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

[Sally]

What it says on the tin..

[ATTACH]13405[/ATTACH]

[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.

[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..."

[Sally]

Wrote by?
Wrote when?

Police report, written at the time.

[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

[Fisherman]

Sally!

If I got so angry with you for misunderstanding this business, that I burnt you with a cigarette and a cigar - would you then say that it pointed to uncertainty if somebody said afterwards that "she received a number of burn marks, that were made by either a cigarette or a cigar"?

Would such a thing tell us that

A/ that somebody did not KNOW if it was a cigarette OR a cigar, or
B/ That the marks as such all were made by a cigarette or a cigar?

If I go fishing in a lake that holds trout and perch, and after the trip tell you that it was good fishing, since anytime I went out I could be certain to catch a trout or a perch, would that tell you that

A/I could not tell the difference between a trout or a perch, or
B/ That I caught EITHER a trout or a perch on each trip?

How´s your sense for language, Sally? Can you see the flaw in your argument? Let´s test it! Here goes:

I think you made a good or a bad argument!

What do you think I mean? How uncertain am I about which type of argument you made?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish, awesome post !
Killeen could land a barracuda in lake Genova, methinks.

[Fisherman]

Barracudas, David, have teeth that are sharp on both sides, so yes, that would be a likely specimen for him to catch. There´s probably only one type of fish he would NOT go for - since he would not be codding ...

Ichtyologically yours,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Good one(s), Fish. Please don't get banned again, the forums haven't the same taste when you're not around.

edit : btw, there are plenty of barracudas over here for some years. Some say it's an effect of global warming. Whatever, they eat all our fish, it's quite a disaster, and fishermen in my village don't know how to catch them. It's not in our culture.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Please don't get banned again, the forums haven't the same taste when you're not around."

I´ll try to stay away from it, if you will do the same for me.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Puns made on porpoise.

Hello Christer. Please, no more puns just for the halibut. It gives me a splitting haddock.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

edit : btw, there are plenty of barracudas over here for some years. Some say it's an effect of global warming. Whatever, they eat all our fish, it's quite a disaster, and fishermen in my village don't know how to catch them. It's not in our culture.

Barracuda are not so difficult to catch. They can get pretty big though. I like to take about a 75 pound test line and attach a bent dagger to it with some squid as bait. Make sure to use the single-edged dagger, however, or the squid just gets split in half.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Bayonet, dagger, knife, toasting fork? It's all a bit academic really.

Martha Tabram murder, Echo, 10th August 1888—



How on earth did "some of the Scotland Yard experts" conclude that a gang of men had become a lone killer?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Simon,
I'm not sure the 'Scotland Yard experts' did put too much faith in Emma Smith's account of her attack (see West testimony at the inquest).

[Simon Wood]

Hi David.

So what are you suggesting?

Regards,

Simon