeing with you.

Oh Good - A Poll! Would you like to decide how the question should be phrased so that you won't find it invalid?

[Wickerman]

Because Kileen would have said so.

No he would not, this is absurd. The doctor is not required to explain himself. He is asked for his opinion and this is all he is required to give, unless requested to explain further.

When Phillips describes the weapon used on Annie Chapman, he is not required to justify his conclusions, he merely states:
"It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer."

Why not 4 inch long, or 12 inch long?, or a wide blade?, surely he would have to justify this rather precise conclusion - rubbish!

When Gordon-Brown was asked a similar question about the wounds to Eddowes, he replied:
"It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long."

No reason given, no justification necessary, why?, because he is not required to explain himself.

When Phillips, once again, was asked how long McKenzie had been dead, he offers:
"Not more than half an hour, and very possibly a much shorter time."

No questions of, "how do you know this?", why not?, because he is expected to provide his educated opinion without justification, unless specifically requested.

Your Straw-man arguments are absurd.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

No he would not, this is absurd. The doctor is not required to explain himself.

But he did explain himself.

Whether he was obliged to or not, he provided a reason for suggesting that two weapons were used, and that reason had fcuk all to do with weapon shape, number of cutting sides, or any of that nonsense. His preference for the two-weapon idea was based on the apparent length and strength of the weapon required for the sternum wound, in his opinion. Only a clueless idiot would present an inferior reason for preferring a two-weapon hypothesis when he had the opportunity to present a much better one - a reason that would establish beyond question that two knives were used. Of course he was not required to explain himself, BUT HE DID, and his explanation was not in accordance with any of that oft puked-out nonsense regarding the number of cutting edges on a knife versus a dagger.

[Wickerman]

Rubbish!, you have no idea what Killeen said, none of us do. Those paragraphs are given in the third-person, they are paraphrase, not quotes.

The press reporter condensed Killeen's explanation of which wounds were caused by the smaller weapon and which were caused by the larger weapon.
There's no explanation of how he knew a larger weapon was used, just which was caused by it.
Get a grip!

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Those paragraphs are given in the third-person, they are paraphrase, not quotes.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of a difference. The reason given for his preference for a two-weapon scenario was his impression that the sternum-wounding weapon needed to be long and strong. That's an incredibly good "idea" of what he said. His explanation has been recorded, and unfortunately, it has nothing at all do with these imaginary alternative explanations that you keep conjuring up from nowhere. Had there been a better, more substantial, more compelling reason for his preference, he would have provided it. You get a grip.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Which it very probably wasn’t, actually, according to the Home Office document, which rejected the idea that a bayonet had any involvement in the murder."

So you persist with this utter nonsense. You and I both know that the Home Office annotations SPECIFICALLY said that that SOME of THE NARROW WOUNDS were originally thought to have been caused by a bayonet. And when you say "some", guess what you mean? Exactly: "some".

It is only in your thought processes "some" means "all". It is a completely and utterly irrational stance, and I can see no other reason for it than a desperate wish not to have to admit that "some of the narrow wounds" actually MEANS some of the narrow wounds and NOT all of the wounds, including the large one. It is beyond comprehension to argue such a thing. How on earth did you arrive at such a conclusion? You could just as well claim that "pea soup" should reads "pizza".
Read my lips, Ben: "some" means "a portion of", whereas "all" means each and every one. Surely you DO know that, yes?

"So this is your preferred scenario for the Tabram murder now, is it?"

I donīt HAVE a "preferred" scenario for it, Ben. YOU have. I try to listen and learn. If I hold a conviction of "many" and am informed that "some" is what applies, I pick up on that and adjust my view accordingly.
I do not need to lock myself to any view at all. Thus I do not NEED to read "some" as "many". It is a liberating feeling, I can assure you. I own the material, instead of having it own me.

" It is equally clear ..."

But Ben, why would I trust somebody who cannot tell "some" from "all" to teach me about what is clear or not? I am a lot more discerning than that.

"We know this ..."

