Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim

[Michael W Richards]

Yes Michael, some good points there.

I read one press report which described the stabs in the chest as arranged circular around the heart, whether by accident or design we cannot know. Tom W. pointed it out to me some years ago.
I found that report interesting because if true, it might speak against the dagger being used last.

I think Jon that the dagger was either used first, or last, I don't see the that frenzy halting to change to another weapon for a single stab, or back to the pen knife. From my perspective when you have stabbing wounds that indicate rage, the only thing that would stop him from using that same knife is some damage to it. Then he has to have a second, smaller or larger, weapon on him. I think it starts with the large blade or ends with it. And I believe had a knife become damaged, it would have been discarded there.

Which is why I favor the scenario where a final sure lethal blow is delivered to ensure the woman is finally dead, or soon will be. Martha was still bleeding when many of those blows were delivered, I assume the heart beating ended when the large blade was used.

[Wickerman]

That's what I also believe is likely the case here Jon. This second weapon, appreciably larger than the one used in a frenzy, suggests a link to people on the streets with such a blade on them at that moment. Soldiers makes perfect sense.

I also think that the "frenzy", the many, many stab wounds, a result of overwhelming and uncontrollable emotions while killing, is present in a different form, much swifter and less strenuous for sure. The momentary rage shown by the killer of Liz Stride. But a murder committed in a state of momentary anger or rage seems in contrast to the murder of Annie, for example. Almost clinical. Unemotional.

Yes Michael, some good points there.

I read one press report which described the stabs in the chest as arranged circular around the heart, whether by accident or design we cannot know. Tom W. pointed it out to me some years ago.
I found that report interesting because if true, it might speak against the dagger being used last.

[Wickerman]

This is why I think we cannot get around Killeens suggestion of two blades without dropping all logic in the process.

Thankyou Christer, for taking the trouble to explain it better than I do.

[Michael W Richards]

We do know Barrett saw a lone soldier who said he was waiting for a friend who had gone off with a woman, so the pieces of the puzzle seem to be present if we arrange them in the correct order.
Soldiers were issued with penknives, but only Sergeants, Corporals, and higher ranks were permitted to carry side-arms (bayonet/daggers).
There was also reported that soldiers out on the town would often change jackets so as to confuse witnesses if any trouble broke out.
The rank indicated by the stripes on the jacket would not match the features of the one being identified in any line-up.

I think the solution to this murder is quite simple, one possibly inexperienced private?, got himself into a fracas with Tabram, and stabbed her in a frenzy, his partner (being of higher rank?), came to his rescue and with his dagger brought the altercation to a swift end, so they could get out of there before anyone got wind of what happened.

Two soldiers were involved, in my view.
I'm not saying it's the only possibly solution, I just think it is the best solution given what we know.

That's what I also believe is likely the case here Jon. This second weapon, appreciably larger than the one used in a frenzy, suggests a link to people on the streets with such a blade on them at that moment. Soldiers makes perfect sense.

I also think that the "frenzy", the many, many stab wounds, a result of overwhelming and uncontrollable emotions while killing, is present in a different form, much swifter and less strenuous for sure. The momentary rage shown by the killer of Liz Stride. But a murder committed in a state of momentary anger or rage seems in contrast to the murder of Annie, for example. Almost clinical. Unemotional.

[Fisherman]

I'm not second-guessing the doctor. I'm second-guessing the interpretation of the doctor's inquest testimony by the press. I cannot remember seeing a direct quote by Killeen that two different weapons were used. "The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument" (as reported in The Times) sounds pretty direct, and if the reporter was interpreting Killeen's observation that "all but one" of the wounds could have been caused by a pen-knife to mean that two distinct weapons were used, that's understandable. But, again, I have not seen Killeen quoted as stating this as his opinion. I am aware that he would have measured the wounds according to practice and requirements and if, in fact he believed two different weapons were used, I would have absolutely no reason not to take his word. On the other hand, I cannot accept, via press interpretations, that this was actually what he believed. If there is a report of a direct question, answer, or explanation that supports this, I will accept it. My view would then change. I haven't read every press report, but as of yet I haven't seen anything to convince me that the medical evidence would show that the weapon that penetrated the chest bone could not have been the same weapon that caused the other wounds.

The Times has a bit more to say than the part you quoted:

"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted by 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, and that all of them were caused during life."

The same thing is worded slightly different in the Morning Advertiser:

"In witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife. The large wound could be caused by a sword bayonet or dagger."

This tells us that the matter that made Killeen go for an interpretation of two weapons having been used was how the wound to -and through - the sternum could to his mind not have been caused by the blade that produced the other 38 wounds.

