Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

How fascinating. So despite your professed aversion to my references to the Dew spew, and despite your expressed unwillingness to discuss Dew on an unrelated thread, you’d rather suffer both of these things if it means continuing with endless, long-winded repetition. Some things are boringly predictable.

So about the Dew Spew, which, incidentally, isn't new spew. You’re now suggesting that we should consider it a reliable source, despite it being “riddled with mistakes”, and here we’re taking about mistakes of fact, not just ludicrous unsupported opinions that enjoyed no contemporary support from anyone vaguely worth listening to. No problem, you say, you just “don’t use” the erroneous non-facts that were presented as accurate by Dew. Gloss over them, dismiss them as errors, but still treat the document as accurate. Great. Well maybe I’ll just adopt that precise approach to the Home Office document, then? I’ll accept the stuff that cannot be contradicted, and simply “don’t use” the errors.

These are intensely hypocritical, deeply annoying double-standards you’re applying here, and no amount of 60-line posts of unnecessary superfluous “explanation” will change that.

The “theory” that one weapon was involved did not originate with me, and it continues to enjoy popular support. More support than anything you’ve written articles about will ever receive. We have on record the actual reason Kileen provided for suggesting two-weapons, and it was demonstrably insufficient for any confident conclusion, having been based on the perceived length and strength of the weapon required for the sternum wound. The “two weapon” absolutists can’t bear the fact that this was the reason provided, which is why they conjure up imaginary “better” reasons which “must have” been included in a “lost report”, and come up with terribly bad excuses for explaining away Kileen’s failure to mention these reasons as being decisive in separating the weapons.

Then there is the relative youth and inexperience of Killeen to consider, coupled with the absence of any indication that he was clued-up on weaponry. And finally, there is the sheer oddity of hacking away with one supposedly inferior knife, before deciding after 37 stabs that it just wasn’t doing the trick, and that the bigger knife – the one that he could have used so easily from the outset! – might be a better bet. An entirely uncontroversial theory that relies on contemporary facts, and which doesn’t rely on sticking one’s head in the sand like an ostrich and asserting that the contemporary professionals MUST be right, which is something you don’t do with other topics anyway.

Fact basis: the Home Office document, the inquest evidence of Dr. Kileen. The statistical unlikelihood of a muli-weapon attacker etc.

“B/ Benīs theory that Abberline believed that Tabram was Ripper victim.”

It’s not “Ben’s theory”. It’s a fact, and is accepted as such by Philip Sudgen, whose experience with source material analysis is unquestionably superior to yours (and yet you claim, shockingly, that “anyone can see” that he’s wrong). Abberline could not make certain pronouncements, but he was perfectly capable of separating likely from unlikely. The fact that he described Tabram as the first murder assures us that he meant first in the ripper’s series, because Tabram was not the first of the so-called “Whitechapel murders”. Emma Smith was, and if he were referring to the murders generally, and not specifically ripper murders, he would have described Smith – not Tabram – as the first murder. That is obvious. Abberline provided a list of details that he considered “extremely remarkable”, and thus in favour of Kloswoski as the ripper. One such detail was the George Yard/Klosowski “connection”.

As for the Dew Spew, you are encouraging people to treat it as a reliable source and to gloss over the mistakes of fact, which according to you, it is “riddled with”, whereas you advocate a completely different approach with the Home Office document. You argue that because it contains mistakes of fact, it should be dismissed in its entirety. This is ridiculous, and the more you repeat it the worse you make it.

“Putting it otherwise, any flaw or mistake will detract from the value we can ascribe to such a document on the whole. And the more flaws and mistakes, the more detraction.”

So again, the Dew Spew, which is “riddled” with mistakes, must be dispensed with then, according to your inconsistent logic? You changed your opinion on it practically overnight last year, so perhaps it’s time you changed it back in accordance with your recent mantra? The Home Office document makes clear that the bayonet was no longer considered in contention for any of the wounds, or else they’d have said so. They would have specified that the weapon they just pooh-poohed as having any responsibility for some of the wounds was still the likely candidate for one of them.

