Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Cogidubnus]

As you will David!

Let's agree to differ

Dave

[Wickerman]

That's true. I think the general presumption here is that a single killer wouldn't use two knives - one weapon = one killer; two weapons = two naughty soldiers. Most people, I think, would agree that as a sensible assumption.

If you want a single killer using more than one weapon you have to explain why. Not impossible, but intrinsically unlikely.

Ah, the dreaded assumption...
The idea that one man would not carry two different knives is based on what?

Suspect John Foster, arrested on suspicion..
"A clasp knife was found on him, and in a bag were three razors, two knives, and a number of watchmakers' appliances."

Suspicious character in Bulls Head Public House..
"...the parcel the latter fell to the floor, revealing three knives of the kind usually used by butchers. The knives were examined, and found to measure, 20, 14 and 10 inches respectively,.."

Another suspicious character..
"..The man arrested at Holloway has been removed to the asylum at Bow. His friends give him an indifferent character. He has been missing from home for nearly two months, and it is known that he has been in the habit of carrying several large butchers' knives about him."

Evidently, not so unusual.


A user of knives knows how soon they go dull. This must surely have happened with the Kelly murder. If we are dealing with a killer who uses knives regularly then he will very likely carry more than one knife.
Add to this the fact that different weapons were described by the various doctors who carried on their post-mortems on all the Ripper victims.
The same weapon was not used in each case, so if it was the same killer, then why argue that he would not carry more than one knife?

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Without knowing the full story,I wouldn't try to understand a person carrying a number of Knives,and so wouldn't know whether it was unusual for that particular person.However a penknife in those days was both a working and social implement,used for a number of purposes.A dagger was not so common.Besides if the killer began his attack with the stab to the heart,knowing this would kill,would he not know it could also stab through other parts of the body..So why take and use a penknife?

[DVV]

Sugden made a sensible remark ages ago, pointing out the similarities of the Millwood and Tabram cases.
"Both women", he said, "could easily have encountered the same man."

Millwood has been attacked by a stranger with a clasp-knife.

[Sally]

A user of knives knows how soon they go dull. This must surely have happened with the Kelly murder. If we are dealing with a killer who uses knives regularly then he will very likely carry more than one knife.
Add to this the fact that different weapons were described by the various doctors who carried on their post-mortems on all the Ripper victims.
The same weapon was not used in each case, so if it was the same killer, then why argue that he would not carry more than one knife?

Fair enough Jon, 'suspicious characters' might carry more than one knife. None of your examples were murderers though, were they? Since you seem to have all this information at your disposal, how many cases of killers using two knives do you know of? That would be interesting.

In Tabram's case, Harry has shown that a penknife could have penetrated the sternum - one weapon could have killed her. On the other hand, if suspicious characters routinely carried a plethora of knives on them, what militates against Tabram being a Ripper double-knife event?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You continue to misunderstand. If any of the wounds were still in contention for the Tabram murder, the Home Office document would have alluded to them."

Iīm afraid thereīs no misunderstanding on my behalf at all, Ben. And I really donīt think that you should take it upon yourself to try and establish what the Home Office would or would not have said. You do the same with Killeen: "If he had seen two cutting edges, he would have said so", but this is not a fruitful suggestion.
Now, how can I say this? I can say this because we can very clearly see that the annotations are anything but generous when it comes to the amount of information we are offered. One would, for example, have expected them to inform us that Eddowes had her throat cut and that she suffered a long gash,extending from breastbone to the groin, just as it would have been valuable to learn that she was the first victim to have her face mutilated. This, I take it, you agree with? If it had been left out, then with your way of thinking, one could say that this never happened, since the Home Office would have provided information about things like these.

And did they? Hereīs the relevant part:
"Cath. Eddowes 30.9.88 1.44 a.m. Mitre Square near Leadenhall St. City
missing
left kidney & uterus*"

What the Home Office would have alluded to or not is written in the stars. What they DID furnish on Eddowes was very little, leaving any reader totally uniformed about almost all of the vital information as regards the damages done.

Then again, maybe that was for the best. For when the Home Office took the trouble to write a little more, like they did about Nichols, they got it all woefully wrong, did they not? They were also lagging behind seriously as to the development after the murder, speaking of a left-handed killer and so on.

Like I asked before: who would invest anything in a report like this one, a report that very clearly is uninformed at best, and misinformed at other occasions? Why would we use it at all? Of course, like Hunter said in a post before, commenting on this very report, a broken clock is correct twice a day - but how do we know when those occasions are at hand?

