The Home Office annotations - do they rule out a bayonet?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"They must reasonably belong to any of the wounds that were initially suspected of having been inflicted by a bayonet. Since the sternum wound fits the bill and no other, it logically follows that the sternum wound was amongst those referred to in the Home Office document."

Using your "logic", Ben, perhaps - not using mine, though. The sternum wound would have been the only wound NOT referred to as "narrow". That effectively means that it is the last wound applicable to the Home Office description. I have furthermore offered an alternative explanation that sheds a different light upon this, and that would put the Home Office in the clear when it comes to confusions and such. If I am correct, then the Home Office may have made a completely correct description. And the article in the Star clearly tells us that it WAS spoken of a number of wounds that had been put forward as potential bayonet wounds. Such a thing is called corroboration - the suggestion WAS there at the time.
I fail to see how both the press and the Home Office would have forgotten that it was just the one wound, a large and NOT narrow one, that was suggested as being bayonet-inflicted at the inquest stage. There was no discussion whatsoever at that stage about the smaller wounds being bayonet-delivered, and I fail to see that the passing of 17-18 days would have had the Star completely forgetting this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Wrote by?
Wrote when?

Police report, written at the time.

[DVV]

Thanks for the reminder, Jon. It shows how uncertain and vague was Killeen.
"The witness did not think..."
"The wounds generally might have been..."
"His opinion was..."
"Some kind of dagger..."

[Wickerman]

Wrote by?
Wrote when?

As opposed to...

"The left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung was penetrated in two places. The heart, which was rather fatty, was penetrated in one place, and that would be sufficient to cause death. The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places, the spleen was penetrated in two places, and the stomach, which was perfectly healthy, was penetrated in six places. The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted with a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger,.."

Clearly not an either/or situation, but an "also".
And to employ emphasis in words Ben can easily recognise; irrefutable, concise, conclusive & indisputable!

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

What it says on the tin..

[ATTACH]13405[/ATTACH]

[Ben]

It furthermore speaks specifically of these wounds as narrow, meaning that they must reasonably belong to the flurry of 27.

No, Fisherman.

They must reasonably belong to any of the wounds that were initially suspected of having been inflicted by a bayonet. Since the sternum wound fits the bill and no other, it logically follows that the sternum wound was amongst those referred to in the Home Office document.

And at the end of the day, Killeen WAS sure about things.

No, Fisherman.

At the end of the day, he wasn't at all "sure", or else he'd have said so. What he actually said was "I don't think" that the wounds were created by one weapon only.

Well, I think the brief note does contain mistakes, that being one.
The other being the fact the writer confused the small knife wounds with being caused by a bayonet, which clearly was not the case

No, Jon.

Neither of those were "mistakes". "Knife or dagger" meant exactly that, and obviously implies that none of the wounds betrayed any one-side/two-side distinction of the type that would set a knife and a dagger apart. The fact that it argues against your two-day-old theorizing does not make it a "mistake". The Home Office document neither stated, nor implied, that the "small wounds" were ever suspected of having been created by a beyonet, so that one doesn't qualify as a "mistake" either. The Home Office document reveals, quite conclusively, that a bayonet was ultimately exonerated of having had anything remotely to do with the Tabram murder, and for the that reason, I fully intend to keep using it again and again "in any argument". I just hope people are willing to go round and round in repetitive circles with me, 'tis all.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Many thanks for producing that for us, Jon.

You're very welcome, I'm sure you'll make use of it

Knife OR dagger.

They evidently weren't sure which.

Well, I think the brief note does contain mistakes, that being one.
The other being the fact the writer confused the small knife wounds with being caused by a bayonet, which clearly was not the case.
Seeing as how the writer appears to be out of touch with specifics I don't see any value in using this as a source in any argument.

Outside of this HO file, our understanding is that Killeen suggested "knife AND dagger", not "knife OR dagger", also that it was the "LARGER wound suggested to be associated with the bayonet", not the many smaller wounds.
The file with respect to Tabram contains too many contradictions to be of any value, it was afterall dated 29 Nov.
Another example of inaccurate recollections some 14 weeks?, after the event.

