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

[Ben]

I forgot about this thread, probably because I expressed my intention to "avoid going over yet more old ground", and optimistically imagined that people would go along with that. Oh well...

No Fisherman, Kileen's opinion is not the "best we can hope for", at least not as far as the issue of weapons is concerned. For that topic, a person with demonstrable expertise in weaponry would represent the dizzy heights to which I personally aspire, although Kileen's insights as to what may have caused Tabram's death (and other related matters) are of undisputed value. I suspect that's probably you all done now with the "professional doctors trump your opinion" argument. You've made your point, and I don't agree with such generalizations. Besides which, you simply don't practice what you preach in this regard, otherwise you would not have advanced certain theories here which militate very strongly indeed against contemporary professional opinion. If it didn't stop you, it isn't likely to stop me either.

I'm not trying to change the content of the Home Office document at all. It said that a bayonet was first suspected of having caused some of the wounds, but that the opinion was later revised. It doesn't matter if one, some, or all of the wounds were initially suspected of having been bayonet-inflicted. The ultimate conclusion was that none of them were.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

No, Ben, that is NOT the "salient point" at all. For in fact, nothing at all along those lines is said in the document.
You tell us that Killeen only "opined" that the wounds on Tabram gave away two weapons, and in a sense that is correct. But a trained and qualified doctorīs opinion is the best we can hope for, so that should pose no problem at all.
It is also true that if I tell you that the Empire State building is taller than the loo at my friends summer house, it is only my opinion, grounded in a subjective analysis on my behalf. Opinions may be good and they may be less good. And when they are given by specialists and professionals at an inquest, they can, more often than not, be expected to belong to the former category.

However, when they are offered by posters on a site like this, who have chosen to let a guess of their own prevail over the informed view of a professional given at an inquest, one needs to treat such a thing with the utmost of care. And opining is exactly what you do here, Ben - opining that a totally unambiguously worded phrase - SOME of the NARROW wounds - instead means "ALL of the wounds, INCLUDING the NOT NARROW one".

Therefore, I offer MY opinion, and that opinion is that we should not "read" things into phrasings that are not there, and that it is a better approach to accept a written statement by the Home Office as meaning what is says instead of opting for changing what it says into something that tallies better with what we instead were hoping that it would say.

Some of the minor adventurous posters out here, I suspect, would agree with that suggestion. Not necessarily only the narrow-minded, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Just briefly, to avoid going over yet more old ground, but no, I don't see a problem with my phraseology. I certainly never said that I don't "for a moment accept that Killeen was correct in saying that two weapons had been used". I consider it rather unlikely, but by no means impossible.

The salient point in the Home Office document is that none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been bayonet-inflicted.

Regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi All,

Things are seldom as they seem, and my golden rule is never to rule out any possibilities.

The street attack on Emma Smith, which resulted in her death, came shortly after an official investigation headed by James Monro based on allegations in the press and House of Commons that, across London, the Metropolitan Police were levying blackmail on cabmen, publicans, goods carriers and unfortunates.

Such a scenario could well explain Emma Smith's reticence when it came to identifying her attackers.

Merely food for thought. Check it out in the various newspaper archives.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon, levying blackmail on Emma Smith wouldn't have made one too wealthy.
45 years old.
Five foot too.
Drank more than she could afford.
That's also food for thought, isn't it ?

Cheers Simon

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Unless you accept - as I do, and believe you ought to - that central message of the Home Office report was that none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been inflicted by a bayonet..."

You do not for a moment accept that Killeen was correct in saying that two weapons had been used, although there is not a shred of evidence to point in the other direction. You even tell me that I am merely guessing that professional medicos get their judgements abut the number of weapons involved in killings right more often than they get it wrong, thereby apparently suggesting a possibility that these professionals are utterly useless at their job, and that anybody could make these calls just as well as they could.

And after THAT, you now urge me to agree with you that a Home Office annotation that very clearly ONLY speaks of "some of the narrow wounds" in relation to the potential use of a bayonet, MUST be accepted as actually speaking of ALL of the wounds - narrow or not.

Are you really sure you donīt wish to rephrase this?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If I am correct, then the Home Office may have made a completely correct description.

Unless you accept - as I do, and believe you ought to - that central message of the Home Office report was that none of the wounds were ultimately considered to have been inflicted by a bayonet, then I'm afraid I don't think you are "correct". It's not a question of the police or home office "completely forgetting" how many wounds were initially suspected of being bayonet-authored. It was a casual error, repeated in 1894 by Macnaghten, which did not impact in the slightest on the overriding message that a bayonet was ultimately exonerated of having caused ANY of Tabram's wounds.

