Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: Did BS-man murder Liz Stride? - by Wickerman 6 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - by Tom_Wescott 7 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - by Trevor Marriott 10 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - by Trevor Marriott 13 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Favorite Films (lists up to participating site members) - by Mayerling 19 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Did a list of arrested suspects exist and survived? - by pinkmoon 51 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Lets get Lechmere off the hook! - (48 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Favorite Films (lists up to participating site members) - (10 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Did BS-man murder Liz Stride? - (7 posts)
Visual Media: The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Would the Ripper have stopped by himself? - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Did a police officer see a ripper suspect, right after the 2nd of the double murders? - (6 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm
Donald Swanson
Edit: Chris
Dec 9, 2012, 3:40 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.
Mike Covell: A Study in Red – The Secret Journal of Jack the Ripper
March 3, 2014, 3:42 am.
Mike Covell: Almost there….
January 24, 2014, 4:05 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper - Year in Review 2013
December 28, 2013, 7:31 am.
Mike Covell: Jack the Ripper At Last? - Review
December 9, 2013, 2:08 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-25-2012, 07:39 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,020
Default Was Dr Killeen Competent To Express he Opinions That He Did?

Dr Timothy Robert Killeen, LRCS (Ireland) 1885; Lic K Q Coll Phys (Ireland) 1886 was a recently qualified doctor & surgeon. Bearing in mind that, under English law, evidence of opinion can only be given by an expert witness, was he entitled to give the evidence he did as to the cause of Martha Tabram's injuries and the nature of the weapon, or weapons, used to inflict them? If not, what, if any, value can be ascribed to those opinions?

Ben & Fisherman: Welcome to Your Thread!

All the Best, Bridewell
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-25-2012, 09:32 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,351
Default

The Coroner knows within his county who is suitable to conduct an autopsy. Any local doctor cannot simply volunteer to conduct an autopsy, consent must be given from the Coroner's office.

It is not required that a surgeon identify the weapon used, that is the task of the police. The surgeon merely describes the physical characteristics (measurements) of any wounds found which obviously include determining the size, shape & depth, and the police take it from there.
As a consequence, a surgeons knowledge of weaponry is completely immaterial.

Regards, Jon S.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-25-2012, 10:59 PM
bolo bolo is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nuremberg, Germany
Posts: 347
Default

Hi Bridewell, all,

personally I think that only one weapon was used in the attack against Tabram but I still respect Dr Killeen's professional opinion which points in a different direction. Despite a possible lack of experience, he was a qualified surgeon whose testimony is part of the little authentic evidence we have on the case that should not be dismissed without good reason.

Regards,

Boris
__________________
~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-25-2012, 11:57 PM
Dave O Dave O is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 290
Default

Section 21 of The Coroner's Act 1887 was the relevant law for coroners summoning medical witnesses at inquests. This is taken from the fifth edition of Jervis (1888), pp 91-93:


21.(1.) Where it appears to the coroner that the deceased was attended at his death or during his last illness by any legally qualified medical practitioner, the coroner may summon such practitioner as a witness; but if it appears to the coroner that the deceased person was not attended at his death or during his last illness by any legally qualified medical practitioner, the coroner may summon any legally qualified medical practitioner who is at the time in actual practice in or near the place where the death happened, and any such medical witness as is summoned in pursuance of this section, may be asked to give evidence as to how, in his opinion, the deceased came to his death.

(2.) The coroner may, either in his summons for the attendance of such medical witness or at any time between the issuing of that summons and the end of the inquest, direct such medical witness to make a post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased, with or without an analysis of the contents of the stomach or intestines.
Provided that where a person states upon oath before the coroner that in his belief the death of the deceased was caused partly or entirely by the improper or negligent treatment of a medical practitioner or other person, such medical practitioner or other person shall not be allowed to perform or assist at the post-mortem examination of the deceased.

(3). If a majority of the jury sitting at an inquest are of opinion that the cause of death has not been satisfactorily explained by the evidence of the medical practitioner or other witnesses brought before them, they may require the coroner in writing to summon as a witness some other legally qualified medical practitioner named by them, and further to direct a post-mortem examination of the deceased, with or without an analysis of the contents of the stomach or intestines, to be made by such last-mentioned practitioner, and that whether such examination has been previously made or not, and the coroner shall comply with such requisition, and in default shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.


Dave
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-26-2012, 04:19 AM
Cogidubnus Cogidubnus is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 3,124
Default

Yes !
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.