Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[DVV]

If you buy one bayonet, they give you a dagger free.

[Fisherman]

But I thought you did not buy the bayonet, David ... so how do YOU know?

Fisherman

[Ben]

“This has to be the mootest and most pointless discussion ever on Casebook”

Well off you pop to more “pointful” discussions then, Fisherman. Nobody’s forcing you to endure that which you consider pointless, and tortured, inapplicable analogies involving Cleopatra and Hannibal certainly don’t help. I’m challenging the nonsense that a doctor is “probably” right simply because he expressed an opinion. That determination must take into account the actual basis for that opinion, and in this case, the basis was insufficient to conclude that two weapons were definitely used. We don’t haul Kileen over the coals for this, but he was very young inexperienced, and multi-weapons stabbers are very rare in comparison to their single-weapon counterparts.

You know full well you don’t embrace the mantra that the contemporary professional opinions will “probably” be correct, because you’ve argued against contemporary professional opinion on several occasions, most notably on the Stride issue. If you didn’t consider that tantamount to “rewriting history” then, you shouldn’t really back-peddle now.

“If the signs are so very clear in that photo, the how could Killeen possibly have missed it?”

But I thought your argument was that he didn’t miss it? According to your previous logic, the signs of suffocation could easily have appeared in this “lost report”, and that he only didn’t mention it at the inquest because he wasn’t required to. You insist that lots of other details must have appeared in this report, despite the fact that they have no corroboration anywhere (not even in the Illustrated Police News) and the total absence of evidence that they appeared anywhere accept in your imagination, so why so confident when dismissing suffocation?

Evidence for suffocation: an admittedly uncorroborated article in the Illustrated Police News (not “Police Illustrated”, Fisherman!)

Evidence for wounds that reveal different numbers of “cutting sides”: Zero.

“You have invested heavily in telling people that my use of Dew compares to your use of an obviously erroneous Home Office report, so I once again ask you to provide proof of this.”

Have you or have you not used the Dew book to formulate theories? If you now contend that you haven't, I can only assume a certain penny’s finally dropped. In which case, well done you.

“Oh, so you think that no evaluation of the sources is involved when a journalist chooses what material to provide his writing colleagues with?”

Well, for instance, you might inform your colleagues that Historian X concludes this from the source, while Historian Y concludes the opposite, but I wouldn’t expect any journalist worthy of that title to pooh-pooh the historians' findings and adhere instead to the hastily conceived judgments of one of his colleagues.

“YOU may be as adamant as you please in stating that shape could not have had anything to do with Killeens assessment”

Yes, I may, because had it been otherwise, he’d have said so. No sane individual, let alone a doctor at an inquest, deliberately provides a weak reason for offering a two weapon theory, while keeping silent about a much better reason that would put the matter beyond question.

“... which is probably why so many people speak of the possibility that she banged her head against the wall or the floor.”

Do they really "speak" of that? Do they really suggest that Tabram banged her own head against the wall or floor without the killer’s help? She might do the former if she was having a discussion with you, and with considerable justification, but it seems most improbable in any other scenario. It could be argued that she injured herself when attempting to wrestle free of the killer, but this again seems unlikely to have occurred in the absence of any screaming or crying out.

“But what about my question to you about Nichols, Ben? I need an answer to that one. It is very important to another subject, as I will show you in some time”

Oh yes, your brand new exciting theory that Cross was the ripper after all. I can’t imagine who could have converted you to that one… It seems like only yesterday that Fleming was the ripper, Tabram was a ripper victim, Stride wasn’t, the Dew Spew was riddled with mistakes, Hutchinson got the right night, but all those tables have turned now, haven’t they?

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Theory

I'm coming around to the theory that Tabram not only banged her own head on the wall; but did so whilst suffocating and stabbing herself as well.

Why not?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Oh yes, your brand new exciting theory that Cross was the ripper after all. I can’t imagine who could have converted you to that one… It seems like only yesterday that Fleming was the ripper, Tabram was a ripper victim, Stride wasn’t, the Dew Spew was riddled with mistakes, Hutchinson got the right night, but all those tables have turned now, haven’t they?"

And it seems like only yesterday that you said that changing your mind need not be a bad thing, Ben! But do let´s take a look at things here!

Have I ever said that Fleming was the Ripper - or did I say that a case could be made for it?