Hi David,

“Exactly. It doesn't make the suggestion extremely scientific, does it ?”

Exactly. If Tabram had been killed by a blunt instrument, and had been seen with fireman on the night of her death, they same logic would assert that she might have been killed with the nozzle of a fireman’s hose! So not very scientific at all, no. It’s putting two and two together, and getting five. It isn’t at all surprising that the bayonet idea was ultimately dispensed with. It only cropped up in response to the Pearly Poll evidence, and it was ultimately accepted that the “unmistakable” indications of bayonet wounding were absent in Tabram’s case.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Interesting stuff, Bolo. I hadn't contemplated the possibility of the knife breaking.

It's also worth nothing that a sternum is only a centimetre in thickness.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, all,



I have similar thoughts on the progression from Tabram to Nichols, that's why I think poor Martha was the victim of a Ripper who was learning on the job (voted accordingly in the old poll). Similar, but not exactly the same, for I think that the thing he learned from Tabram was that stabbing doesn't cut it (pardon the pun).

A few years ago I made some stabbing and slicing experiments will all sorts of knives and a few pounds of veal just to see how a stab or slice wound looks like and how much force is needed to inflict deep/gaping wounds. On one occasion when I was stabbing away on a large piece of veal with a bone in it, the blade of the small but very sharp and pointy clasp-type knife I used broke just beneath the tip in a 45 deg. angle. The following thrust created a much larger and gaping opening that looked quite different to the other stab wounds. Take that for what it's worth (probably not much as my veal massacre was of course completely un-scientific).

If there were two weapons involved in Martha's case, I think there must have been at least two assailants involved as well. I have difficulties to accept the notion that an attacker changes weapons in the middle of a stabbing frenzy.

Please forgive me if I'm bringing coals to Newcastle with my babble, been away from casebook for a long while due to various reasons you don't want to hear about.

Regards,

Boris

Hi Bolo
Thanks for the response. Interesting experiment there. Although as I pictured you carrying it out i suddnly experienced an involuntary shudder. Ha Ha.

I have difficulties to accept the notion that an attacker changes weapons in the middle of a stabbing frenzy[/B]

No worries. It is a total valid point. I was just thinking out loud and putting some ideas out there to possibly account for the different wounds on Tabram. I am not convinced one way or another about the 2 knife Vs 1 knife scenario (nor do i really care).

welcome back.

[bolo]

Hi Abby,

Thanks for the response. Interesting experiment there. Although as I pictured you carrying it out i suddnly experienced an involuntary shudder. Ha Ha.

to be absolutely honest, I did not go to the full extend as planned but stopped the experiment halfway through it. Even though it were just a few large pieces of veal one of my friends who is a butcher by trade provided me with (with the hide partly intact), hacking and slashing away on them made me feel decidedly uneasy, especially when I wrapped parts of the meat in different types of old clothing (cotton) and tried to cut it open... the result was disgusting to say the least.

This was the point when I called it a day and went to cook a very large pot of goulash that lasted for a few days...

Regards,

Boris

[harry]

Bolo.
Only ever herd of one other peson with same nickname?.Just one question.In a random frenzied attack to the upper torso,would you be surprised if one of the several given stabs pierced the sternum,without the person stabbing deliberately targetting that sternum..Similar situation ,I would imagine,if you had covered your eyes and stabbed wildly.

[Wickerman]

It's also worth nothing that a sternum is only a centimetre in thickness.

ONLY ....a centimetre?
Thats damn near a half inch, even body armour wasn't that thick.

As with many bones in the human & animal kingdom, it isn't the thickness where the bone finds its strength, but the shape. In the case of the sternum, its the curvature.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

If there were two weapons involved in Martha's case, I think there must have been at least two assailants involved as well.

