Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

Bernadotte !

[Fisherman]

Mais oui; Jean Baptiste! Trčs bien, David!

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

A Qualified Qualification Perhaps?

Hi Harry, you're right, but they like their bayonet. Aaaarfff.
How strange to read again: "Killeen was fully qualified" when he was even not a forensic expert.

Hi David,

I'm not aware that Killeen ever claimed to be a forensic expert. He was, however, qualified as a doctor and a surgeon, albeit only recently. If not the first, this was probably one of the first post mortem examinations he had conducted on his own, but so what?

Whatever we think of Killeen, his youth, his inexperience, and his recent qualification, he, and he alone, is the expert on the Tabram injuries because he was medically qualified, present at the post mortem, conducted it, and got a better view of the injuries than anyone else.

Even if he was not an expert forensic pathologist, he has to be the expert on Martha Tabram's injuries. Later analysts, if qualified to do so, are free to assess the evidence and draw a different conclusion, but its Killeen's report which comprises that evidence.

Killeen is the expert on Martha Tabram's injuries, because he saw them and examined them in detail. Any later critic is examining the injuries second-hand, based on Killeen's account.

Of course it would be nice to send in a modern, experienced forensic pathologist to give us a second opinion, but we can't. Has anyone tried giving the known detail to such an individual for their opinion? I would expect such a person to express their views cautiously, accompanied by a caveat along the lines of,

"but, of course, I wasn't there, so I'm in no kind of authoritative position to dispute the findings of the man who was".

I don't think any responsible modern-day expert would give us anything more than that, so where would that leave us? Would a trial judge deem Killeen qualified to give evidence of opinion on the cause of Tabram's injuries?
Nowadays, I suspect not, but then? Quite possibly. We're not conducting a criminal trial though, and the body is long gone, so we can't get a second opinion.

Killeen was not ideally qualified, I agree, but he's the best we have; he also saw, examined, described and counted the injuries. Had the coroner felt that Killeen's experience was insufficient, he could have ordered that a second examination be carried out, but I am not aware that he ever did so. Who are we, then, to question Killeen's competence if Collier didn't do so?

Regards, Bridewell.

[DVV]

Hi Bridewell, I understand your point, but in the JtR case, we are all questioning and criticizing medical reports. We are compelled to choose between Bond and Phillips, aren't we ? And we know experienced forensic experts (which, again, Killeen was not) could make mistakes, because both can't be right.
I believe the IPN was correct - at least, the photo seems to confirm the suggested suffocation -, and today Harry is right pointing out that any kind of knife can pierce a chestbone. I guess 19th century autopsy reports are full of such mistakes.
With your logic, Bridewell, if Bond's profile had been lost, we should all look for a doctor and wouldn't have the right to suspect anybody else.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“And since an inquest is meant to establish the cause of death, it can be argued that Killeen may have been the man who was best fitted to answer to the demands.”

It wouldn’t be a very convincing argument. Given the choice between a doctor with decades of experience and a doctor fresh out of college, I know which one I’d pick to provide evidence an at inquest. The trouble is that if doctors are too obsessively purist about focussing exclusively on the single, direct cause of death, they may overlook or fail to mention pertinent details that may be related to that cause. For instance, the blow to the head and/or the suffication of Tabram may have facilitated the later stabbing.

“Exactly WHAT is it I use from Dew?”

I suspect you know full well what. You both “use” it AND defend it as an impeccable source, in spite of its error-strewn (or error-spewn!) content. In other words, the reverse approach to the one you adopt for the Home Office document. I’ve already told you that I don’t require external corroboration. It appeared in an official, 1888 Home Office document and there is nothing to contradict it. However, it IS supported by the fact that all those police officials thought Tabram was a victim of non-military Jack the Ripper.

“And there is nothing at all spectacular about saying that the George Yard connection was a coincidence, no matter what he believed. That stands.”

No, it doesn’t “stand”. It collapses hideously, because it's very obviously wrong. Abberline did not say it was just a “coincidence”. He said it was “extremely remarkable”, which the connection simply wouldn’t be if he did not consider Tabram a ripper victim. He could not have said what he said in 1903 if he didn’t consider it likely, at the very least, that Tabram was a ripper victim. It would make an absurd nonsense of his interview.