There factual reason/s for why the blades could not have been the same is something that is not expanded on to the full, but Killeen says that the blade that pierced the sternum was long and strong. And this can only have been concluded by measuring the wound, something that it seems we all agree must have been done.

The one possibility that remains if we want to believe in the same blade having caused all wounds, is if the blade width and thickness corresponded inbetween ALL wounds, and if the weapon that pierced the sternum and went deep into the body ("long") was therefore used to produce only more shallow wounds in all the other 38 cases. Meaning that the killer did only use a comparatively small force when inflicting them - he held back, quite simply, when delivering the 38 wounds, and he apparently held back to a degree that made the 38 wounds all correspond, while the 39:th wound did not.

For my money, if the width and the thickness of the blade correspoded in all 39 instances, Killeen would not have made the statement that two weapons were used. Not would he have entered the idea that the "pen-knife" could not have inflicted the wound that went through the sternum. The only two reasons it could not have gone through the sternum would be if the blade was not:
1. long enough
2. strong enough

Obviously, a one-inch blade can go through the sternum if it is sturdy and sharp enough, so Killeen cannot have been speaking of length. Consequentially, he will have been speaking of strenght. And there is no way he can have ruled out a piercing of the sternum if the "38 stab blade" was of the same width and thickness as the "long, strong" 1 stab blade, is there?

This is why I think we cannot get around Killeens suggestion of two blades without dropping all logic in the process.

[John Malcolm]

I'm not second-guessing the doctor. I'm second-guessing the interpretation of the doctor's inquest testimony by the press. I cannot remember seeing a direct quote by Killeen that two different weapons were used. "The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument" (as reported in The Times) sounds pretty direct, and if the reporter was interpreting Killeen's observation that "all but one" of the wounds could have been caused by a pen-knife to mean that two distinct weapons were used, that's understandable. But, again, I have not seen Killeen quoted as stating this as his opinion. I am aware that he would have measured the wounds according to practice and requirements and if, in fact he believed two different weapons were used, I would have absolutely no reason not to take his word. On the other hand, I cannot accept, via press interpretations, that this was actually what he believed. If there is a report of a direct question, answer, or explanation that supports this, I will accept it. My view would then change. I haven't read every press report, but as of yet I haven't seen anything to convince me that the medical evidence would show that the weapon that penetrated the chest bone could not have been the same weapon that caused the other wounds.

[Wickerman]

Yes, I am guessing- or, more preferably, speculating. My memory for details needs to be updated more often than it should, so if you can point me to where Killeen compared the width and depth of the wounds it would be greatly appreciated. That is certainly something I need to take into consideration. And I'm in no position to argue with the doctor, I just question which words actually came from him and which words were interpretations of his testimony or his deductions.

I think it's more likely your memory is fine John, perhaps what is lacking is insight?

When a doctor undertakes an autopsy, he is embarking on an exercise where there are specific legal requirements. The Coroner expects the Doctor/Surgeon to follow those requirements to the letter. Also, the Coroner will only permit a suitably qualified practitioner to conduct an autopsy. The practitioner requires the Coroners permission before he can proceed.

Any wounds are to be examined to the extent that the Doctor/Surgeon can determine the penetration depth & instrument width, that made the wound(s). This will enable the police to potentially identify the weapon used, this is the reason Killeene suggested the type of weapon that could have made those wounds.

I could, possibly, locate a whole list those requirements that Dr Killeene never mentioned, perhaps I should because when the doctor is unable to speak for himself, in our time, then the next best avenue for a researcher to pursue is to find out what was legally & professionally expected of him.

But then maybe the one who is second-guessing the doctor should do that, what do you think?

[John Malcolm]

But John, you are making that 'assumption' from a point of view of ignorance. By that I mean, you have not seen the wounds to compare them - you're guessing.
Dr Killeene was there, he saw the wounds, he compared the width & depth of the wounds, so you must admit Dr Killeene has an informed opinion.
So who is more likely to be correct?

Yes, I am guessing- or, more preferably, speculating. My memory for details needs to be updated more often than it should, so if you can point me to where Killeen compared the width and depth of the wounds it would be greatly appreciated. That is certainly something I need to take into consideration. And I'm in no position to argue with the doctor, I just question which words actually came from him and which words were interpretations of his testimony or his deductions.

[etenguy]

A 3" cut is actually rather small - about the length of my index finger, and I'm not particularly "long-fingered". It could conceivably have been a stab that slipped, but that's just conjecture on my part.

I agree and don't suggest it was like the slashing the other victims suffered. I don't think at about an inch deep it was a slipped stab, but it could well have been.

I'm not suggesting that Nichols' killer had murdered someone in like manner before (although he might have), but perhaps he'd slaughtered one or two animals in his time.