Don´t misrepresent me, Ben. It´s bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever said that Tabram was a Ripper victim, or have I said that she may have been? Does my stance now, more or less on the fence, preclusde that she WAS a Ripper victim?

Don´t misrepresent me, Ben. It´s bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever stated that Stride was not a Ripper victim, or have I made the case that she MAY not have been?

Don´t misrepresent me, Ben. It´s bad manners and bad research.

Have I ever sad that Dews book was faultless?

Don´t misrepresent me, Ben. It´s bad manners and bad research.

Have I stated that Hutchinson must have gotten the days right?

Don´t misrepresent me, Ben. It´s bad manners and bad research.

Are you of the meaning that George Hutchinson MUST have been Joe Fleming AND the Ripper? Is the case closed to you?

I would not think so.

Would you like me to tell all and sundry that you think that you have solved the case, and that you are of the meaning that your losution cannot be questioned?

I would not think so.

I take it that from now on, you are going to respect this, Ben. If not, I´m not the one to talk to.

Incidentally, adding smilies to unpleasant accusations of me being a "convert" by somebody else´s will, does not help very much. Can I please ask you to accept that I make my own calls, when I decide that something is a good theory? I would also like to point to the fact that much new evidence has been added to the Cross theory, much of which remains unknown to you for now. Such things may not sway you, but it can sway me if the evidence and implications are there. But I prefer to call it further insight instead of "being converted" by somebody.

Oh, I forgot:

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

A Relevant Post

I'm coming around to the theory that Tabram not only banged her own head on the wall; but did so whilst suffocating and stabbing herself as well.

Why not?

Hi, Sally,

Thanks for an amusing post and one which is actually relevant to the subject matter. I've been party to allowing this thread to become one about whether two knives were used and whether or not Killeen was competent. Apologies for my involvement in that process.

Ben & Fisherman,

When I've posted this I'll open a separate thread on the competence of Killeen to give the opinions that he did. Perhaps you can continue your increasingly irate off-topic discussion over there.

Regards, Bridewell

[Sally]

Hi, Sally,

Thanks for an amusing post and one which is actually relevant to the subject matter. I've been party to allowing this thread to become one about whether two knives were used and whether or not Killeen was competent. Apologies for my involvement in that process.

Hi Bridewell - no worries

The nature of discussion is that it will inevitably evolve. I look forward to your new thread

[Bridewell]

Further to the above:

There is now a thread (under Doctors & Coroners) entitled:

Was Dr Killeen Competent To Express The Opinions That He Did?

for those who wish to do so to continue their discussions on that particular subject.

Sally, I'm not trying to upset anyone with this. I just think this particular thread has diverted too far for too long. It seems sensible (& wasn't meant to be rude) to start another one.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Further to the above:

There is now a thread (under Doctors & Coroners) entitled:

Was Dr Killeen Competent To Express The Opinions That He Did?

for those who wish to do so to continue their discussions on that particular subject.

Sally, I'm not trying to upset anyone with this. I just think this particular thread has diverted too far for too long. It seems sensible (& wasn't meant to be rude) to start another one.

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell - no I think it's a good idea

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I never suggested that you "stated" any of things as fact, but they were theories that you subscribed to not so long ago and you argued them very vehemently with others. I'm simply observing that you seem to have rejected these previous ideas and now argue the reverse of practically all of them with equal vehemence. I never suggested that this was a "bad" thing, so I'm not sure quite where I'm guilty of "bad manners", although I notice your own manners have been criticized several times on this thread and for good reason. Also, what's so "unpleasant" about speculating that that you might have been persuaded by someone else that Cross was a worthy suspect? You've referred to Lechmere's as yet undisclosed research, and I simply concluded - reasonably, I would have thought - that it was this that "converted" you into believer in Cross as the best suspect.

Hi Bridewell,

I apologise for my part in the forgoing frosty exchange, but I felt I had to explain that I'm not quite the unpleasant mannerless person I'm being depicted as.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

My advice to you, if you could see your way clear to take it from me, would be to argue your points in the different questions you are interested in, and let me argue whatever points I prefer. If you could stay away from claiming that "yesterday it was A, and now it is B", I would be very grateful. I always have a rational reason when I abandon A for B, you may rely on that, and I would appreciate if you took my word for it. Likewise, if you were ever to change YOURm ind on something - not that it is a frequent thing - I will gladly let you do so without making out that you are a less reliable person for it.

Bridewell!