"As far as we know" would still mean that Tabram was killed with two weapons, to the best of our knowledge - "as far as we know".

As far as we’ve been informed by the contemporary offerings, yes, and this was obviously what Sugden meant. He cannot possibly have meant to portray it as a certainty that Tabram was killed by two weapons because he knew full that not even the doctor who offered that opinion harboured any certainty. So no, he was not “adamant”. He is quite clear – “as far as we know” Tabram was killed by two weapons. Whatever you may think about MY “methods”, it is quite clear that in order for your argument to work, Sugden would need to be depicted as illogical and ridiculous, which he clearly isn’t.

“You donīt HAVE any "superfluous" corroboration that Abberline thought Tabram a Ripper victim, Iīm afraid.”

Yes, I do. The conclusion that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim is quite clear from the sources I’ve provided.

“It is as adequate a background as you are ever likely to find for this kind of work”

Really? So, as a journalist, you think you have as much experience in historical source evaluation as an experienced and “qualified historian”? I don’t find that fabulously convincing somehow. And did you really spend all that time “in the genre” of historical source analysis when, presumably, most of your colleagues were “in the genre” of actually reporting on current affairs?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Boris,

You may rest assured that you’ve neither misinterpreted NOR “misrepresented” any of the sources. On the contrary, you are absolutely correct. There can be no other rational explanation for Abberline’s comments than the one you’ve outlined: he considered Tabram a ripper victim. His comments are rendered meaningless if that were not the case. He considered it extremely remarkable that Klosowski lodged in George Yard when the “first murder” was committed, and we've already established that Abberline could not have meant murders generally, because Tabram was NOT the first of those. Logically, therefore, he meant the first likely ripper murder, and the fact that he considered the George Yard connection “extremely remarkable” also only makes sense if that were the case.

Smith was an unsolved Whitechapel prostitute murder, and thus a potential ripper victim, even if she was generally considered an unlikely one. She would have been the first “potential” murder, as you note, and yet Abberline referred to Tabram as the first, evidently because he was not referring to potential ripper victims in his 1903 article, but rather likely ones.

So in answer to Fisherman’s questions:

"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?”

The answers are most emphatically YES and No respectively.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Fisherman,
So now it is suggestion.OK,I suggest that a penknife could have been used to pierce Tabram's sternum.How does that differ from,It is my opimion that a penknife could have been used to pierce Tabram'S sternum.I do not have to be there.I have to rely on people like Killeen to give a full and clear account.The police at the time were not present,they had to act on what he reported,The inquest had to rely on what he reported.If you are implying that Killeen did not give a clear and full report,you will be siding with me.

[Ben]

To follow on from the sensible observations of Harry and David, I would continue to challenge the notion that Kileen’s two-weapon hypothesis must be considered “likely” simply because he was the doctor who viewed the injuries. This is not the approach generally embraced with other, more experienced doctors’ observations. Dr. Phillips was the only medical professional to examine Chapman’s wounds. He considered it likely that her killer possessed “surgical skill”, which is not an opinion shared by most students of the case. The debate over the likely extent of the killer’s anatomical knowledge continues, but few would ascribe “surgical skill” to the Whitechapel murderer, and even fewer would criticise those who dismiss that particular aspect of Phillips evidence. Similarly, Phillips is generally considered to be in error in attributing Chapman and Eddowes to different killers, while both Bond and Phillips are generally considered to have been in error over Kelly’s time of death (with the latter possibly erring as to Chapman’s too).

If experienced doctors were capable of making errors of judgment (which is what the above are generally considered to be, for good reason), then the inexperienced Kileen certainly was.

Crucially, Kileen provided his reason for suggesting two weapons. This was never withheld, and I realise this may be troubling for those who hope that a secret, special, different, better reason “must have” appeared in some lost report, but we have Kileen’s actual reason on record. His opinion was based on the apparent strength and length of the weapon responsible for the sternum wound, which was too flimsy a reason for anyone to be remotely confident that two weapons were used. Fortunately, we know he wasn’t confident, and this is to his credit. Contrary to some recent erroneous assertions, Kileen never said that the sternum-wounding weapon could not have been responsible for the other stab wounds, and he certainly never declared it impossible that only two weapons were used. He expressed opinion only, and in light of the reason for his two-weapon theory, it isn’t surprising that he was cautious in his terminology.