The variety of wounds has no bearing on the number of assailants, nor even the number of weapons.

We do not know if Tabram was attacked by one, two or even three assailants.
All that can be reasonably determined is at least two types of weapon used, which does not automatically mean two knives.
There could have been two teenagers carrying a clasp-knife each, as well as another with a dagger.
Three males attacked Emma Smith, we don't know how many attacked Martha Tabram. Certainly the wounds give no indication either way.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

We know also that Reid and Abberline ( ) finally considered Tabram a JtR victim. Anderson and Dew as well, according to Paul Begg (the ultimate proof).

With absolutely no reason to do so, we might add.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

"If there were two weapons involved in Martha's case, I think there must have been at least two assailants involved as well."

That is the better guess, yes.

Hi Fish.
Given that the numerous stabs to the torso were not in themselves life threatening, and obviously not in themselves able to render her unconscious. Why was she not screaming her head off?
She was apparently alive throughout most of the attack. Certainly she may have been choked in the beginning, but surely while stabbing her 38 times the pain alone would bring her out of unconsciousness.

Who was holding her down, keeping her mouth shut, while someone else stabbed her?

It strikes me that with this murder there are good reasons to see more than one attacker here.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

With absolutely no reason to do so, we might add.

No, we might not "add".

It was accepted by the contemporary police that Tabram was a ripper victim, which was a sensible move on their because her inclusion in the killer's tally makes considerably more sense, criminologically speaking, than arguing that she must be separated from the others on the grounds that she was stabbed and not slashed. I'm not saying that's what you're arguing, but it's an argument that crops up from time to time, and is a horrible reason for excluding her. Time, location and victimology all speak immeasurably in favour of Tabram being murdered by the same individual responsible for the later murders.

[Cogidubnus]

"Why was she not screaming her head off?"

Stunned perhaps by the bang on the head she'd received?

Dave

[Ben]

Agreed, Dave. That would more than account for the lack of screams, and a blow to the head does not require more than one attacker to inflict.

Ben

[Wickerman]

"Why was she not screaming her head off?"

Stunned perhaps by the bang on the head she'd received?

Dave

She could easily have knocked her head on the ground as she fell, or perhaps against the wall.

Carrying a truncheon(?) seems to be a bit redundant when you have a knife or two in your pocket.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

It was accepted by the contemporary police that Tabram was a ripper victim,

Yes, but on what evidence?
There has always been contention as to whether Nichols was the first, or Tabram.
The argument for Nichols is self evident. Not so for Tabram, her inclusion is mere guesswork given the notorious gangs that were known to prey on these women.

Time, location and victimology all speak immeasurably in favour of Tabram being murdered by the same individual responsible for the later murders.

Which would also then include the Torso murders, but no-doubt thats when "the immeasurable argument changes".

By the way, "immeasurable" = impossible to measure. Your use of the hyperbolic continues to astound, how do we interpret "impossible to measure" in this case?

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Donīt talk about repetition, Ben, when you donīt understand what I am saying. You just provided good proof for that, by the way. Here it is:

"about the Dew Spew, which, incidentally, isn't new spew. You’re now suggesting that we should consider it a reliable source despite it being “riddled with mistakes”, and here we’re taking about mistakes of fact, not just ludicrous unsupported opinions that enjoyed no contemporary support from anyone vaguely worth listening to. No problem, you say, you just “don’t use” the erroneous non-facts that were presented as accurate by Dew. Gloss over them, dismiss them as errors, but still treat the document as accurate."

I am not suggesting any approach at all when it comes to Dewīs book. Of course, I am aquainted with the fact that it is regarded as a very good source by most Ripperologists, but that does not enter this particular equation. I am not glossing over anything at all from the book, and I donīt have to, since I DO NOT USE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL PRESENTED AS FACTS FROM IT!!!