So about this lake that stocks perch and trout. Is it day ticket or members only? I've caught lovely three-pound(ish) perch from estate lakes that also stock wild carp and bream, but never a trout, and a trout in a Kent lake is the piscatorial equivalent of a "socket bayonet" being paraded around Whitechapel in terms of the chances of it occurring. But perhaps I haven't looked hard enough.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Ok, I have the date.
This is Swanson's 19th Oct. report, though under the heading we see,"___day of September 1888", unfortunately is not filled out. Or at least was not captured in the transcript I have.

What is important is that after the last three words, "knife or dagger", we then see "a bayonet", but for some reason that was not included in the above photo.

"...Dr. Keeling of 68 Brick Lane was called & examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on body, neck Not apparently with throat cut? GL and private part with a knife or dagger. a bayonet
11 ū P.M. 6th Aug Mrs. Tabram was seen alive by Mary Ann Connolly alias Pearly..."

Because this was in Swanson's hand, I would like to see if the "a bayonet" is a notation in the same hand, or in different handwriting.
The "Not apparently with throat cut? GL" is an annotation by Geo. Lushington, so did he also write "a bayonet" ?, or someone else?

Apparently, written so long after the event, officials felt the need to add corrections, or their own observations, to Swanson's report. Which tends to lessen the value.

At this point it might be worth mentioning Philip Sugden, who wrote:

Quote:
The records of the Metropolitan Police still contain a contemporary digest in tabular form of all the official reports made upon the case. In one column, headed 'Nature and description of wounds as given in surgeon's report', is written the comment "twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen apparently inflicted with a penknife". (p.29).

Sugden, an historian, when considering the complete picture accepted the following, which was expressed in a paragraph comparing the murder of Smith with that of Martha Tabram.

"Tabram's murderer used two weapons, a penknife and a long-bladed weapon like a dagger or bayonet" (p.34).

It is possible to lose sight of the overall situation when superfluous questions are raised as to what was or was not considered a dagger, and what experience was or was not needed, and by whom.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Things are seldom as they seem, and my golden rule is never to rule out any possibilities.

The street attack on Emma Smith, which resulted in her death, came shortly after an official investigation headed by James Monro based on allegations in the press and House of Commons that, across London, the Metropolitan Police were levying blackmail on cabmen, publicans, goods carriers and unfortunates.

Such a scenario could well explain Emma Smith's reticence when it came to identifying her attackers.

Merely food for thought. Check it out in the various newspaper archives.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

test

Hello David. It's not a matter of "broken English" but of a proposition.

To take an example, if I claim someone lied and were asked, "What was the lie?" I would respond, "He stated X. But it was in fact the case that not X."

Very simple test.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

What surprises me the most is that you appear to have not heard about the suggestion, where have you been?

Certainly Ada Wilson lied about her attack. She brought her client into her room, but claimed he attacked her when she opened the front door.

Emma Smith claimed assault by a gang to get treatment for her injuries. Some women were too ashamed to tell the nurses they had been prostituting themselves and the client turned nasty.
Present yourself as an innocent victim where possible.

Yes Jon - and that's what I've already told Lynn. But he wouldn't understand my broken English, although it gonna be the lingua franca of the 21st century.

No, we don't know for sure, but it is a distinct possibility. Gangs were well known to rough-up prostitutes & women walking alone. Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true.

There is little we know for sure. But here, we're almost sure she lied about the location. And about the motive. Would you risk to be hanged for the two pence she had in her pocket - if she had any ?
And where have we seen gangs doing THAT in Whitechapel 1888 ?

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Jon.

"Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true."

Thanks. Now I'm beginning to understand David's posts. Sure, she may not have told the truth. Not sure what is riding on it, except gang involvement?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi David and Lynn,

This is becoming too existential for me.

Emma Smith told the truth. She was attacked by a gang.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?

Regards,

Simon

What surprises me the most is that you appear to have not heard about the suggestion, where have you been?

Certainly Ada Wilson lied about her attack. She brought her client into her room, but claimed he attacked her when she opened the front door.

Emma Smith claimed assault by a gang to get treatment for her injuries. Some women were too ashamed to tell the nurses they had been prostituting themselves and the client turned nasty.
Present yourself as an innocent victim where possible.

No, we don't know for sure, but it is a distinct possibility. Gangs were well known to rough-up prostitutes & women walking alone. Her claim seemed reasonable, but it may not have been true.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

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..."

Thats the correct response from a medical professional. Try get a doctor to offer "absolutes", its not easy, due to the nature of their profession.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Police report, written at the time.

Incidently Sally, thankyou for posting it.

When I posted the HO notations I gave the date, "29 Nov" and mentioned the fact that AFAIK it was unsigned.

I think it is important to be as specific as we can, it helps clear misunderstandings.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

discussion

Hello David. To be honest, I don't think there was a discussion. I cannot discuss unless I know each claim made and have each term defined.

Cheers.
LC