Kileen did not convince himself that the smaller wounds were inflicted with a pen knife, nor did he commit himself to that weapon exclusively, even as a suggestion only. Other sources refer to an “ordinary knife”, but whatever the reality, Kileen could only suggest the minimum knife requirement for the majority of the stab wounds. He could not set a limit on the size, width or durability of that particular weapon because he had no possible way of knowing how much of the blade had been used in those 30+ stabs.

And David, your point about suffocation is well taken. One cannot help but wonder how the killer was able to subdue and silence Tabram without suffocating her first, unless of course this was achieved by the injury to her head, which, interestingly, Kileen didn’t mention as having been a contributory factor in her death.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

Well explained Ben and David.I know that having expressed an opinion only,things could be otherwise than what I have written,but there is no fault in believing that only one weapon was used on Tabram.In believing that a penknife could have been the weapon,I am not expressing an opinion based purely on imagination.Killeen himself speaks of the possibility of that type of weapon causing most of Tabram's injuries.,and trial evidence in another case,from a recognised medical specialist,leaves no doubt that a penknife can pierce the sternum and enter the heart.That leaves only the question of what may have been the difference in appearance of the wounds. Well we do not know.We also do not know the difference that led Killeen to express an opinion that one wound could have been committed by a left handed person,or that two could have been committed by the victim,but not knowing,does not prevent one from expressing an opinion based on what is known,and unless Killeen was wrong,we know that one of Tabram's wounds, was to the heart through the sternum.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I believe the IPN was correct - at least, the photo seems to confirm the suggested suffocation"

The IPN spoke of a swollen, discoloured face, if I am not mistaken, David.

Do you really think that a doctor would NOT pick up on that? What is it in the photo that you think confirms suffocation? Swollenness? I canīt see such a thing - all I see is a fat woman, as we know she was. Discolouration? Not in a black and white picture, I gather? A protruding tongue? It protrudes slightly on many of us when we sleep, David, and once again - how on earth would a doctor miss it???
Doctors who miss suffocation can do so if there are no other signs than, say, petichae - but they are not likely to miss the sort of signs the IPN spoke of.

And why did no other source suggest it, if it was there?

No, David, I think we need to take a look at how Pearly Poll was described in a source, "her face reddened and soddened by drink".
Thereīs your swollennes and discolouration for you, I would think. Tabram had decades of hard drinking on her CV when she died. Couple that with the agony that may have been written in her face after having lived through the 37 stabs, and you need look no further. If there were very clear signs of suffocation, any medico would have noticed it. I think we may safely rely on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Given the choice between a doctor with decades of experience and a doctor fresh out of college, I know which one I’d pick to provide evidence an at inquest."

And I would agree with you on that score. But that does NOT mean that Killeen was a bad doctor. He could have been just as good or better than many much more experienced colleagues. To presume that relative unexperience must have meant mistakes and incompetence is to present a clear-cut guilt-by-association case, and that amounts to no evidence at all.

"The trouble is that if doctors are too obsessively purist about focussing exclusively on the single, direct cause of death, they may overlook or fail to mention pertinent details that may be related to that cause."

Maybe that could sometimes be the case. But I donīt see why it should adhere to Killeen only - it could just as well be the case for an older, more experienced doctor. It is a sort of mistake that is not exclusive to young Irish doctors, and as you know by now, guilt-by-association must not apply at any rate.

"For instance, the blow to the head and/or the suffication of Tabram may have facilitated the later stabbing."

Aha. But how does this relate to your reasoning? I thought you said that doctors may overlook thing - but Killeen did NOT overlook the effusion, did he? The only reason that you are aware of it is because he looked for it, found it, and mentioned it. Arguably, he likewise looked for any signs of suffocation, did NOT find any, and therefore we have no mentioning of it.

