Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Fisherman]

I will offer a short version too, Ben, about the difference between us in source approach and -substantiation.

You make a choice of a source we know has damning errors.

I make a choice of a source which has itīs flaws and errors too.

You pick out one detail.

I pick out one detail.

You claim that this detail MUST be correct, and present no corroboration or underlying work on your behalf that has gone to substantiate or negate it.

I claim that this detail MAY WELL be correct, and I present a long list of details that goes to corroborate this assumption of mine. I also look after things that would negate it, but fail to find anything at all.

Suggestion - research - corroboration/negation.

Thatīs how it works.

Not suggestion - acceptance.

The research/corroboration part is too vital to leave out, I think. But hey, maybe thatīs just me ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"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."

I was merely alluding to statistics, Jon - people who change weapons during a knife attack are quite uncommon, and therefore two killers is a better suggestion. I see what you are saying, but I think one must not forget about the blood effusion - she may have been knocked unconscious. If she was NOT, then you would be on the money, no quibble there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it's an argument that crops up from time to time, and is a horrible reason for excluding her."

Statistically, it is not a good reason, no. But practically it may still have applied. Maybe the killer WAS someone who would never have come up with the idea of cutting and slashing. It is a much more focused way of damaging the body, and most people feel very much repulsed by the mere thought of doing such a thing.

Stabbing is another thing. It does not necessarily include an element of a wish to inflict bodily damage, but instead just a wish to get rid of somebody.

Putting it differently, my hunch is that most frenzied stabbers do not focus where they want to hit the body, other than in a very superficial way (in the middle of the body, justaboutish). I can even imagine that some stabbers will stab away with their eyes closed.

But a cutter will NOT close his eyes. And he will normally be a lot more focused and choose his areas of cutting.

The difference will of course increase if the body is not moving. Then a cutter will be very precise, whereas a frenzied stabber will still just fire away, more or less.

Just wanted to make this distinction, Ben. It still applies that a stabber may well also be a potential cutter, so Iīm much with you on the necessity not to rule Tabram out as a Ripper victim on that particular ground.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram.
But apparently there was some.
That may be another mistake.
And another evidence of an early Ripper murder.

[DVV]

Oh, and while I'm here, don't tell me she was just fat. I've heard this counter-argument already and it doesn't counter anything, imo.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram.
But apparently there was some.
That may be another mistake."

Ah, I notice that you have once again managed to mistake what an inquest sets out to do! It sets out to ... Yes...?

EXACTLY, David! It sets out to determine the cause of death! And believe it or not, Killeen, worthless doctor that he may have been, made a connection between the 39 holes in Tabramīs body and her demise! He voted, incredible though it may seem, for these punctures being in some manner connected to her death.

Who would have thought it?

Next forgotten item: The post-mortem report. In THAT one, David, MORE information would have been at hand about Tabram. And who knows, if there were signs of suffocation about Tabram, then maybe Killeen had devoted the odd line or two to this there. Stranger things have happened!

Do you by any chance remember the blood effusion on Tabramīs head? You know, if you knock people on their heads, they may even die from it. And when they do, then the medicos revealing such blood effusions, will say so at the inquest.

If they do NOT die from it, then the medicos may safely avoid mentioning it at the inquest, since an inquest is held to establish the death reason. And amazingly, we can see this very thing happening at the Tabram inquest! Lo and behold!

Could it therefore be, that Killeen concluded that whatever signs there were about of suffocation, carried the exact same weight as the blow to Tabramīs head when it came to her death reason: None whatsoever?

What do you think, David? Shall we haul Killeen over the coals for not mentioning EITHER effusion or (potentially) suffocation?

Or shall we give the alternative a fair chance: that he restricted himself to what the coroner and inquest asked for: the death cause? And the rest was in the post-mortem report?

If you opt for the latter, then I believe it will be a relief for Killeen. Dead or not, it cannot be very funny to be castigated for alleged mistakes and unexperience. It borders on accusations of malpractice, though nobody has so far felt at ease to use that term. It may still come, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish, Phillips did mention signs of suffocation in other cases. And indeed, it has something to do with the victims death, it was thus his job to do so. HIS job, Fish - somewhat different than Killeen's, as you know.
The IPN criticized Killeen in respect to the (possible) suffocation, and I'm inclined to believe they were right.

[Fisherman]

To begin with, we donīt even KNOW that whatever signs there were, were signs of suffocation. So once again, it applies that you accuse Killeen for something that you donīt even know existed.

Did it enter your mind that this may be so - that Tabram did not evince any such true signs? Could it be that Killeen checked for discolouration and petichae, the way one would expect at least all other doctorīs than Killeen to do, without finding any such signs?

You are "inclined" to believe a whole lot of things that has nothing going for them evidencewise, it would seem. It must be an ongoing frustration.

I am inclined to stay by the useful knowledge that evidence that was not there and evidence about caserelated damage to Tabram that did not affect the cause of death, was left to the postmortem report.

