Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

I feel we must treat her as a separate murder due to lack of anything persuasive to think otherwise. There's always a possibility she was, but that is only guesswork.

No, Jon.

It's the other way round. There is always the possibility that she wasn't, but that is only guesswork. Everything else; crime scene evidence, victimology, weapon type, timing, location, speaks very strongly in favour of Tabram being the early work of the killer responsible for the later victims.

Criminologically speaking, everything communicates in favour of her being a ripper victim, and every argument against is very seriously weakened as a result of applying WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT SERIAL KILLERS. This is the absolutely crucial point that should inform our judgment on the Tabram issue. In fact, it should inform our judgment on anything relates to criminology and the Whitechapel murders. If you want to research the history of the East End, architecture, Victorian police practices, or the victims' histories, be my guest. But if people want to pronounce judgment on matters that relate to victimology and suspectology, it's essential to educate yourself on other serial cases, as well as true crime in general. If people don't do that, their opinions are essentially worthless, and amount to creative writing at best. Time and time again, I find that that the people who are most thrusting and dogmatic in asserting their views are those who simply haven't done enough background reading on a subject they purport an interest in.

Anderson is telling us there were "5 successive murders from which we had no clue".

He certainly meant "clue" to the identity of the likely murderer. It is quite clear that the police were in possession of some clues in each case, whether they came from eyewitness accounts, medical notes or other sources. In every murder case, the police were not entirely devoid of clues. Crucially, however, there is no evidence that the police were in possession of any clues that would pinpoint the likely offender in any of the murder cases. We may be certain, therefore, that Anderson meant five successive murders that were attributed to one individual, and that he excluded Emma Smith owing to the belief that she was killed by someone else. Anderson reinforces this point when writing the "Lighter Side...". He counts Nichols as the second of the "Whitechapel murders", a comment that would only make sense if he used the expression "Whitechapel murders" to apply to those victims considered to have been killed by the same person.

Circumstantial evidence requires firm evidence in order to be recognised.

No.

That's just wrong.

Circumstantial evidence is a "recognised" form of evidence. That's why they call it evidence. The clue is in the description, folks.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

The men with statistics say 'Yes'

Was Tabram a Ripper Victim?

Only the Statistics know...

[Cogidubnus]

Sadistics

Only the Statistics know...

Who are these people?...subpoena them immediately!

McCarthy

[harry]

The most that can be said about the difference between Millwood and Tabram is that one died and one survived.Both attacks had similarities.I believe that after having killed Tabram,the Ripper had crossed a divide,that the intent to kill became foreemost in his thinking.The throat cutting in the case of Nicholls,and later victims showed that.Sure Millwood died soon after,but according to medical evidence,not from the weapon attack.So no,I do not believe the intent to murder was ne ccessarily present in either that of Millwood or Tabram.The intent ,in those two cases,was to cause harm,without thought of the extent that harm would be.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I do not believe the intent to murder was ne ccessarily present in either that of Millwood or Tabram."

That is understandable, Harry, as long as you believe in a one-weapon scenario, and as long as you make the assumption that a penknife can pierce the sternum and as long as you likewise believe that a medico would, after having performed a post-mortem, describe the traces of that penknife as having given the impression of being a long, strong instrument.

But if you look at it all from the other side, that is to say the side that believes that Killeen was correct, then we have a scenario where the finishing blow to Tabram was a stab through the sternum with ANOTHER weapon than the penknife (a long, strong instrument, as it were) - and finding a deed with a much clearer intent to kill would be a hard thing to do.

So itīs all about interpretation once again, by the looks of things, one interpretation that has support from all of the contemporary sources that has anything to say in the errand, and one that has no such support at all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion.It is not my assumption that a penknife can pierce the sternum.I have given examples,taken under oath,in a British court of law,by a qualified British surgeon,that a penknife can do so. What more is needed.

[Bridewell]

This is not evidence Ben. Circumstances are not evidence, this is why they call such observations "circumstantial evidence", that it does not constitute evidence at all.

Regards, Jon S.

Sorry, but this is wrong. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It is not sufficient, on its own, to convict, but circumstantial evidence can be, and is, admitted in British criminal courts.

How much weight is placed on circumstantial evidence is a matter of judgement, but it is emphatically not correct to state that circumstantial evidence is not evidence at all.

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion.It is not my assumption that a penknife can pierce the sternum.I have given examples,taken under oath,in a British court of law,by a qualified British surgeon,that a penknife can do so. What more is needed.

Agreed entirely, Harry. Nothing more is needed.

As for the "circumstancial evidences", since it would be a bit rude to point out that Jon is utterly wrong, I'd rather say Bridewell is utterly correct.

[bolo]

Hi Fisherman,

Bolo:

" If you think that Abberline had enough on Smith to rule her out, it does not seem logical to say that he was referring to the first in the Whitechapel murder series instead of the Ripper crimes."

