Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[rjpalmer]

"a short note appended to a Home Office document gives the revised official view that "some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet WAS FIRST suspected as the weapon. BUT bayonet wounds are quite UNMISTAKABLE" --Jon Ogan, 1996.

It wasn't a bayonet wound. Killeen, in his inexperience, was simply wrong. The notation by the Home Office suggests someone else was called in to re-examine Tabram. We just don't know about it, since the documentation hasn't survived. It may have been a military surgeon associated with the Tower, but, whoever it was, they concluded it wasn't a bayonet wound.

[harry]

If there is any doubt about how bayonet wounds through the sternum appear,it might be a good idea to study or enquire of the military.

[MrBarnett]

Timothy Killeen was a trained medico and he performed the post mortem of Martha Tabram. He was qualified and chosen to do this, and he had the opportunity to look closely at each and every wound.

As you may have noted, I commended Al for BOTH keeping an open mind AND accepting that Killeen has the upper hand on anybody who, a 130 years on and with no possibility at all to check any of the wounds, tries to fault him. It is not a sound approach.

Incidentally, although you may perhaps feel like the target of my post, you are nothing even like it. Unless you insist. Your thinking on the case is every bit as good as Alīs, as long as you do not claim that you are more likely than Killeen to be correct on the matter. THAT is the kind of approach I was after when posting.

Hi Fish,

Does being a ‘trained medico’ necessarily mean that Killeen had any experience at all of conducting post mortems on people killed by sword bayonets?

I don’t think he was chosen to carry out the Tabram PM because he was particularly trained to do so. He was called out in the middle of the night to the crime scene, possibly because Dr Swyer couldn’t be arsed to get out of bed, and performed the PM in consequence.

We surely should acknowledge the potential difference in ability in any sphere between an experienced practitioner and a complete novice.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Had Killeen had extensive training in PM’s? And in particular in identifying the weapons used in murder cases? What little evidence there is suggests he may not have.

The report he wrote on the infant death reads to me like someone answering an exam question. Which isn’t surprising because he’d only recently left off taking them.

It is quite possible, even likely, that the Tabram PM was the first he had ever personally conducted on someone who had suffered knife wounds. Keeping an open mind to the possibility of any Dr, however experienced, let alone a complete novice like Killeen, having made an error seems to me to be the most sensible approach.

Gary

Timothy Killeen was a trained medico and he performed the post mortem of Martha Tabram. He was qualified and chosen to do this, and he had the opportunity to look closely at each and every wound.

As you may have noted, I commended Al for BOTH keeping an open mind AND accepting that Killeen has the upper hand on anybody who, a 130 years on and with no possibility at all to check any of the wounds, tries to fault him. It is not a sound approach.

Incidentally, although you may perhaps feel like the target of my post, you are nothing even like it. Unless you insist. Your thinking on the case is every bit as good as Alīs, as long as you do not claim that you are more likely than Killeen to be correct on the matter. THAT is the kind of approach I was after when posting.

[MrBarnett]

Can I just say that I like this post very much? Too many posters have a tendency to take it upon themselves to "correct" the Victorian doctors; they note - just like you have - that something is odd and out of the ordinary, but instead of accepting that matters somethimes ARE odd and out of the ordinary, they instead dismiss what a medico said who was there, who saw the damage done and who had extensive training.

The way you go about it is the only correct way: you note that something deviates from the normal, but you accept that we need to rely on the doctor nevertheless unless we have something substantial (NOT meaning "a hunch") to refute him.

Itīs much, much more refreshing than it should be.

Hi Fish,

Had Killeen had extensive training in PM’s? And in particular in identifying the weapons used in murder cases? What little evidence there is suggests he may not have.

The report he wrote on the infant death reads to me like someone answering an exam question. Which isn’t surprising because he’d only recently left off taking them.

It is quite possible, even likely, that the Tabram PM was the first he had ever personally conducted on someone who had suffered knife wounds. Keeping an open mind to the possibility of any Dr, however experienced, let alone a complete novice like Killeen, having made an error seems to me to be the most sensible approach.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael,

Certainly a head scratcher. Killeen is pretty sure that the sternum injury is from a different blade. He could have been wrong, but we have to assume he knew what he was talking about, and his post mortem in the baby case suggests he did. But no matter what angle I look at it, all the possible scenarios are bizarre. One man with two knives? Two men, but one inflicts 37 lesser wounds before his mate shows him how to do it properly? And why the sternum for a coup de grace? Why not the throat, easier and far less unpredictable than trying to go for the heart? And why was Martha passive during all this? Fainted maybe, drunk likely, both possibly. And the genital stabs, that's specific, intentional, maybe not something you'd see in a frenzied attack?

The two attackers and/or two weapons is certainly not the easy option, but I don't see particularly good cause to doubt Killeen. And if he was so inexperienced, would he have noted a difference at all? So two blades is what we have, but why, we'll never fathom out. Logically, it would be the work of two individuals, but I'll always struggle to reconcile the circumstances.

Can I just say that I like this post very much? Too many posters have a tendency to take it upon themselves to "correct" the Victorian doctors; they note - just like you have - that something is odd and out of the ordinary, but instead of accepting that matters somethimes ARE odd and out of the ordinary, they instead dismiss what a medico said who was there, who saw the damage done and who had extensive training.

