Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

Kileen was qualified to pass informed judgment on the likely cause of Tabram's death, but he was no weaponologist, and as such, his medical training at college did not particularly qualify him to pronounce too weightily on that subject. Reassuringly, he did not. He expressed opinion only. I'm afraid I don't agree that Kileen's weapon-related opinion must stand in the absence of any dissenting medical voice "who was also present". Dr. Phillips had considerably more experience than Kileen, but there are few today who accept that the killer had "surgical skill" that surpassed that of Phillips himself, or that Chapman lay dead with John Richardson was cutting leather off his boot some inches away. The fact that these views of Phillips were uncontested by any other doctor who examined Chapman's body doesn't seem to have enervated the widespread acceptance that he was probably wrong, and for good reason too.

Regards,
Ben

[GregBaron]

Do some not understand intuition...?

Greg:

"my intuition is that the killer used one knife in each murder"

Great distinction there, Greg. If all were as discerning, we´d save a lot of space on the boards.

The best,
Fisherman

Is this an insult you guys? If it is, please explain it to me. As I've said, I'm not the sharpest knife in the ripper's collection...


Greg

[Ben]

Don't worry too much about Fisherman, Greg. He has a way with words that reminds me of my old geography teacher after he'd had a couple...

...of very serious car accidents.

Joking, Fisherman! Report me not.

I think Fisherman found it commendable that you merely "intuited" (very sensibly, I might add) that the ripper used one weapon when murdering prostitutes, and thought the cautious phrasing contrasted favourably with the absolutist, zealous dogma of the type shamelessly espoused by that dastardly Ben character.

Cheers,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Fair enough Jon, 'suspicious characters' might carry more than one knife. None of your examples were murderers though, were they?

How do you know?, wouldn't "Jack" fall under "suspicious characters"?

Do you expect "Jack" to walk around with "murderer" tattooed across his forehead?

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.

I'm not sure why you would ask, because you might also ask how many mutilators arrange the victims organs around their body?
Or, how many only take away a heart?, or how many killers dismember their victims and scatter limbs around London?

When we know we are dealing with rare occurances, why should you take direction from the "normal"?

If we are looking for a "nut-job", why do you then claim, "it isn't normal for "normal" people to carry more than one knife?", or words to that effect.
When looking for a nutter, familiarize yourself with what nutters do, not what normal people do.

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?

Nothing!, I have already said, this two-weapon murder does not indicate the number of killers involved.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Yes, I think it very unlikely that the killer had an array of knives to choose from.

[Ben]

“Once again, don´t take it upon you to explain who would say what if they had the opportunity.”

I’m going to do precisely that, thanks, Fish. I do so secure in the knowledge that those responsible for compiling the Home Office document weren’t a bunch of hopelessly cretinous numpties. I’m not in the least bit concerned about how poorly you think it reflects on me. I’m not the first, and I doubt very much I’ll be the last, to arrive at the logical conclusion that the police discounted the bayonet theory according to the Home Office. Jon Ogan and James Tully recognised the same thing, despite being perfectly aware that, in common with a great many ripper-related documents, it contained errors. I shouldn’t have to point out that your attempt to compare an 1888 Home Office document with the offerings of Karen Trenouth (who, incidentally, shares quite a few of YOUR opinions!) is somewhat crass.

“No, Ben, sources riddled with mistakes, faults and a lack of knowledge where we factually know that knowledge could be gained from the experts that handled the case, are NOT worth taking seriously.”

Oh, so that’s you all done with the Dew Spew then? Great, I was wondering when you would see the light. “Riddled with mistakes” was the precise expression you used to describe this before you decided it was worth taking seriously after all. Why aren’t you doing the same thing with the Home Office document? I’m serious. If your inner conviction is that a document must be discarded in its entirely if it is “riddled with mistakes”, why don’t you apply this to Walter Dew’s memoirs, which you once described in those very terms? It’s just a glaring instance of transparent double standards.

“A sensible person does not cherrypick one item and state that THIS part must be correct, if he knows very well that many OTHER parts are demonstrably erroneous.”