Was Tabram a Ripper crime, Bolo? Do YOU know? I know I donīt. And I am very certain that Abberline did not know either.

No, I don't know for sure, neither did Abberline, but Sugden says that the inspector thought she was and cites a few sources for it, that is good enough for me.

Ben already posted these quotes/sources here: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=727 .

That is why it does not seem too far-fetched to conclude that Abberline referred to the first murder in the Ripper series in the Gazette article.

It all boils down to what would constitute a Whitechapel murder, I think. The police obviously did NOT regard Smith as potentially belonging to the Ripper tally, whereas they DID think that Tabram MAY have done so. And they will have thought so in varying degrees. Some will have thought that Tabram very probably belonged to the tally, others will have been on the fence and yet others will have thought that she was probably not a Ripper victim, but even so, they must have realized that there were too many similar variables involved to definitely write her off, the way they would have done with Smith, more or less.

Abberline will have answered to one of these descriptions - but I cannot tell you which of them. Certainly, he did not say that the George Yard connection was more than a coincidence, or that it pointed to a link, much less that it evidenced such a thing or - worse - proved it. He settled for an expression that he knew he could easily defend - that it was a coincidence. Behind that expression, any degree of certainty may have lain.

"Are you talking about the police and Ripperologists or the general public?"

The police, Bolo!

" he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview."

He DID? I must have missed something, then - in MY copy, it says "the first murder", not the first Ripper murder.
We need to be cautious with things like these, Bolo, or we will be misrepresenting the material, right?

Again, please refer to the link to Ben's post with the corresponding quotes and sources.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to say that Tabram was the first Ripper victim beyond any doubt, or that Abberline knew beyond any doubt that she was but I think it's safe to say he believed that Tabram was the Ripper's premiere.

This led me to conclude that Abberline referred to Tabram as the first Ripper victim in the 1903 Gazette interview, which seems logical, given that the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing.

I don't think that I have misinterpreted any existing material with this.

Regards,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"And still the only arguement that can be raised,is two weapons,for which the only source is a young,relatively inexperienced doctor,who could only voice opinion."

A rephrasing of this would be:
The main argument - but not the only one - behind the two weapon assertion is that a fully qualified, professional doctor examined the wounds in Tabramīs body, both in situ at the murder site and much more thoroughly by means of a post-mortem examination, and declared that two weapons had been used.

Sounds a lot different, does it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bolo:

"I don't know for sure, neither did Abberline, but Sugden says that the inspector thought she was and cites a few sources for it, that is good enough for me."

Sugden cites one source and one source only, if I read him correctly. And that source is inconclusive, since it takes interpretation to understand. And the understanding is a different one depending on who you ask. Therefore, much as I respect if YOU think that Abberline gave away a belief in Tabram as a Ripper victim, I think you can understand why I donīt think so, and respect that I have a completely rational ground for my stance.

"Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here. I'm not trying to say that Tabram was the first Ripper victim beyond any doubt, or that Abberline knew beyond any doubt that she was but I think it's safe to say he believed that Tabram was the Ripper's premiere.
This led me to conclude that Abberline referred to Tabram as the first Ripper victim in the 1903 Gazette interview, which seems logical, given that the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing.
I don't think that I have misinterpreted any existing material with this."

I did not say "misinterpreted", Bolo - I said "misrepresented". And that is worse.
However, they way you present the material in your new post, I disagree, but respect your stance. What I pointed to earlier was that you actually wrote: "he rated her as the first in the Ripper series and consequently said so in the interview."
He never said such a thing, did he? If he had, I can guarantee you that I would not be having this discussion with you!

As for "the article was all about the Ripper and Chapman's possible involvement in the case and not just a generic "Whitechapel outrages" thing", I think that we ned to keep in mind that the "coincidence" wording points not to Chapmans definite involvment in the Tabram murder, but instead to his POTENTIAL such. Trying to establish how much faith Abberline put in Tabram as a Ripper victim is not possible to do, especially since we both agree that he would arguably not have been dead certain at any rate. So how certain or uncertain WAS he?
After having had our respective guesses at that, we must ask ourselves "Did Abberline HAVE to be more than 50 per cent sure that Tabram was a Ripper victim to mention the coincidence as such? Or would it be enough to accept Tabram as a POSSIBLE Ripper victim to do so?
And after THAT, Bolo, we once again would need to assess just how possible the Ripper connection was for Abberline.
In the end, we will be going round in circles trying to find the degree of Abberlines commitment. Better then, to just say that we donīt know the degree of it, methinks.

The best, Bolo!
Fisherman

[DVV]

A rephrasing of this would be:
The main argument - but not the only one - behind the two weapon assertion is that a fully qualified, professional doctor examined the wounds in Tabramīs body, both in situ at the murder site and much more thoroughly by means of a post-mortem examination, and declared that two weapons had been used.

