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

[Wickerman]

I posted the HO file as I have it, verbatim, without comments.

It appears unsigned, and to the best of my knowledge is complete, with errors.
Originally transcribed approx. 12? yrs ago by a past member of Casebook, I think,...Alex Chisholm, but I could be wrong about that.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm not sure quite what was wrong with the existing thread, where these very issues are currently under discussion, but still...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.

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. But there wasn't, and so regrettably, it doesn't.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

HO 144/221/A49301C (8g) ff.160 -161

HO 29 Nov. 88 A49301C 160 8g
Tabram (? 37) date.8.88.

Time
2a.m. and 4.50a.m. probably before 3.30 a.m.

Place
landing at George Yard bldngs, a tenement house in Whitechapel

Nature of injuries &c. &c.
wounds on body, neck and private parts with a knife or dagger
Some of the wounds so narrow that a bayonet was first suggested as the weapon but to bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable

parts removed
WtB. Mary Ann Nichols (45)31.8.88. between 2.30 and 3.45 on footway in Buck’s Row, Whitechapel

throat cut, nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged: the coating of the stomach was cut in several places: Two small stabs on private parts: may have been done by a strong bladed knife? By a left handed man.

money: and nothing left behind.
parts removed
The description of the cut is not quite clear? clerical error pelvis = pubes.
If so, the cut would be a circular sweep starting from centre of waist

WtB Annie Chapman
Chapman (Contd)8.9.88.doubtful.
Evidence points to something between 5.30 and 6 :- but medical evidence says about 4 o’cl.in back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, a Small tenement house in Spitalfields i.e. Whitechapel

throat deeply severed, incision jagged. above right shoulder a flap of abdominal wall, the whole of the small intestines and their attachments. Above left shoulder 2 other portions of abdominal wall and pubes in a large quantity of blood.
Head of 1st phalanx of ring finger abraded :- distinct ring marks on proximal phalanx of same finger.

Missing … navel and surrounding part of abdominal wall, uterus and upper part of vagina, most of the bladder also missing.
PTO anatomical knowledge.
Knife used must have been a small amputating knife or a well ground Slaughterman’s knife narrow thin & sharp, blade 6 to 8 inches long.

Eliz. Stride 30.9.88 1 a.m. inside gates of Duffield’s Yard Berner Street Whitechapel
throat deeply severed, and slight abrasion of skin at the end of the cut.
Removed

Cath. Eddowes 30.9.88 1.44 a.m. Mitre Square near Leadenhall St. City
missing
left kidney & uterus*
HO 144/221/A49301C (8g) ff.160 -161

[Hunter]

Hi Fish,

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

Not saying they were always wrong; a broken clock is right twice a day, but both should be approached with caution.

I will say this. The subject of a bayonet was still on Wynne Baxter's mind at the time of the Chapman murder. When Phillips was asked by Baxter to describe the implement used to kill and mutilate Annie Chapman, he was specifically asked if any of the wounds could have been caused by a bayonet... and his answer was a definitive 'No'. He was also very clear as to the type of weapons that may have been used and those that may not have. This being the third murder of a prostitute in the same area in a month - and the concern that there was a possible link- brought about much more attention to details than what was experienced with the Tabram case and brought in a divisional surgeon for the first time who was qualified to answer questions about weapons; the benifit of hindsight. And, of course, the much more thorough Baxter was on vacation in Scandinavia at the time of the Tabram murder.

It was common practice for the constable who arrived at a scene of a violent crime to send for the nearest available physician; in case immediate assistance for the victim might be needed. That may or may not be someone who had the experience and knowledge to disseminate forensic information properly. Immediate care of the victim was priority. Killeen may have gotten his diagnosis right; with what we are left with, I believe we haven't sufficient information to discount his assumptions. But, he was very young at the time and didn't stay in the East End very long after.

Its just one of the many caveats in this case that brings on speculation... and that speculation is usually based on the prejudice of the speculator.

[Fisherman]

I would like to discuss the Home Office annotations, relating to Martha Tabrams death. Regretfully, I have not got the exact wording, but apparently the document says that some of the minor wounds were originally believed to have been inflicted by a bayonet, but that was later discarded since bayonet wounds are quite unmistakable. That would be the gist of the wording, at least.

It has become apparent to me that there are some posters who say that these annotations effectively rule out the suggestion that a bayonet was used in the Tabram murder. But after having pondered the issue, I have come up with an alternative explanation. Please let me know if I am wrong here or if I have misrepresented the annotations as such. But here goes:

From the East London Observer of the 18th of August, we have it on record that Edmund Reid, who was the man in charge of the Tabram investigation, believed that the hole in Tabrams sternum proved that a military man had been responsible for it. The obvious inference is that Reid believed that the hole gave away the use of a bayonet. And the most reasonable bayonet to suggest would be the type used by the army at that stage, the sword bayonet, a double-edged 22-inch blade, corresponding well with Dr Killeens suggestion that some sort of dagger blade, long and strong, had caused the damage.

An obvious feature of the Home Office annotation is that it does NOT speak of the sternum hole. It only says that some of the minor wounds were originally believed to have been inflicted by a bayonet. And that tallies very well with the ongoing discussion on these boards today, where some posters argue that the blade that caused the sternum wound could also have inflicted the smaller 37 wounds, by means of having been inserted only to a lesser degree.

Here is my suggestion: What if there was an ongoing discussion back in 1888 about this very possibility? We know that we had a man in charge of the investigation that seemingly championed the view that a bayonet - most probably a sword bayonet - was responsible for the sternum wound. So, let´s assume that it was thrown forward that this weapon also could have inflicted at least some of the smaller wounds. And if this suggestion was rejected by Dr Killeen and proven wrong by the medical evidence, then we would have a situation that tallied very well with the Home Office annotation: It was originally suggested that some of the minor wounds were made by a bayonet, but this was subsequentially discarded, since the smaller wounds were not of the unmistakable character that would have been caused by a sword bayonet.

Is there anything that may support this view? Well, we have the Star from the 24th, that says "It was thought that the wounds were inflicted with a bayonet, and that the murderer must have been a soldier." Interestingly, the Star does ALSO speak of "wounds" instead of the sternum wound only, and equally, it says that it "was thought", potentially pointing to this suggestion having been discarded at some stage.

Reading the annotations this way, I fail to see why they would in any manner rule out the suggestion of a bayonet.

The best,
Fisherman