No, these annotations must be brandished for what they are - a useless source, by and large. The gleaned information that a bayonet was to SOME extent ruled out for SOME of the wounds, is to SOME extent corroborated by the Star article from the 24th of August, since it ALSO says that there were wounds (plural) that were originally thought to have come from a bayonet. But all in all, it is flimsy information, quite possibly wrongful ditto or at the very least confused, and so itīs best thrown on the scrapheap.

"That none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been bayonet inflicted can be inferred from two things:
1) A refutation of the bayonet theory for “some” of the wounds.
2) The complete non-reference to any other wounds for which the bayonet might still be in contention."

It does not work, Ben. It just doesnīt. A non-reference is not a reference. One might easily point to another, just as viable, passage that was never there, but MAY have been. Herīs the annotations with an addition of mine, that I fail to see how we can exclude:
"Some of the narrow wounds were initially suggested to have been made by a bayonet. This owed to the fact that there were officials who thought it odd that two weapons had been used. But as the wounds were closer examined, a bayonet was ruled out for them. The larger hole, though, was never questioned in this respect, since it was clear from the beginning that this had been caused by a long, strong instrument such as a bayonet or some closely related sort of dagger."

Much as this flies in the face of your thinking, Ben, I think it is only fair to admit that it may be very relevant. And the sparsity of the annotations tell us that we cannot allow ourselves to say that they would have been explicit in one are when we know they were anything but it in another.
There is a Swedish rockstar called Ulf Lundell, who once claimed that a cancelled gig is also a gig, but you may take it from me that non-references are not references!

"He lacked the proof, as we all do, but he evidently considered it probable that Tabram was not only a ripper victim, but also the first of the ripper’s victims."

The one who is lacking proof here is you. Abberline would have belived it POSSIBLE that she was a Ripper victim, since he mentioned the coincidence. "Probable" does not enter the equation. And it was quite enough for Abberline to rate Tabram as a possible victim - for after that, there was a potentially almighty relevance in Chapmanīs staying in George Yard. The matters coincided, but coincidence is contradictory to proven connection, just like a non-reference is not a reference. We cannot allow ourselves to jump the gun like this, least of all when we are criticized for it and given a good reason to realize that we may - and that is "may" - be wrong.

Of course, if my suggestion applies and if Abberline only acknowledged that Tabram was POTENTIALLY a Ripper victim, then it also applies that we cannot rate how keen he was on the suggestion. But the keener he was to finger Chapman, the more the possibility increases that he WOULD mention the coincidence with George Yard, no matter how sure or unsure he was about Martha being one of Jacks!

Please tell me that you can follow this line of thinking, Ben!

"But in that instance, I would revise my stance and incorporate Emma Smith into the ripper’s likely tally, and I’m sure Abberline would have done too. Think about it. Imagine I’m confronted with a suspect – let’s say Klosowski – who ticks all the boxes, and was seen drinking (as per your idea) on Osbourne Street on the night of Emma Smith’s death. That “coincidence” would be more than sufficient to revise me view about Smith not being a ripper victim. Such a revelation would convert a potential ripper victim into a likely one."

It would certainly give Abberline a paus. But if he still decided that "Nah, that was probably a High Rip gang, it does not bear the hallmarks of a Ripper killing at all!", then what would he call Chapmanīs presence in Osborne Street? Correct - a mere coincidence. As for the comparison with Tabram, we must remember that that coincidence never involved any exact placing at any exact time, making that a lot less worth than the suggested Smith/Chapman scenario.

"... the likely work of one and the same man, Fisherman, according to Abberline at least."

Iīm afraid, Ben, that you need to find a direct qoutation from Abberline to substantiate this. Do we or do we not have it on record that Abberline ever said that Tabram was likely a Ripper victim? You know that the answer is no on that score, Ben. And we canīt state that including a victim as potentially belonging to Jackīs tally means that it is awarded a status as a likely one. All we can say is that if Tabram was included in a group like this, then she was so because she was POTENTIALLY a Ripper victim, nothing more.

"The “widespread belief” that a soldier may have been responsible for the Tabram murder only existed in the immediate aftermath of the event."

Not really - I have seen for example Stewart Evans promote such a belief. And that was a VERY stiff hundred years after the deed. But if there is any evidence that the suggestion was dropped, Iīd like to see it. But NOT in the form of a confused and uniformed Home Office report.