The best
Fisherman

PS. Have you found Andersonīs reason for believing Tabram was Jackīs yet? I would appreciate to discuss it with you! But not today - Iīm off for now.

[DVV]

To begin with, we donīt even KNOW that whatever signs there were, were signs of suffocation. So once again, it applies that you accuse Killeen for something that you donīt even know existed.

No, Fish. I have the Illustrated Police News and Martha pic.
I don't think the journalist did suggest suffocation out of thin air.

And you see, the IPN didn't make the suggestion after having heard of suffocation in the Nichols and Chapman cases (contrary to Killeen who changed the dagger into a bayonet after he heard of Pearly Poll and PC Barrett).

[Ben]

“Mr Killeen didn't notice any sign of suffocation on Tabram. But apparently there was some.”

Exactly, David.

We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too. But he didn’t, despite the signs of suffocation having been present. An easy an understandable mistake for a young and inexperienced doctor to make, I would have thought, and nothing – I think you’ll agree - to do with “malpractice”. As you also note, Phillips didn’t shy away from discussing evidence of suffocation, even if it wasn’t the direct cause of death. It was related to the death, as the head injury was in Tabram’s case, and was thus worth mentioning to for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

That’s just more repetitive filibustering, Fisherman.

I can’t believe you’re still not appreciating the extent to which you’re applying double-standards. It works like this:

You have a document that contains errors of fact – the Dew Spew.

I have a document that contains errors of fact – the Home Office document.

You suggest that we should uphold the former as reliable in spite of its errors of fact, but discard the latter in its entirety because of its errors of fact. That’s a ludicrously inconsistent, double-standards approach, and your endless, pointless repetition makes it so much worse. It’s no use saying you “don’t use” anything presented as fact in the Dew Spew. You’re still “using” a document that you know full well is “riddled with mistakes” in spite of your own advice to discard such a document and not “use” any of it. At least pretend to be consistent. If you can use a document that is riddled with mistakes, so can I.

“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?!”

Whoops, there’s that dreadful repetition of previously challenged points, so that’ll be a copy and paste, I’m afraid. Here we go: Yes, we know full well that the Home Office confused the number of wounds initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they confused the type of weapon suspected of causing them, or it. You’re still perpetuating the fallacy that if a document contains errors, the rest of its content must be erroneous too. You know this mantra is ludicrous, which is presumably why you don’t apply it to other documents which contain errors, such as the Macnaghten memoranda, the 1903 Abberline interview and the Dew Spew, and yet for some reason you make an exception for the Home Office document - a document that respected authors accept a an strong indication that the bayonet idea was discredited.

There is nothing to contradict the Home Office statement that the bayonet had been dismissed owing to the “unmistakability” of the wounds they create. Nobody invented this detail out of nowhere, and you may rest assured that no minor Home Office functionary made that determination. They were passing on the accepted wisdom of the police, who considered Tabram a ripper victim but didn’t consider the ripper a soldier (there's another clue!). I don’t need extraneous corroboration. The detail appeared in an official Home Office document, with nothing to contradict it (and no reason to suspect outright invention). That’s good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone.

The detail that bayonet wounds are “unmistakable” cannot reasonably be chalked up to miscommunication. It is an unambiguous statement that is not vulnerable to misinterpretation. It is far easier to accept that the number of wounds were confused as a result of miscommunication. It’s an understandable error, and was repeated by Macnaghten, who wasn’t a Home Office functionary but a senior police official.

“Ben, the doctor in charge, Killeen, actually stated his firm belief that there WERE two weapons involved.”

He offered an opinion. There’s no reason to think it was a “firm” belief at all. He offered a reason for suggesting a two-weapon hypothesis, and that reason was not of a nature to allow for any firm conclusion. If you think Mike’s so discerning, why did you accuse him of “repeatedly fail(ing) to understand”, “ironizing things” and reading your posts in a “very strange manner”?

“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”

Not even Kileen was that confident, so Sugden cannot possibly have been. We may safely conclude instead that he meant the two-weapon theory was the conclusion at the time. I realise that “ripperologists” aren’t always right, and in this case, it is clear that Sugden is, and you’re not. In fact, I regard your complete wrongness on this issue to have factually established. Abberline most assuredly considered Tabram a ripper victim, or else his comments in the 1903 interview make no sense whatsoever. The fact that you waste your presumably precious time fruitlessly arguing otherwise is immaterial. Keeping repeating yourself on that score, though, and we’ll see whose stamina holds out. Guess who my money’s on?

“IF the Dew book had been riddled with mistakes, then yes, it must be discarded. It is of course not”

Well you’ve changed your tune!