Sounds a lot different, does it not?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, don't you believe autopsies should be conducted by forensic experts ?
And in difficult or extraordinary cases, by expererienced forensic experts ?

Was Killeen an experienced doctor ?
No.
Was he a forensic expert ?
No.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish, don't you believe autopsies should be conducted by forensic experts ?
And in difficult or extraordinary cases, by expererienced forensic experts ?"

I fail to see that this question has been touched upon by me. But since you ask, in a perfect world there would be resources enough to ensure that the worldīs best and most experienced forensic expert did ALL autopsies. As it stands, though, this is not a realistic possibility. And on the whole, since very many autopsies do not call for top quality forensic expertise and/or twenty years of experience, itīs a good thing we can let that number one authority take a breather now and then.

Killeen was only faced with a daunting task and a very difficult decision in your world, David, yours and a few others. In MY world, he had a comparatively easy task, and fulfilled it in a very clear and useful way.

But do I really have to reiterate this so many times? Can we not just agree that there is no evidence at all in contemporary sources, in biographies, in press reports, that supports you suggestion, and leave it at that?

If so, I promise to listen carefully to the Killeen-the-poor-sod-could-not-fill-his-suit suggestion the second you produce that evidence!

Deal?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

As it stands, though, this is not a realistic possibility. And on the whole, since very many autopsies do not call for top quality forensic expertise and/or twenty years of experience, itīs a good thing we can let that number one authority take a breather now and then.

Certainly, Fish. We all need more time for leisure. But it's a competitive world, you know.

Killeen was only faced with a daunting task and a very difficult decision in your world, David, yours and a few others.

The Ripper murders was a daunting task for all medics at the time, Fish. And moreso for a young doctor who was not a forensic expert.

In MY world, he had a comparatively easy task, and fulfilled it in a very clear and useful way.

It may be clear, in your opinion, that the last stab was that given with the dagger-bayonet. It would have gone through the sternum and reached the heart. Unfortunately, that crucial wound is listed among the others, and Killeen never clearly said that this stab was at the same time the last one, the only one caused by a different weapon, and the ultimate cause of death.
I'm therefore not sure he "fulfilled his (easy) task in a very clear and useful way."
What is crystal-clear, on the contrary, is that he didn't notice the signs of suffocation. Or perhaps he noticed them but didn't bother mention them at the inquest, as you have suggested ? - But this I can't believe, that would be worse, in terms of mistake.

But do I really have to reiterate this so many times? Can we not just agree that there is no evidence at all in contemporary sources, in biographies, in press reports, that supports you suggestion, and leave it at that?

I cannot agree, Fish, because the story of the following murders tells me otherwise. It tells me that, as experienced as Phillips could be, the police felt the need for a second opinion - Bond's. It tells me there was a serial killer in the East End who used to suffocate his victims before using his knife.

If so, I promise to listen carefully to the Killeen-the-poor-sod-could-not-fill-his-suit suggestion the second you produce that evidence!
Deal?

Alas, no deal. See above, my friend.

[Fisherman]

David:

"The Ripper murders was a daunting task for all medics at the time, Fish."

In a sense, yes. But NOT in the sense that wounds were suddenly harder to measure than in other cases. But nice try anyway, David!

"It may be clear, in your opinion, that the last stab was that given with the dagger-bayonet. It would have gone through the sternum and reached the heart. Unfortunately, that crucial wound is listed among the others, and Killeen never clearly said that this stab was at the same time the last one, the only one caused by a different weapon, and the ultimate cause of death."

And still it is universally recognized as a very differing weapon! And no wonder, since Killeen ALSO said that the blade that caused the smaller wounds could not have caused the sternum one. This alone tells the large wound apart from the others. And what more did he say? Yes, thatīs right, he said that the wound to the heart would in itself be enough to kill, plus he added that Tabram lived throughout ther stabbing series.
It leaves precious little manouvering space for anybody like you, David, none of it offering up any useful alley.

"What is crystal-clear, on the contrary, is that he didn't notice the signs of suffocation."

Apart from the Police Illustrateds SUGGESTION, no other source noticed it either. No biography mentions it. No other medico says anything about it. Nobody at all.
That leads me to the conclusion that the PI may have been uncorrect - that is often the case with just the one source that lacks the corroboration that one would expect to be there. Itīs much the same thing like the suggestion of one weapon, the suggestion of a bayonet being discarded, of Abberline believing in Tabram as a Ripper victim etcetera, all coming from your direction - you always seem to face the bitter fate of being robbed of any corroboration. One has to ask oneself why, David, surely you can appreciate that?

"I cannot agree, Fish, because the story of the following murders tells me otherwise."

The story of the following murders provides you with evidence that Killeen was wrong? How does THAT work, David?

You really should close that deal with me. It will save you a lot of time and face.

The best,
Fisherman