But that’s precisely what you do with the Dew spew. You state that it is “riddled with mistakes”, but continue to insist that parts of it must be correct. If I’m not allowed to do that with an official 1888 Home Office document, then you certainly don’t get to do with it some faulty memoirs from the late 1930s. Look, nobody invented the detail that bayonet wounds are unmistakable, and it was certainly not a determination made by the chief stapler at the Home Office. If the detail had appeared in newspaper, I would worry about the need for other evidential report. But we’re not dealing with a piece of press tattle. We’re dealing with a Home Office document, which certainly wasn’t passing on pub talk. So this document will continue to be considered a reliable indication – as accepted by Messrs Ogan and Tully – that the bayonet theory was discredited.

“Yes. Six POTENTIAL victims. Abberline was no idiot.”

He wasn’t an idiot, no, but nor was he a man incapable of discerning that which was likely and unlikely, and the Tabram-as-ripper-victim evidently belonged in the former category, as far as he was concerned. His colleagues were equally capable of distinguishing the “potential” from the “probable” too, and they considered Tabram a ripper victim. It was the popular contemporary view at the time, and it was shared at least by Reid, Anderson, Abberline, and - oh look! - it's your old mate Walter Dew of all people, chiming in to lend his support to the view that Tabram was a "definite" ripper victim. I don't know of any contemporary police official of any seniority who didn't think she was a ripper victim.

“it does not change the fact that your precious document is and remains a complete disaster and a useless source.”

…And published authors disagree with you, sorry. You can think what you like, but I intend to keep plugging away with this one, championing it as the valuable source that it is, despite the fact that it contains errors like a great many other ripper-related documents. I just hope you’ve got the time to waste engaging me in yet another “yes it is” “no it isn’t” type of back-and-forth uthĺllighet kriget.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Kileen was two years out of medical colledge.Hardly time to aquire the skills that some are heaping on him.Might as well say a police recruit finishes basic training as a qualified detective,or a lawyer a QC and so on.All medical students have a basic knowledge of dissecting a dead body,so should be able after two years in practice to do a post mortem.It is in the evaluation of the findings that shows experience.In Kileen a lack of experience.Two of the wounds could have been made by the victim.One could have been made by a left handed person,and not a hint of why that may have been so.Call that experienced. Now the killer of Tabram is,by some accounts,stabbing in a frenzy of emotion.W ould someone explain how that frenzy could suddenly change into a calculating ,orderly reasoning non frezied state that determines that one stab must be made with a different weapon?

[Fisherman]

Sally:
"Well Ok Fish, but she was still killed in a public place (in effect) easily accessible from the street - it was known to be a spot in which people dossed down for the night. Tabram, like the next five, was found quite quickly after being murdered, which again indicates that the kill site was well frequented. All the victims were found quite quickly after death except Kelly (no matter what time of death) by virtue of her being killed inside her room - Maybe the killer knew it was rent day, there's a thought.

Anyway, I digress....

And you could argue that Tabram was on display - her skirts were pulled up - I don't think I see any compelling reason to exclude her from being a Ripper victim. Where are the glaring differences in your view?"

My thoughts back then were that the murder had been visible from the backside of the George Yard buildings, Sally. The Bennett photo had just surfaced, and initially, much spoke for Tabram having been slain on one of the outside terraces. I reasoned that two of the wounds could have been applied by the Ripper, after having seen Tabram fall prey to a frenzied stabber. Them 37 small stabs look very unfocused to me, whereas the sternum wound looks the exact opposite. I also argued that the cut to the lower abdomen could have been made by the sternum weapon, since a cut does not give away the shape and size of the blade in the same way that a stab does. In essence, I offered a scavenger scenario, with one unfocused stabber, and one very focused man with an interest in the lower abdomen region - possibly the Ripper.

But now I am sure that Tabram was attacked and died not on the outside terrace, but instead on the inside landing, in almost total darkness and hidden from sight. And that alters the story much, meaning that my former suggestion becomes much less viable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"Is this an insult you guys? If it is, please explain it to me."