"I really wouldn’t have wasted time pointing out the errors in the Home Office document."

Why would it be a waste to point out when a report is riddled with errors? Donīt you think that it has any bearing on how much faith we should put in it? I know I do, and I suspect very many others use the same approach when choosing which sources to rely in.

"We’re all perfectly aware that they exist, just as we’re all perfectly aware that some glaring errors crept into the Abberline interview currently under discussion, but you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater in that case any more than you should in this one."

The problem arises when we canīt tell what is baby and what is bathwater. And that problem increases very much when somebody claims that he is in the unique position of being able to make the distinctions for us, without being able to show why this would be the case.

"We don’t need your commentary on what those errors are either. The document was reproduced in full on another thread, and anyone with any knowledge of the crimes will be able to spot those errors."

Since I think that "we" in this case potentially encompasses both seasoned ripperologists and any newcomers on the case, I fail to see your point. But I realize that you prefer not to have the errors reproduced, and I can sympathise in some sense: It is never amusing when somebody points out that you are using muddled, confusing, error-riddled sources to try and make a point that has no other reliable and useful source behind it. Still, it must be done.

"The revision of the bayonet theory was wholly unrelated to any of the errors they made regarding Nicholls’ wounds."

Cherry-picking, I believe, is the term applied to reasoning like this. You should know better, Ben. You were always going to get shot down for it, and correctly so.

"It is a trustworthy source"

With all the respect I can muster, Ben - since when are sources that get lots of things totally wrong trustworthy? Just how does that work?

As for Dew, he wrote a whole book, and got some rather insignificant details wrong, fifty years after the murders. The general consensus remains that it was a remarkable feat to do so, and that the source is a very useful one. You are welcome to apply any stance of yours, but that wonīt change the overall verdict, I think. You may also recall that there was a thread devoted to finding mistakes in the text, that brought forward a decidedly VERY limited little collection of insignificant errors.

But Dew is for another thread, at any rate! This thread is for the moment concerned by trying to see the relevance behind your assertion that the Home Office report was "trustworthy" in spite of the glaring mistakes and confusing information involved in it. How does that work?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fisherman - you didn't happen to vote in that poll did you?"

I did, actually. I voted FOR Tabram being a Ripper victim, for the simple reason that I believed that the evidence weighed together spoke for it at that stage. After that, as I have pointed out, I have seen material that clearly points away from one of the premises that made me vote the way I did back then - that the Tabram murder was on display for anybody being able to see the galleries on the back of George Yard buildings. I now contend that she was NOT killed on or by the outside galleries, but instead at another spot, actually rather easily determinable, deep inside the house and obscured from any onlooker on the outside.

If I was to vote today, I would say that Iīd opt for being on the fence. If I was forced to come down from it, I would land on the "not a Ripper victim" side. I consider it the best suggestion, although it can be reasoned the other way too.

This is how I work, Sally. I try and weigh the evidence, and when new evidence surfaces, or when I learn something that I have not known before, I adjust accordingly.

I actually look forward to future changes in my stance on the Ripper case, for the very simple reason that the only thing that can bring it about is added evidence or a perceived better understanding on my behalf. And both are good things.

Canīt say that I see any such evidence arriving any time soon, pointing to Killeen being wrong about the two weapon assertion, though. But hey, stranger things have happened, so I leave the door ajar.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

I would have to agree with you here. At one time I thought Tabram was a JTR victim. Now, though I think it more likely one man killed her with one knife. I think it also possible that she was done in by two men. Either way, I don't see any similarities of any kind between her death and any others. Of course the one knife theory makes it more arguable. Take that out of the equation and it's back to agenda, I'm afraid. It is good to change one's mind as new, important thought develops... much like when Sam realized how overwhelming the evidence was for Hutch and Hutch to be the same man and changed his mind.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Mike. What you say here should be complimented by a guilded frame and hung on the walls of every ripperologist, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

much like when Sam realized how overwhelming the evidence was for Hutch and Hutch to be the same man and changed his mind.

Mike

Mike, I wonder how overwhelming is the evidence that Tabram has been killed by two men, or/and that two weapons were used.
That was not the opinion of most police officials, nor that of the contemporary press (with the exception of the Evening News), and it's even not that of the majority today. "She should, perhaps, be placed in the canon", Paul Begg concludes.
The possibility remains, of course, but no more than in the other cases. There may have been killers and two knifes in Hanbury Street, Mitre Square, Miller's Court, so that (remote) possibility cannot even exclude Tabram from the series.