Donīt "we" me, Ben. I disagree very much, and I have given you a very good reason to do so. In fact, I would regard it as an intellectual duty, more or less, to realize that there are other interpretations to this then your preferred one.
You need to take some time to think things over, Ben. Surely you must accept that "coincidence" does NOT mean "proven connection"! If you and me should wear the same sort of shoes tomorrow, that would be a coincidence. But would it prove premeditation or an agreement to do so? No.

"The primary focus of the Abberline interview was the promotion of Klosowski as the likely murderer, and Abberline was citing the evidence in favour of that theory. If he did’t think Tabram was killed by Klosowsk-the-ripper, the George Yard connection means NOTHING. It’s a non-observation, a non-coincidence, non-“remarkable”, and pitiable in its utter worthlessness and irrelevance. "

Concentrate yourself, Ben. I will take you by the hand and lead you ever so gently along the road to understanding what I am talking about!

Assume that Abberline WAS convinced that Tabram was a Ripper victim. Would the correlation we are looking at be a coincidence in such a case? No, it would actually not. It would be a perfectly logical thing: Tabram was killed in George Yard, Chapman lived there, Chapman was Abberlineīs bid, so no coincidence, only a logical sequence.

Now, Ben instead assume that Abberline only considered Tabram a POTENTIAL victim of the Ripper. In fact, assume that he really did not think Tabram WAS Jacks, but he felt that he could not close the door on that possibility altogether. He thus kept it ajar, ever so slightly. And he admitted that if Tabram was not Jacks, it would still have been an almighty coincidence that she was killeed in George Yard where Chapman lived ,any which way one looked at things.
The two things coincided. They made a coincidence. Easy.

This should not be too hard to grasp, should it? I mean, I know that you favour your own solution, but I fail to see how you - or anybody - could fault my version.

BOTH versions may be true. None can be proven.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally!

After having read your last post, I have but one thing to say: Goodnight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ah, good. So Sally gets short shrift and I get the Magna Carta. Twas ever thus!

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“It is only in your thought processes "some" means "all".”

No, this wasn’t my point at all. The central bullet point that you need to take away from the Home Office document is that whichever wounds were initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted – one, some, all of them, it doesn’t matter – they were ultimately considered not to have been bayonet-inflicted. A bayonet is thus exonerated of any likely involvement in the Tabram affair, according to that annotation. The Home Office wouldn’t dream of discounting the bayonet for “some” of the wounds, whilst neglecting to mention that such a weapon was still in contention as the probable offending weapon for others. The brains of normally functioning human beings don't work like that. The Home Office bayonet-discounting annotation was only in response to that wound, or those wounds, that were initially suspected of having been inflicted by a bayonet.

“Read my lips, Ben: "some" means "a portion of", whereas "all" means each and every one.”

Don’t antagonise me with patronising and inflammatory nonsense, Fisherman. It works out badly for you every time. I’m quite aware of that oh-so-subtle distinction, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve said of suggested.

“Surely you must accept that "coincidence" does NOT mean "proven connection"!”

Ah, but unless you can’t read properly, you’ll notice I never suggested any such thing. Of course Abberline did not consider the connection “proven”, for the simple reason that he could no more prove Klosowski the ripper than he could prove Tabram a ripper victim. Abberline's central observation behind the Klosowski-related content of his 1903 interview was that he was the most likely suspect for the Whitechapel murders. He listed various details that he felt pointed towards that conclusion, and the American and George Yard connection were two such examples.

If he didn’t consider Tabram a ripper victim, he completely undermined – and made a stupid, laughable nonsense of – his reference to the George Yard/Klosowski connection. When Abberline referred to various connections, he described them as “remarkable” – remarkable in the sense that they lent weight, in his opinion, to the proposal that Klosowski was the ripper. If Tabram was not one of Jacks, the George Yard connection is irrelevant, and would be an eccentrically pointless thing to include on a list of factors in favour of Klosowski-as-ripper.

So yes, Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim, as accepted by Sugden (who therefore “faults your version” as I do), and when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder. He clearly didn’t mean the first murder in general because that would have described Emma Smith, and not Tabram.