The way you go about it is the only correct way: you note that something deviates from the normal, but you accept that we need to rely on the doctor nevertheless unless we have something substantial (NOT meaning "a hunch") to refute him.

Itīs much, much more refreshing than it should be.

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, I can go for that. Bit of a side issue anyhow, and definitely not the focus of the attack.

I do wonder, did the newly appointed Dr Killeen arrive in London seeking his fortune, gets a handful of awful crimes to look at and decided to up sticks back to Ireland because being a doctor was more appealing than performing autopsies on murdered women and children?

I wondered that myself. Whether his intention was to make a career in London or to finish off his education with practical experience there, he doesn’t seem to have stayed very long.

He couldn’t have chosen a worse time to rock up in Whitechapel if he was at all squeamish. ;-)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

Yeah, I can go for that. Bit of a side issue anyhow, and definitely not the focus of the attack.

I do wonder, did the newly appointed Dr Killeen arrive in London seeking his fortune, gets a handful of awful crimes to look at and decided to up sticks back to Ireland because being a doctor was more appealing than performing autopsies on murdered women and children?

[MrBarnett]

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

I should add that the very interesting 8th August report in the Sheffield Evening Star speaks of a single wound of ‘a revolting nature’.

Martha’s genitals were not the focus of the attack.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

Might be worth erring caution on that one, it's from a report by Swanson, and let's face it, he wasn't always spot on.

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Were there any genital stabs? That’s new to me.

Hi Gary,

Might be worth erring caution on that one, it's from a report by Swanson, and let's face it, he wasn't always spot on.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Michael,

Certainly a head scratcher. Killeen is pretty sure that the sternum injury is from a different blade. He could have been wrong, but we have to assume he knew what he was talking about, and his post mortem in the baby case suggests he did. But no matter what angle I look at it, all the possible scenarios are bizarre. One man with two knives? Two men, but one inflicts 37 lesser wounds before his mate shows him how to do it properly? And why the sternum for a coup de grace? Why not the throat, easier and far less unpredictable than trying to go for the heart? And why was Martha passive during all this? Fainted maybe, drunk likely, both possibly. And the genital stabs, that's specific, intentional, maybe not something you'd see in a frenzied attack?

The two attackers and/or two weapons is certainly not the easy option, but I don't see particularly good cause to doubt Killeen. And if he was so inexperienced, would he have noted a difference at all? So two blades is what we have, but why, we'll never fathom out. Logically, it would be the work of two individuals, but I'll always struggle to reconcile the circumstances.

Hi Al,

Were there any genital stabs? That’s new to me.

The simplest explanation IMO is that the attacker was carrying more than one knife. He used the smaller knife in a rage and then used a larger, possibly more unwieldy weapon/tool to finish the job.

Martha had a contused wound to her head, so may have been stunned by a blow before the knife attack began.

Gary

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Stabs with a pen knife would be hard pressed to be referred to as mutilation Al, even 37 of them. And why use a weapon and inflict a fatal wound first? Surely that negates then having to stab the woman over and over again because the second weapon used was insufficient to kill with one stab. Why use an inferior killing tool first? Because its the only one available is most likely the correct answer for me.

Hi Michael,

Certainly a head scratcher. Killeen is pretty sure that the sternum injury is from a different blade. He could have been wrong, but we have to assume he knew what he was talking about, and his post mortem in the baby case suggests he did. But no matter what angle I look at it, all the possible scenarios are bizarre. One man with two knives? Two men, but one inflicts 37 lesser wounds before his mate shows him how to do it properly? And why the sternum for a coup de grace? Why not the throat, easier and far less unpredictable than trying to go for the heart? And why was Martha passive during all this? Fainted maybe, drunk likely, both possibly. And the genital stabs, that's specific, intentional, maybe not something you'd see in a frenzied attack?

The two attackers and/or two weapons is certainly not the easy option, but I don't see particularly good cause to doubt Killeen. And if he was so inexperienced, would he have noted a difference at all? So two blades is what we have, but why, we'll never fathom out. Logically, it would be the work of two individuals, but I'll always struggle to reconcile the circumstances.

[Michael W Richards]

Is it too illogical to work with the killer striking the fatal blow first before moving on to post mortem mutilation, as was the Whitechapel killers MO? Assuming Tabram was victim to the same killer. I'm not stating this as fact, but exploring all options.

Stabs with a pen knife would be hard pressed to be referred to as mutilation Al, even 37 of them. And why use a weapon and inflict a fatal wound first? Surely that negates then having to stab the woman over and over again because the second weapon used was insufficient to kill with one stab. Why use an inferior killing tool first? Because its the only one available is most likely the correct answer for me.

[MrBarnett]

It is because of a difference in only one wound,that the suspicion of a second weapon was recorded.Sternum injuries are likely to show other than a clean wound,sometimes because of the force needed to withdraw.So my opinion is that there was only one weapon used in the murder of Tabram.

But Dr Killeen was of the opinion that two weapons had been used. And he was an experienced (at least a few weeks/months) doctor - ‘Fully qualified’ he was at pains to explain at the inquest.