Again, this is a real possibility. In fact, if I were to speculate, he may have been working in a slaughter house. Perhaps not slaughtering the animals but seeing enough to know it was an artery in the neck he should aim for. He missed it with his stabbing of Tabram. Next at work, he may have asked to be taught slaughtering and perhaps practised before Nichols murder. Pure speculation and not a theory - just an outside possibility.

[Sam Flynn]

A 3" cut up from the vagina, not insignificant

A 3" cut is actually rather small - about the length of my index finger, and I'm not particularly "long-fingered". It could conceivably have been a stab that slipped, but that's just conjecture on my part.

I think, unless you suggest there are earlier murders by his hand, it was his first time at cutting a live human throat.

I'm not suggesting that Nichols' killer had murdered someone in like manner before (although he might have), but perhaps he'd slaughtered one or two animals in his time.

[etenguy]

I'd stop there, personally. There were two deep throat cuts, and they were pretty decisive, and the abdominal cuts were long and severe. In neither case was there any hint that yer man was trying things out for the first time.

Nevertheless, he moves from two throat cuts to one. I think, unless you suggest there are earlier murders by his hand, it was his first time at cutting a live human throat.

Re Tabram, I see no abdominal cut of any significance in terms of length or depth. The one that did exist might even have been accidental, e.g. a stab that slipped. Whether accidental or not, it was outnumbered almost 40:1 by decisive stab-wounds.

A 3" cut up from the vagina, not insignificant - not like the other victims, granted. And yes, it was vastly out-numbered. Neither of these points negates the possibility he found stabbing insufficient and so changed approach - just as possibly he found opening the abdomen insufficient and then decided to remove organs next.

[Wickerman]

Something we really need to get over is the assumption that two different weapons were used in the murder. A careful reading of the accounts of the inquest may infer that this was the case (as it was reported in the press that Dr. Killeen believed two different weapons were used), but that may not have actually been what the doctor said or meant. Saying that 38 of the wounds "could have been caused by an ordinary pen-knife" does not preclude the weapon that caused the wound that went through the chest from causing the other injuries.

But John, you are making that 'assumption' from a point of view of ignorance. By that I mean, you have not seen the wounds to compare them - you're guessing.
Dr Killeene was there, he saw the wounds, he compared the width & depth of the wounds, so you must admit Dr Killeene has an informed opinion.
So who is more likely to be correct?

It makes little sense that the killer would have used two weapons and IMHO it didn't happen.

We do agree on something then...

[Sam Flynn]

Also, when it comes to similarities/dissimilarities, one major thing that Tabram's murder has in common with Nichols, et al is the fact that (clearly) the sexual organs were targeted. This was obviously left out of the inquest testimony, but simple math will show that many of the 18 wounds not described were most likely directed at her "private part"

Just on this point, I make it that the named wounds account for a total of 30:

Throat 9
Left Lung 5
Right Lung 2
Heart 1
Liver 5
Spleen 2
Stomach 6

Note that, apart from the throat stabs, the list only mentions those upper-body stabs which actually punctured underlying organs. I'd suggest that it's possible that not all of the stabs penetrated that deeply, so weren't singled out for a special mention. There could easily have been other stabs that didn't make it into the report because they only punctured skin and bone.

This would explain why, despite there apparently having been two stabs to the breast-bone, only the one which punctured the heart appears in the above list. If so, then we have at least 31 upper-body stabs for starters; given where these blows fell, there's every possibility that most of the remaining 8 landed in broadly the same area.

[Sam Flynn]

And on another note, Nichols and Eddowes both had "stab" wounds (as recorded by the doctors), as was probably the case in the murders of Chapman and Kelly.

True enough, John. But all it amounted to was an isolated stab wound here and there, plausibly accidental, and none of them inflicted on the chest, throat or upper abdomen. A world away from what happened to Martha Tabram.

[John Malcolm]

Something we really need to get over is the assumption that two different weapons were used in the murder. A careful reading of the accounts of the inquest may infer that this was the case (as it was reported in the press that Dr. Killeen believed two different weapons were used), but that may not have actually been what the doctor said or meant. Saying that 38 of the wounds "could have been caused by an ordinary pen-knife" does not preclude the weapon that caused the wound that went through the chest from causing the other injuries. It makes little sense that the killer would have used two weapons and IMHO it didn't happen.
Also, when it comes to similarities/dissimilarities, one major thing that Tabram's murder has in common with Nichols, et al is the fact that (clearly) the sexual organs were targeted. This was obviously left out of the inquest testimony, but simple math will show that many of the 18 wounds not described were most likely directed at her "private part", as Swanson notes in his report.
And on another note, Nichols and Eddowes both had "stab" wounds (as recorded by the doctors), as was probably the case in the murders of Chapman and Kelly.