But I’m prepared to reiterate all this forever, and I hope to goodness we can go round in endless repetitive on Abberline, Tabram and Klosowski. Let’s see if we can all outlast Ben in a battle of zealotry, prolixity and stamina. It’s such an irresistible challenge, isn’t it?

[harry]

Who are the two other people that agree with you Sally?Are there only two or was that a guess.Certainly I agree with you.I asked the question of how long a blade was needed to reach and pierce the heart.There is no indication of Kileen supplying the answer in relation to Tabram,nor indeed as Ben says,supplying details of the shape of the weapon.The only descriptions we have is given in a generalised way,could have been this could have been that.As a penetration depth through the body into the heart of only two inches ,has been given to a court.one might reasonably use that as a starting point

[Sally]

I'm not sure, Harry - that was Fisherman's guess. To me it seems quite sensible to suggest that Killeen made no definitive statements - as you say, ifs and buts. Therefore, how can anybody claim his opinion for definitely ascertained fact?

I suggested to Fisherman that we have a poll so that we could see what people thought, but he hasn't taken me up on that suggestion so far.

I can't think why.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, this wasn’t my point at all. The central bullet point that you need to take away from the Home Office document is that whichever wounds were initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted – one, some, all of them, it doesn’t matter – they were ultimately considered not to have been bayonet-inflicted."

And this is noted exactly where in the annotations? In the copy I got, it says that some of the narrow wounds were first suspected to be bayonet-inflicted. I take it that would mean that some (more than one, but certainly not all) of the narrow wounds were at some initial stage believed by somebody to have been bayonet-made. I fail to see what else it could mean. Perhaps you have a lead here?
Oh, and then it goes on to say that this initial suspicion that some (more than one but not all) of the narrow wounds were bayonet-caused, was subsequently abandoned, since "bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable".

Now WHAT can this mean? I have a suggestion. It means that the portion of smaller wounds (more than one but not all) that were mentioned in the Home Office annotations that were initially suggested as perhaps having been bayonet-inflicted, were at a later stage ruled NOT to be bayonet-inflicted. And this was due to the fact that IF they had been so, then the wounds would have displayed typical characteristics, corresponding to those brought about by bayonets.

So what do we have? We have an assertion that it was initially thought that some (more than one but not all) of the narrow wounds were perhaps bayonet-made. This suggestion was however apparently discarded later, since the wounds (more than one but not all) did not look the way bayonet-inflicted wounds do

So tell me, Ben, where do we have the assertion that a bayonet was ruled out totally in Tabramīs case? I fail to find it.
And from where did you get the very strange and awkward idea that it does not matter whether the Home Office said "some" or "all"? Since when have such information been useless?
In my book, it is very vital information. The fact that the Home Office says nothing at all about the LARGE wound, the ONLY wound stated by Killeen to have been potentially bayonet-inflicted, surely must count very much here!

"Of course Abberline did not consider the connection “proven”, for the simple reason that he could no more prove Klosowski the ripper than he could prove Tabram a ripper victim."

Ah - finally we are getting somewhere! Now letīs see how you proceed...

"Abberline's central observation behind the Klosowski-related content of his 1903 interview was that he was the most likely suspect for the Whitechapel murders."

Good, good. This is correct.

"He listed various details that he felt pointed towards that conclusion, and the American and George Yard connection were two such examples."

Invariably so, yes. But here we may need a slight distinction and a more useful wording. Abberline listed various details that he felt MAY have pointed to the conclusion you speak of. A small but vital difference, Ben! Just like you say, Abberline could not prove things, and so itīs just "may" here.

"If he didn’t consider Tabram a ripper victim, he completely undermined – and made a stupid, laughable nonsense of – his reference to the George Yard/Klosowski connection."

Yes, this is in some sense true, although you exaggerate things. If Abberline thought that Tabram could not have been a Ripper victim, then he would perhaps just have left George Yard out of the discussion.

But the question we have at hand is not a question with just two answers, Ben. It is not as if Abberline either believed Tabram was a Ripper victim, or he disbelieved it. The all-important possibility you leave out here is that Abberline may have been exactly where very many of us today are when it comes to Tabram - on the fence. Undecided, simply.

