Tweet
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, letīs 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
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, letīs 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
Comment