Thanks for the new thread on Killeen! As for me, I have said what I wanted to say about the accusations that Killeen would have been incompetent in any way - it is impossible to prove. After that, any further discussion on the topic is moot and useless, I think, unless you are anticipating a discussion on the levels of competence amongst doctors in general back then - such a thing would be interesting!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

If you could stay away from claiming that "yesterday it was A, and now it is B", I would be very grateful. I always have a rational reason when I abandon A for B, you may rely on that,

Which is a credit to you. Anyone who will not changed their mind will not learn anything. The implication that a changing opinion is a sign of weakness is quite primative.

Regards, Jon S.

[Belloc]

I hope it’s permissible to add an entry to this topic, which has been dormant for more than 10 years.
The issues concerning blood spatter raised in the thread’s early days quickly got forgotten in favour of a lengthy discussion on the number and type of knives used to dispatch Mrs Tabram.
Nonetheless, it does seem likely that a great deal of blood was spilled in the course of the attack on Mrs Tabram. According to the medical evidence, she was stabbed 39 times before she died. If a large share of her blood ended up on whoever attacked her, it raises some interesting questions.

• Did the attacker(s) find it enjoyable to be smeared with blood?
• How did the attacker(s) feel about penetrating the victim’s body so many times?
• Why do witness descriptions of the scene give the impression there were quite modest amounts of blood on the surroundings?
• How did the attacker(s) escape attention after leaving the crime scene if he/she/they were covered in blood?
• Did the attacker(s) kill other women afterwards, using what had been learned from this murder?

I’d appreciate knowing your thoughts.

[Abby Normal]

I hope it’s permissible to add an entry to this topic, which has been dormant for more than 10 years.
The issues concerning blood spatter raised in the thread’s early days quickly got forgotten in favour of a lengthy discussion on the number and type of knives used to dispatch Mrs Tabram.
Nonetheless, it does seem likely that a great deal of blood was spilled in the course of the attack on Mrs Tabram. According to the medical evidence, she was stabbed 39 times before she died. If a large share of her blood ended up on whoever attacked her, it raises some interesting questions.

• Did the attacker(s) find it enjoyable to be smeared with blood?
• How did the attacker(s) feel about penetrating the victim’s body so many times?
• Why do witness descriptions of the scene give the impression there were quite modest amounts of blood on the surroundings?
• How did the attacker(s) escape attention after leaving the crime scene if he/she/they were covered in blood?
• Did the attacker(s) kill other women afterwards, using what had been learned from this murder?

I’d appreciate knowing your thoughts.

Hi Belloc and welcome to the nut house lol!

1. Probably not
2. he probably enjoyed it
3. not sure, but I think so
4. I dont think he was neccesarily covered in blood. he may have taken precautions, it was dark, and was probably wearing dark clothes. his hands probably had blood on them, but he could just stick them in his pockets and or probably brought a rag to wipe hands.
5. yes

[Belloc]

Thanks so much for the warm (?) welcome, Abby, and for sharing your thoughts.

Regarding the actual attack on Martha Tabram, may I remind you of a couple of points I’ve gleaned from the very informative timeline for her found elsewhere on this website?
For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume in this post that the attack was carried out by a single male.
The attacker tore open the front of Mrs Tabram’s clothing and pushed up her skirt so as to have better access to her body. He stabbed her throat and torso 38 times before administering the fatal strike.
The post mortem revealed that the victim was a healthy woman approaching middle age. With her heart still pumping for most of the attack, unlike the canonical victims of Jack the Ripper, there must have been a lot of blood spurting from her body during the onslaught. Even if Mrs Tabram was unconscious and prone, there’d have been a considerable effusion of blood, unimpeded by clothing. The attacker was using a fairly short weapon, so must have been in close contact with his victim. By the time Mrs Tabram’s ordeal was over, I suggest the murderer was covered in her blood from head to foot.
Since you feel the attacker probably enjoyed penetrating his victim again and again, do you think it’s possible that being spattered with her blood might also have heightened his exhilaration? Perhaps the intense pleasure the attacker experienced overcame any natural caution, so that he couldn’t stop himself until the physical exertion and sensory overload of inflicting so many wounds finally exhausted him, leaving him with nothing to do but administer the final fatal blow.

So what drove the attacker to inflict so many wounds wasn’t anger, it was ecstasy.

Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but it does explain why the killer stabbed Mrs Tabram so many times.

Best regards.