And THIS is where I need you to take a closer look! For IF he was undecided whether Tabram was Jacks or not, but felt certain that Chapman was the killer, then how would he treat the knowledge that George Chapman stayed in George Yard for some time back in those days? Would he just look away from it, or would he use it as something that POTENTIALLY pointed a finger at Chapman, the man he wanted to condemn as the Ripper himself? Do not forget that Abberline had no other potential link whatsoever between Chapman and any of the other so called Ripper victims. He could not link him to Nichols, Annie Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, could he? But he COULD produce a potential link inbetween Tabram and George Chapman.

Make the assumption, if you will, Ben, that Abberline had had information proving that George Chapman had been drinking in Osborne Street the very night Emma Smith died. Make the further assumption that Abberline was of the meaning that Smith was not a Ripper killing - but could not rule out that the Ripper HAD been one in the gang that did for Smith.
Do you for a split second believe that he would have left this potential clue out in the Gazette interview? Or would he have said that it was an almighty coincidence that Chapman actually was present at the spot where Smith died on that very night? Since his aim in the interview was - just like you acknowledge - was to finger Chapman for the Ripper killings, why would he leave out any potentially incriminating evidence against the man, especially the one clue he had that COULD connect Chapman and a potential Ripper victim?

So yes, he spoke of the "coincidence" to point his finger at Chapman - but no, that does not mean that he himself was decided in any way about Tabram. Now do you see what I am talking about?

"when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder."

The first murder in the series regarded as being the potential work of one and the same man, Ben. Please remember that there were even suspicions that Eddowes was not Jackīs. And Stride was questioned very clearly too.

Any which way we cut it, I think we would agree that if the police were to list the six victims Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly in probability order - and probabilities was all they could speak of since the killer/s were never captured - the two murders that would end up last on the list would have been Stride and Tabram. In both cases, the lack of mutilations and evisceration would be the cause. Agreed?

Furthermore, since Stride did at least have her neck cut, that would arguably put her ahead of Tabram in the race. Tabram, I feel pretty certain, would have ended up at the bottom of the list.

This was what the police would have had - a series of six killings that MAY have been carried out by the same man. There was no "canon" in them days. And of all of these killings, Tabram would arguably have been the killing that had the least supporters as being a true Ripper deed. Also because there was a widespread belief that she had fallen prey to a military man (or men).

In consequence, it would have been in no way odd for the police and itīs officials to opt for a stance where Tabram was clearly much doubted as a Ripper victim, but not discarded as one, due to the timing, the geographical connection and the victimology. To feel certain that she WAS a Ripper victim would however be a strange thing to do for a police professional. There could be no certainty at all here, and even the police officers that DID count her into the Ripperīs tally, did so by means of choice, not proof.

As for Abberline, we donīt know. He never went on record saying "I believe the Ripper killed Tabram". All he did was to point out that whichever way, it was a coincidence that Chapman and Tabram had been in place in George Yard at the approximate same stage of time. And since he tried to finger George Chapman as the Ripper, it stands to reason that he would mention it. It was the only potential - POTENTIAL - link he had to any of the potential - POTENTIAL - victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

So yes, Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim, as accepted by Sugden (who therefore “faults your version” as I do), and when Abberline wrote the “first murder”, he clearly meant the first murder in the series attributed to the Whitechapel murder. He clearly didn’t mean the first murder in general because that would have described Emma Smith, and not Tabram.

Ben, we've already learnt so much from this thread :

1- Martha was stabbed repeatedly with a penknife (whose blade couldn't be confused with another type of knives, of course)
2- But she was stabbed once with a dagger
3- All daggers have two cutting edges, and everybody knew this in 1888
4- The young Killeen, with no particular forensic knowledge nor experience, was perfectly fit for the job
4- According to Reid, Martha wasn't a Ripper victim
5- And Abberline didn't consider her a Ripper victim either, he was merely joking in 1903

Stop quibbling, accept defeat and be thankful.