I think we must try and be a little more discerning than to state that there was a suffocation as if it was a fact. It is emphatically not, and we do not want to paint Killeen out as incompetent, do we?

"I suspect you know full well what. "

No, I donīt. So I once again ask you to point me to what I use from Dew, and in what manner it is detrimental to my credibility.

"No, it doesn’t “stand”. It collapses hideously, because it's very obviously wrong. "

Strange, then, that both Bridewell and Bolo had no problems to see how it works. They see nothing at all "absurd" about it. Bolo, for example, is a strong believer in Abberline really believing Tabram WAS a Ripper victim, but when I explained my reasoning to him, he immediately recognized the viability of my point. Maybe, Ben, it is not as "hideous" as you think?

My words: “You donīt HAVE any "superfluous" corroboration that Abberline thought Tabram a Ripper victim, Iīm afraid.”

Yours: "Yes, I do. The conclusion that Abberline considered Tabram a ripper victim is quite clear from the sources I’ve provided."

You have provided ONE source, not sourceS (plural). And corroboration, Ben, is when one finds ANOTHER source that says the same as the first. Surely you know this? So therefore, you lack corroboration. Sugden is NOT corroboration, he is just somebody else who mentions source A.

"So, as a journalist, you think you have as much experience in historical source evaluation as an experienced and “qualified historian”? I don’t find that fabulously convincing somehow. And did you really spend all that time “in the genre” of historical source analysis when, presumably, most of your colleagues were “in the genre” of actually reporting on current affairs?"

As a journalist, I know much about source evaluation and how research is carried out. That means that I am not a "hobbyist" like you are, when it comes to applying this to a material, be it from yesterday or from the 19:th century.
And yes, I have formerly spent 14 years working, not as a writing journalist, but as a researcher, providing my journalist colleagues with the adequate material, much of it dating back a hundred years or more, they needed as a background for their articles.

Is there anything more you need to ask about my qualifications in this field, Ben? I will be only to happy to oblige!

While you contemplate this, I will ask YOU a question:

Do you think that we may accept it as a historical fact that Polly Nichols was killed in 1888 by means of a knife or a weapon that caused damage similar to what such a weapon would cause?

You may not see what I am after here, but I promise it will clear up as we go along!

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"So now it is suggestion.OK,I suggest that a penknife could have been used to pierce Tabram's sternum.How does that differ from,It is my opimion that a penknife could have been used to pierce Tabram'S sternum."

Only slightly - an opinion has more behind it than a suggestion, normally, and rests on empirical grounds to a larger extent. And that owes to the fact that we may carry out experiments and check things adhering to the suggestion and/or opinion we offer.

In the penknife case, the difference may seem small enough, but when it comes to Tabramīs wounds, it is a different affair. We can NOT make any statements about the wounds that we can check, can we? You cannot say "the wounds differed, but not all that much" and I canīt say "They were extremely different", since we cannot possibly know this. Therefore, we cannot offer any opinions about the wounds, only suggestions: They MAY have differed, they MAY have been alike etc.

And this is why I criticized you for saying that you had another opinion than Killeen on the wounds matter. It sort of put you on equal footing with him in this respect, and you are not, are you? You havenīt go a clue how those wounds looked, Harry. Irritatingly, neither have I.

"If you are implying that Killeen did not give a clear and full report,you will be siding with me."

There is no knowing for sure how full and clear his account was, Harry, for it came in two parts, and one of them is lost to us, whereas the other has been sifted through the papers.

What is perfectly clear to me is that Killeen stated that two weapons had been used. What is equally clear is that he said that the smaller weapon could not have done what the large one did, probably meaning that the weapons did not correspond (which is the exact phrasing we find in a press source), something that was clear when comparing the holes.

To me, that leaves me in no doubt whatsoever about the viability of his informed opinion.

As for the "full" account, it was never meant to be presented at the inquest - the full account would have been in the inquest report, and it is anybodys privilege to state that they believe that it would have been a complete disaster of a report or, likewise, that it would have been what set the course for all post-mortem reports that were to follow. Thatīs how it goes when we lack a source.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If experienced doctors were capable of making errors of judgment (which is what the above are generally considered to be, for good reason), then the inexperienced Kileen certainly was."