No insult, Greg - not at all. I was just pleased to see that you stated clearly that your stance was based in intuition. Like I said, others will not be as discerning, instead passing off very flimsy and unevidenced information as ironclad fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Don't worry too much about Fisherman, Greg. He has a way with words that reminds me of my old geography teacher after he'd had a couple...

...of very serious car accidents.

Joking, Fisherman! Report me not."

Not to worry, Ben!

"I think Fisherman found it commendable that you merely "intuited" (very sensibly, I might add) that the ripper used one weapon when murdering prostitutes, and thought the cautious phrasing contrasted favourably with the absolutist, zealous dogma of the type shamelessly espoused by that dastardly Ben character."

You may be on to something there. It´s a good thing, though, that you only offer this as a suggestion. Intuition, perchance?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I can tell you that the journalists wanted to add Smith to the list. The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, sensationalism aside, here are two middle aged prostitutes viciously murdered in the same area, on a Bank Holiday, both dossing in George Street. In both cases, a shocking brutality, something definitely out of the ordinary.
I'm not sure the journalists were so bad and merely looking for more murders to write about. When you read the press newspaper by newspaper (instead of reading everything about one murder), you get a different impression. The Evening News, for example, discounted Martha in October.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I do so secure in the knowledge that those responsible for compiling the Home Office document weren’t a bunch of hopelessly cretinous numpties."

I would have hoped so too - but that was before I read their report ...

"Oh, so that’s you all done with the Dew Spew then? "

You just won´t give in, will you? I tell you time and time again, that Dew is for another thread, you concur - and STILL bring it up ...?

So okey, then, I will play, and I hope that YOU will see the light. As it stands, total darkness seems to be at hand on your behalf.

Here´s the thing, Ben - listen up, and listen good, for there is a lesson to learn here about evidence evaluation! I will start out by making a claim that will outrage you, and then I will show you why you should instead change your attitude.

You are endorsing a detail adhering to the Ripper case, presented as a fact in a document that we know is full of serious errors and misunderstandings. Furthermore, we know that the specific detail you have chosen to believe in, is expressed in a manner that tells us that there is a confusion about. It is said that some of the narrow wounds were originally thought to have been bayonet-inflicted, whereas we know that it was instead not "some" wounds that brought about this suspicion, but instead just the ONE wound. Likewise, we know that this wound did not belong to the narrow ones, but was instead "much the largest and deepest wound". So we can easily tell that the Home Office got it wrong here.

As for me, I have chosen to lean against one detail that we can safely say was factually completely correct.

There, can you feel that outrage I predicted? I would think so! But fear not, I have an explanation for you!

To try and make you understand all of this, we need to quote Dew again, from his book:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong .
Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.
And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view."

Now, Ben, what do we have here? Do we have information presented as a fact, like we have in the annotations? Nope, we do not. What we have is Dew´s assertion that HE can not see any other explanation to Hutchinsons story than an error on the man´s behalf, and that error, Dew says, was in HIS (Dew´s) opinion one of a mistaken day.

So what we have here, strictly factually speaking, is Dew telling us that he is of the opinion that Hutch was wrong on the days. He is not stating as a fact that this was so, but instead telling us that he himself can see no other explanation to it all.

And believe me, we may conclude that Dew WAS of this meaning. Factually, this cannot be contested, since he himself tells us that this was so.

This is what I have picked up on, and this is what I use: Dew´s suggestion. I do not state that he must have been correct, but I do state that there is nothing at all militating against the possibility that he WAS. I also state that a number of points - like for example the lacking Mrs Lewis - seemingly corroborates Dew´s suggestion.

Of interest here would very much be the fact that none of the information I use to try and substantiate why Dew could well have been on the money is in itself derived from Dew´s book. None! Therefore, I do NOT lean against any factual information from the source that you so much condemn. Instead, I use Hutchinsons story (official police material), Lewis´testimony (official police material) and weather reports to make my case.

Now, Ben, can you see the difference? Can you spot it? Do you realize that you are criticizing a choice of factual sources that I never even made? I use a SUGGESTION made by Dew, and I work mainly with official police reports and meteorological observations to try and assess the value of that suggestion. Which of those sources is it you object about and call a spew?