Is this really so hard to understand? Or do you just feel the need to misrepresent my theory on Hutchinson by giving a false representation of how I choose my sources? Are you in any way of the meaning that this would help to cover up your own, quite questionable, approach to source material?

Then you need to think again, Iīm afraid.

"Great. Well maybe I’ll just adopt that precise approach to the Home Office document, then? I’ll accept the stuff that cannot be contradicted, and simply “don’t use” the errors."

Ah, Ben, but that is where you get lost. For IF you were to dismiss the errors, then you need to dump the bayonet thing. For the exact sentence that you use, IS erroneous, is it not? Moreover, you have voiced your acceptance of this yourself, acknowledging that the Home Office did not get things right when it comes to the Tabram wounds and bayonet business! So please, go ahead and use the CORRECT parts of that Home Office report as much as you like. They say nothing about the bayonet/wounds detail, however, so how it would benefit your reasoning, I donīt know.

Letīs further elucidate your approach to source material and your reasoning. The sentence you so adore in the Home Office annotations is this one (I use Wickermans post from the Home Office annotations thread):

"Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable"

Now, why have you taken to this so much? Because, I believe, you try to make a case for Tabram having been slain by one man only - the Ripper - and ABSOLUTELY not by a soldier (or two). Therefore, you would dearly like to be able to rule out a bayonet as the murder weapon. And this, little, error-ridden and unsignificant as it is, is the closest anybody is going to get with such an effort!

The problem is that the sentence contains an obvious error - or so you say yourself, at least. I have offered an alternative explanation, but this you have dismissed on very shaky grounds.
Be that as it may! It leaves us - if you are correct - with one part (Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon) that is wrong (we know that it was the larger wound that was suggested as a bayonetinflicted one) and another part (but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable) that you claim must be correct.

As I have stated before, there is NO other hard evidence whatsoever that comes even close to clinching that there was ever a discarding of the suggestion of a bayonet as the Tabram murder weapon. So one can easily understand the fling between you and the Home Office report.

But how do these things work? How much faith can we put in the second part of a sentence where we KNOW that the first part is wrong and the second part lacks any corroboration? Letīs look at a faked example and compare things:

The former British Prime minister Tony Blair was a bald man with a foreign accent and a wife who had once studied zoology.

Now, we KNOW that this sentence does not speak of Tony Blair, since the description does not match him. But what about the suggestion that his wife had studied zoology? That can be right or wrong. The crux of the matter, though, is that we can tell from the description of Blair that the one who wrote it was misinformed about the facts attaching to the subject. Therefore, it applies that we cannot accept statement number two at face value. On the contrary - given the knowledge about the originators ignorance, we must work from the assumption that the zoology bit may very well be wrong too. To be able to invest in it at all, we MUST research it and find corroboration for it in another source. And up til we do, it is information that is not viable as useful evidence.

This is why your assumption is completely unviable as it stands, Ben. You are welcome to challenge MY sources too, and if you can make a case for them being faulty or chosen in an unscientific manner, then do so. But Dew is not amongst them, when it comes to the fact collection. The only thing I use from his book is his SUGGESTION that Hutchinson would have gotten the days muddled, and I really do not need his book at all to make the same case - anybody who reads the evidence will see that Hutchinson is not speaking of a dreadful night, weatherwise. The built-in anomalies are there, Dew or no Dew. The reason that I mention Dew lies in the fact that he worked the case, wrote a book about it, and offered an explanation that corroborates the suspicion that arises when reading about all the things that did not tally with Hutchinson being in place on the right night.

So, my friend, MY sources are as impeccable as ever. Itīs YOUR sources that lack sorely in this department. And no twisting and turning will alter that.