Guilt-by-association, anybody?

"we have Kileen’s actual reason on record. His opinion was based on the apparent strength and length of the weapon responsible for the sternum wound"

Amongst other things, yes. But you need to take another look at the inquest, Ben! Here is Killeen, just for you:
"...such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone".

Now, this may point to TWO things:
1. Maybe he considered the smaller weapon not powerful enough to penetrate the breast-bone, or
2. Maybe he took a look at the sternum wound first, and then compared it to the apparition of the wound shape caused by the smaller weapon, and concluded that this weapon could not have made a hole of the type that was present in Tabrams sternum. And the factors that made his mind up on this could have been of more than one type. It could have been a question of both size and shape, or just the one of them. Either way, the wording ""...such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds", would apply eminently here.

It can be argued that Killeen said, according to the press, that the lesser weapon would have broken at the sternum, pointing to option 1, but it equally applies that another press report clearly stated that the wounds did not correspond with each other, pointing to option 2.

Can any statement from Killeen at the inquest have covered both possibilities? Of course, if we for example suggest that he said, in essence "A weapon as the one that made the smaller 37 holes could not have inflicted the type of wound represented by the sternum wound, and furthermore, I am of the opinion that such a weapon as the small one would probably have broken if this had even been tried".

So you see, Ben, you suggestion does not cover what Killeen said at all. It only covers parts that you can use if you are trying to make Killeen out as mistaken. But I would recommend that we bring ALL the written evidence to the table before we try to decide this! It is much the best ands most discerning method of doing things. Source evaluation, you know!

"One cannot help but wonder how the killer was able to subdue and silence Tabram without suffocating her first, unless of course this was achieved by the injury to her head, which, interestingly, Kileen didn’t mention as having been a contributory factor in her death."

Aha, so you mean that Killeens decision not to mention that there was an effusion of blood on her scalp actually more or less proves that she was suffocated? Interesting!

I will offer an alternative explanation, though. Perhaps Killeen was of the meaning that the effusion of blood would probably have come about as Tabram fell to the floor during the onslaught with the knife? This must surely be a very good explanation to why the effusion was there. Otherwise, it MAY of course be that the killer knocked her on the head first, and set about stabbing her afterwards. But arguably, people with knives who attack other people normally go to it directly, without first finding themselves an object to knock their victims over the head with. Those who DO knock people over the heads with hard things, normally finish things off with that same object.

At any rate, Killeen could not be sure whether the effusion played a role in how Tabram was killed or not, but he WAS very sure that the two weapons DID play the leading part in it all. And since the inquest asked for the cause of death, this was all he needed. Better, then, to save the effusion for the police report and let the police draw their own conclusions. It was not as if he hindered justice by making this choice, was it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I know that having expressed an opinion only,things could be otherwise than what I have written,but there is no fault in believing that only one weapon was used on Tabram.In believing that a penknife could have been the weapon,I am not expressing an opinion based purely on imagination.Killeen himself speaks of the possibility of that type of weapon causing most of Tabram's injuries.,and trial evidence in another case,from a recognised medical specialist,leaves no doubt that a penknife can pierce the sternum and enter the heart.That leaves only the question of what may have been the difference in appearance of the wounds. Well we do not know.We also do not know the difference that led Killeen to express an opinion that one wound could have been committed by a left handed person,or that two could have been committed by the victim,but not knowing,does not prevent one from expressing an opinion based on what is known,and unless Killeen was wrong,we know that one of Tabram's wounds, was to the heart through the sternum."

There you go, Harry! This is useful stuff, and although I do not agree with you, I have nothing at all to object against in this post. I think you draw the wrong conclusions and that you choose weak arguments over strong ones, but that is your business if you want to do so!

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
You wish to think mine are weak arguements,can't stop you,Just talk.You may use supposedly litery superiority.Doesn't worry me,it rarely solves problems.Certainly doesn't solve the ripper murders,or the facts of Tabram's death.It does show an egoism to appear superior.and a desperation to find a means of overcoming an inferior line of reasoning,But there,I believe you knew that ever since you touted the two men two w eapons rot.