You, on the other hand, use information presented as FACT, deriving from a source that we know is very much derailed factually in many a sense. We also know that the very part you put faith in is NOT up to standards, unless there was once a belief that the lesser wounds were to some degree bayonet-inflicted.

So you see, you can never fault me for referring to information presented as facts in Dew´s book - for I never do so. Not on one single occasion have I done that. That is not to say that one should not rely on the facts given by Dew - for we all know that most of it is factually correct AND written by a man who worked the case.

The Home Office people, on the other hand, seem to have been more interested in the occasional coffee (or beer?) break, totally oblivious of the demands they needed to respond to - and so they got it hopelessly wrong and endlessly muddled, not least when it came to the bayonet bit.

On a separate note, maybe the time has come to quit that "Dew Spew" thing? It IS very disrespectful and tasteless, and more than a tad childish - and as you can see, it has no effect whatsoever on my theory since the factual material I use never even came from Dew in the first place!

A lesson to learn, Ben, about evidence evaluation and about not criticizing others for what they never did! And completely free of charge too!

"He wasn’t an idiot, no, but nor was he a man incapable of discerning that which was likely and unlikely, and the Tabram-as-ripper-victim evidently belonged in the former category, as far as he was concerned."

And here we go again - do not pass things off as facts when the substantiation is not there. What Dew and other policemen thought in this matter does not govern what Abberline thought. They were different individuals.
I am a Ripperologist, Ben. You are a Ripperologist. If you think one thing, do not jump to the conclusion that I must think the same, since we are both Ripperologists ... See what I mean?

"I intend to keep plugging away with this one, championing it as the valuable source that it is, despite the fact that it contains errors "

Blimey - you did it AGAIN! "This reliability of this source is proven by it´s many errors", sort of. Heliga enfald!

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"I'm not sure the journalists were so bad and merely looking for more murders to write about."

How gracious of you! It warms my heart, considering what I do for a living. And in your defense, it must be said that there are journalists and there are journalists. But at the end of the day, when sensation can be had, sensation will be pounced upon by the press.

In this context, David, I would like to add that my belief is that when Killeen was asked about whether a bayonet could have been the sternum weapon, he was perhaps not asked this by the coroner or a juryman. I feel that a journalist may instead well have been responsible.
Think of what the coroner said to Killeen: You have given your evidence in a commendably careful way, or something to that effect. The chance is there that the care the coroner spoke of lay in Killeens NOT mentioning a bayonet, although he knew that such a weapon would fit the bill. I think we would agree, David, that the question would have been put to him by the police long before the inquest was opened. But no coroner or other legal official would want to point his finger at the army unless there was certainty.
The press, however, would also have read the signs in the sky. And THEY would not mind asking a sensationalist question, if Killeen decided to put the lid on. In fact, they would do anything to get an answer on this score.

Just a thought from a seasoned journalist, David.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

How gracious of you! It warms my heart, considering what I do for a living. And in your defense, it must be said that there are journalists and there are journalists. But at the end of the day, when sensation can be had, sensation will be pounced upon by the press.

Fisherman

I said "sensationalism aside", Fish. It's just about being more balanced. The Evening News and others were genuinely trying to understand, as far as I can make out. The very fact that they discounted Tabram in October proves they dedicated some thoughts to the murders, and weren't ONLY looking for sensation. They did have theories, as anybody else. Some are somewhat coherent, some are not.

[Sally]

Think of what the coroner said to Killeen: You have given your evidence in a commendably careful way, or something to that effect. The chance is there that the care the coroner spoke of lay in Killeens NOT mentioning a bayonet, although he knew that such a weapon would fit the bill.

Fish I think it maybe had more to do with Killeen covering all possibilities, including that some of the wounds could have been self-inflicted, for example. Press reports vary in what they report of Killeen's testimony, some are more detailed than The Times - not in a sensationalist way; just more detailed. I think Killeen was being careful to cover all his bases, not necessarily not to refer to a bayonet.