Thanks for posting the report, Jon! Am I correct in reading it as if it suggests that parts were removed from Tabram and Nichols?

Hi Fisherman.
I think the "parts removed" was just a subheading, like Time, Place, Money, etc.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Ben

Knife OR dagger.

They evidently weren't sure which.

An extremely interesting observation, especially in light of the current discussion.

Quite a hot potatoe for those who are still hammering that "dagger = two cutting edges" to the people present at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"The only proper study of bayonet wounds,w as made where the bayonet was affixed to a rifle.Grasped in the fist,it was no different than any other type of dagger,and would show no dissimiler appearance to a wound.The only reason,as Hunter and others have pointed out,is that the reference to soldiers being seen in the vicinity of Tabram's killing,has led officials and press of the time,to suggest a soldier and soldiers weapon as being involved."

That sounds about correct up til the point where we remember that Reid thought it proven that a military man was responsible for the deed. And he judged that by the apparition of Tabramīs sternum wound! So apparently SOMETHING was present in that wound that left Reid with no doubts at all. Judging that it was all proven is an extremely strong wording.

Oh, how one would wish for just a little more information, just some slight elaboration. It is all very frustrating.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"They evidently weren't sure which."

They evidently thought that parts were taken from Tabram and Nichols too. And that evidently is wrong. And at the end of the day, Killeen WAS sure about things. Moreover, if we take a look at it semantically, where do we end up? The wounds on Tabram WERE all inflicted by a knife or dagger, the way Killeen saw it.
Letīs assume that it instead had said "wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife AND dagger". My hunch is that would have people saying "but that does not tell us which of the wounds were inflicted by what!", implicating that such a wording could point to half of them being knife- and the other half dagger-inflicted.

Semantics can work wonders for us. We may read things selectively and "interpret" them so as to fit our bill. It would be nice, though, if we instead saw things from BOTH sides and allowed for ALL interpretations. Because a body with 1-2 dagger wounds and 37-38 knife wounds is a body with 39 wounds made by a knife or dagger.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"the noteworthy point in the Home Office document is that the notion of a bayonet's involvement in the murder of Martha Tabram was later revised on account the "unmistakability" of the wounds that a bayonet create. The number of wounds on Tabram that a bayonet was "first" suspected of creating has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the HO observation. It doesn't matter if it was first suspected of creating one, some, or lots of the wounds. The central bullet point here is that it was ultimately considered to have been responsible for NONE of them - not the "minor wounds" and not the sternum wounds."

The report says not a thing about the sternum wound, Ben. It says that "some of the wounds" - meaning that NOT all wounds are up for discussion here - were first thought to have been bayonet inflicted. It furthermore speaks specifically of these wounds as narrow, meaning that they must reasonably belong to the flurry of 27. Thus no comment at all is made about a bayonet being discarded as the sternum weapon. Therefore, this Home Office annotation has no bearing at all on that particular detail.

"Unfortunately, your suggestion would only make sense if there had been any insinuation, then or now, that a bayonet had been responsible for the smaller Tabram wounds."

That insinuation would be exactly what we have BOTH in the Home Office annotation AND the Star, Ben! Or are you saying that we need a third source?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting the report, Jon! Am I correct in reading it as if it suggests that parts were removed from Tabram and Nichols?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"I would be careful in putting much stock in Home Office annotations or much that is printed by the Star."

I think I have been pretty adamant as regards how much stock I put in the Home Office annotation up til now - not too much at all. And I know that the Star was not reliable, generally speaking.

What I find of interest is the correlation. I had not noticed it before, and it does seem that there was a discussion about "some of the wounds" having been bayonet inflicted. This led me to the proposition I made.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

The only proper study of bayonet wounds,w as made where the bayonet was affixed to a rifle.Grasped in the fist,it was no different than any other type of dagger,and would show no dissimiler appearance to a wound.The only reason,as Hunter and others have pointed out,is that the reference to soldiers being seen in the vicinity of Tabram's killing,has led officials and press of the time,to suggest a soldier and soldiers weapon as being involved.

[Ben]

Many thanks for producing that for us, Jon.

wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger

Knife OR dagger.

They evidently weren't sure which.

An extremely interesting observation, especially in light of the current discussion.