"The “two weapon” absolutists can’t bear the fact that this was the reason provided, which is why they conjure up imaginary “better” reasons"

Oh-oh! I realize now that you have missed out on something. Ben, the doctor in charge, Killeen, actually stated his firm belief that there WERE two weapons involved. So you see, the ones speaking for this do not NEED to conjure anything up. It is the ones who speak of one weapon as the solution that deal in conjecture, One such poster, is Mike, who very sensibly says this right out - it IS conjecture. Not necessarily wrong as such, but still conjecture. You should read his posts, they are very discerning.

"It’s a fact, and is accepted as such by Philip Sudgen, whose experience with source material analysis is unquestionably superior to yours "

I wish you would use a more mature approach, Ben. You very well know that Sugden ALSO says that Tabram WAS slain by two weapons, and his insights are - I gather, without being certain - superior to yours too...?

Ben, I will let you in on a secret. Come closer, and lean over and I will whisper it in your ear: Pssst - not all Ripperologists can be right!

Shocking, I know, but there you are. You see, these Ripper writers, commendable though their efforts are, do not agree on all things. Not at all, in fact. Therefore, some - or all - of them will be wrong on different matters. You see what I mean?
And you know what? Sugden may ALSO be wrong! He may be right about Abberline - please post where he says that Abberline DID believe Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, by the way, I have failed to find it and would very much like to see it! - and he may be wrong about the two weapons. And that would be a very useful solution to things for you, one must say!

Sadly, though, it also applies that he may be RIGHT about the two weapons and WRONG about Abberline! And that would make your day gloomy and barren, I know - but such is life, Ben.

Now, can we try and lean against YOUR views contra MINE, instead of trying to give the impression that scores of insightful Ripperologists fight on your side? I donīt see it that way, as exemplified above. Not at all, actually.

"My wording: “Putting it otherwise, any flaw or mistake will detract from the value we can ascribe to such a document on the whole. And the more flaws and mistakes, the more detraction.”

Your wording: "So again, the Dew Spew, which is “riddled” with mistakes, must be dispensed with then, according to your inconsistent logic?"

IF the Dew book had been riddled with mistakes, then yes, it must be discarded. It is of course not - the general view is that the book HAS flaws, but insignificant ones, and remains a remarkable feat - but it is of course subjected to the same demands as any other source.

But letīs listen to YOU this time over, Ben! Just for the sake of clarity, let us condemn Dew as totally useless as long as we are having this particular discussion about sources. Letīs do just that; it will be great fun! We snap with our fingers and tell Dew to go away, and we forbid anybody to use him, not only as a fact source - which I never did, of course - but we actually take the drastic measure to forbid anybody alluding to anything at all written in his book. Away, foul Dew Spew, begone!

And what happens? Does the impression that Hutchinson spoke of another night than the weatherwise dreadful on go away? No, it does not.

Does Lewis magically appear in Hutchinsonīs testimony? No, she does not.

Does Hutchinson somehow retract his statement about having walked the streets all night? No, he does not.

Do the weather reports I used change? I would not think so.

Does any little piece of the facts I use to show that Hutchinson may have muddled the days go away? Is one single such detail derived from Dewīs book? No, ALL my material has other provenances. And taken together, they very clearly suggest that Hutchinson may have muddled the days - without Dew.

You see, even if we forbid Dew, the exact same scenario is still there. It wonīt go away because we dismiss him, Ben. He is interesting only as CORROBORATION of the implicated day-muddling, taken together with his status as an 1888 East end detective working the Ripper case and his reputation as Britainīs perhaps finest detective ever.

If he had substantiated WHAT it was that made him think that Hutch got the days wrong, then I would have made myself guilty of using a fact from Dew, you may rest assured of that. But he did not, did he?

It is another thing altogether that one must assume that he had a reason for his suggestion. There would have been something Hutchinson said that did not tally with the murder night scenario but instead with the night before. Anybody who suggests a mistaken day, would arguably do so because one or more details did not fit in, not because he thought it a jolly idea at the time. To me, that seems common sense.

All the best, Ben! And forget about Sugden, please!

Fisherman