“Riddled with mistakes” was the precise expression you used to describe the Dew Spew. Here we go:

"And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

Those are your words, which you now denounce. Suddenly it’s an “impeccable source”! Good grief. This is the problem with the bombastically argumentative approach – people end up cornering themselves in a wash of contradictions out of an ill-starred attempt to prove their debating combatant swrong. And please, I have absolutely no intention of discussing your controversial, unpopular theories. You know full well my feelings on those. Given the speed with which you do a complete U-turn on certain topics, I doubt you’ll be subscribing to them for very long anyway. I’m talking about the Dew Spew in general, and the fallacy of the argument that if a document contains errors, it must be discarded in its entirety UNLESS its the Dew Spew.

Dew, despite the Spew, might well have been a fine detective, but there’s no reason to think he was Britain’s “finest detective ever”.

As for your wholly unnecessary “short version” (which we could have done with instead of the excessively long one), I think someone just wanted his post at the top of the new page.

“You make a choice of a source we know has damning errors. I make a choice of a source which has itīs flaws and errors too.”

That’s a silly distinction for a start. The errors that appeared in the Dew Spew are no less "damning" than those that appeared in the Home Office document, and the latter was at least contemporaneous with the murders.

“You claim that this detail MUST be correct, and present no corroboration or underlying work on your behalf that has gone to substantiate or negate it.”

No, I say the detail is almost certainly correct in the total absence of any indication to the contrary, coupled with the sheer unlikelihood that the detail was either a miscommunication or an outright invention.

“I present a long list of details that goes to corroborate this assumption of mine. I also look after things that would negate it, but fail to find anything at all.”

You might convince yourself that’s what you’re doing whenever you construct one of your theories, but the reality is often very different. I find that quite a number of your brand new, interesting, controversial ideas are replete with “negation”, but very light on “corroboration”. Patting yourself on the back and complimenting the perceived merit of your own theory doesn’t get you anywhere. I suppose it doesn't bother you that your ideas don't enjoy anything like as much support as the one-knife/Tabram ripper victim does.

“It still applies that a stabber may well also be a potential cutter, so Iīm much with you on the necessity not to rule Tabram out as a Ripper victim on that particular ground.”

Thanks, Fisherman. I’m reassured by this. It’s perfectly acceptable for anyone to have a hunch that this particular killer would not have converted from stabbing to cutting, but as you note, it wouldn’t be based on anything we’ve learned from other serial killers, whose criminal histories reveal a completely different story. Even those serial killers who maintain a very consistent MO started out using a completely different weapon (in Sutcliffe’s case, I believe it was a stone-filled stocking!). Moreover, most early offences will appear more haphazard and “frenzied” that their later, more polished, efforts, and may often result in total failure (Wilson?). If the ripper killed Tabram, it would constitute a near textbook example of a serial killer's earlier phase, before he become more proficient through experience and exploration, discovering what he “liked" as he progressed.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Exactly, David.

We know full well that Kileen supplied information that wasn’t immediately related to the cause of death, so if he’d noticed any signs of suffocation, he would logically have alluded to these too. But he didn’t, despite the signs of suffocation having been present. An easy an understandable mistake for a young and inexperienced doctor to make, I would have thought, and nothing – I think you’ll agree - to do with “malpractice”. As you also note, Phillips didn’t shy away from discussing evidence of suffocation, even if it wasn’t the direct cause of death. It was related to the death, as the head injury was in Tabram’s case, and was thus worth mentioning to for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

I certainly agree, Ben. Clearly the doctors had to speak of anything related to the murder, and indeed, Phillips described the killer's MO : suffocation-puts the victim to the ground-slashes the throat.

[Ben]

Not so for Tabram, her inclusion is mere guesswork given the notorious gangs that were known to prey on these women.

A point that is often overlooked is the sheer frenzied brutality of the Tabram murder. This wasn't just another victim of mob thuggery. It was remarked upon at the time that hers was the most extraordinarily savage murder that London had witnessed, possibly in living memory. It was speculated that in the absence of any obvious motive for the murder, the killer must have been a maniac, which is a theme constantly thrown up in the wake of later ripper-attributed murders. However "notorious" the gangs may have been, they certainly weren't notorious for the type of attack that Martha Tabram fell victim to.

Timing, location, victimology and a century's worth of insight into serial crime all speak very much in favour of Tabram being a ripper victim.

[Sally]

Well that's quite right, isn't it?

I don't think I really understand the problem with Tabram being a Ripper victim - the only real objection appears to be the stabbing - as if this is enough to rule her out.

I think this view is simplistic. It doesn't take account of the fact that Tabram's murder was considered shocking (and thus unusual) at the time; it doesn't take account of the fact that the Ripper must have progressed from earlier episodes of violence against women - he didn't suddenly wink into existence overnight.

There are sufficient similarities in Tabram's death to include her with some confidence in my view.

[Cogidubnus]

The blow on the head or the dagger....

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

Since when do you need a truncheon to administer a stunning blow to the skull, when you can simply bang her head hard on the wall or the floor...we're talking rough and tumble, not nancy boy love taps!

Dave