[Abby Normal]

JtR was probably the type of person to carry a clasp or pen knife on him at all times, even before he started murdering. If Ada Wilson and Millwood were ripper victims, and I think there is a good chance they were, then i could envision a scenario that JtR used his pen/clasp knife on them, realized he might need something larger, so got a larger knife. When he encountered martha, in the heat of the moment resorted to habit by using the smaller knife, and then switched to the larger knife to finish her off. On later victims he then only used the larger knife. Again, in my mind, a natural progression as the Ripper was learning how to kill (and what turned him on).

[Fisherman]

Perhaps so, Abby - but there is a problem. Phillips clearly stated that he expected to see a sharp, thin knife with a longish blade after having seen the damage done to Chapman. It would have been a knife that facilitated taking the organs out by being kind of supple and giving, shapewise, I think. If you see what I mean?
The weapon that went through Tabramīs chest bone would not have been thin and supple, though. That was referred to as daggerlike, long and strong.

In this respect, much as I like your suggestion, it does not add up to my mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Mike, I wonder how overwhelming is the evidence that Tabram has been killed by two men, or/and that two weapons were used.
That was not the opinion of most police officials, nor that of the contemporary press (with the exception of the Evening News), and it's even not that of the majority today. "She should, perhaps, be placed in the canon", Paul Begg concludes.
The possibility remains, of course, but no more than in the other cases. There may have been killers and two knifes in Hanbury Street, Mitre Square, Miller's Court, so that (remote) possibility cannot even exclude Tabram from the series.

David,

In this case, no overwhelming evidence in any direction. All is possible. I was only pointing out that one may change his/her mind when presented with new evidence. In Sam's case, it was overwhelming for him.

Mike

[GregBaron]

One for each occasion...

JtR was probably the type of person to carry a clasp or pen knife on him at all times, even before he started murdering. If Ada Wilson and Millwood were ripper victims, and I think there is a good chance they were, then i could envision a scenario that JtR used his pen/clasp knife on them, realized he might need something larger, so got a larger knife. When he encountered martha, in the heat of the moment resorted to habit by using the smaller knife, and then switched to the larger knife to finish her off. On later victims he then only used the larger knife. Again, in my mind, a natural progression as the Ripper was learning how to kill (and what turned him on).

I like this suggestion Abby, a knife progression to go with an MO progression.

Phillips clearly stated that he expected to see a sharp, thin knife with a longish blade after having seen the damage done to Chapman. It would have been a knife that facilitated taking the organs out by being kind of supple and giving, shapewise, I think. If you see what I mean?

I don't think it was anything supple and giving that nearly took Chapman's head off Mr. Fisherman or ripped her guts open from sternum to genitals. This was also long and strong.

Could make a naughy pun here but I won't.

Anyway, going with Abby's suggestion, as his technique evolved perhaps he still had two knives, one a long strong knife for the kill, the other a bit more subtle for organ removal.

With that said, I still struggle with the idea of a smorgasbord of knives and the leisurely approach that it implies. It's dark, he's murdered, he's eviscerating, he can be caught at any moment, speed is of the essence - not to mention the increased logistical difficulty of carrying and cleaning multiple knives..............Just some thoughts...


Greg

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps so, Abby - but there is a problem. Phillips clearly stated that he expected to see a sharp, thin knife with a longish blade after having seen the damage done to Chapman. It would have been a knife that facilitated taking the organs out by being kind of supple and giving, shapewise, I think. If you see what I mean?
The weapon that went through Tabramīs chest bone would not have been thin and supple, though. That was referred to as daggerlike, long and strong.

In this respect, much as I like your suggestion, it does not add up to my mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

Geez Fish when someone posts something basically agreeing with your ideas, you still find something to argue about! : 0

I have no problem with the idea of a serial killer who gets his jollies dissecting, mutilating and removing organs from his victims carrying more than one knife and/or substituting, trying out different knives on different victims. So your (newly added) scenario of a different knife from Tabram to Chapman is fine by me too, although I think the same knife could have done both.

As I have said before, I think one of the rippers main motivations for these killings is his fascination with the Knife/ knives and what they can do. So it would not be too surprising that he had and used several.