Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary -- Dr. Killen's deposition, given in The Times, is the most important source, of course. But Killen's phrase is ever-so-slightly ambiguous. "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."

This is usually taken to mean that Killen is suggesting that two different weapons were used, but could he simply have been thinking out loud? To me, Killeen might only mean that, in judging between a knife and a dagger (he is uncertain which), the sternum wound suggests the latter, as a pen-knife couldn't have done it. He sounds a little uncertain and is hedging his bet. He hasn't had very much experience in these sorts of things, being a GP out of medical school, so how could it be otherwise?

When Swanson summarizes Killeen in a report filed in September, he doesn't refer to any theory of two knives.

"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Knife OR dagger...not knife AND dagger. This would be have been a very important distinction in an unsolved crime, would it not? Would Swanson have been so loose in his description had he believed the two weapon theory? He doesn't even allude to it. He refers to uncertainty about the ONE weapon.

It’s somewhat telling that Swanson didn’t even know how to spell ‘Killeen’.

[MrBarnett]

It is definitely worth pondering about. But as long as we do not have the answer, we cannot use this knowledge to implicate Killeen as being out of his depth when working on Tabram, thatīs what I am trying to say.

Nor, I think, should we automatically assume that a very inexperienced doctor who went on to have a seemingly mediocre career can be relied upon to supply us with a sound description of the weapon(s) that caused Martha’s injuries.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary -- Dr. Killen's deposition, given in The Times, is the most important source, of course. But Killen's phrase is ever-so-slightly ambiguous. "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."

This is usually taken to mean that Killen is suggesting that two different weapons were used, but could he simply have been thinking out loud? To me, Killeen might only mean that, in judging between a knife and a dagger (he is uncertain which), the sternum wound suggests the latter, as a pen-knife couldn't have done it. He sounds a little uncertain and is hedging his bet. He hasn't had very much experience in these sorts of things, being a GP out of medical school, so how could it be otherwise?

When Swanson summarizes Killeen in a report filed in September, he doesn't refer to any theory of two knives.

"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Knife OR dagger...not knife AND dagger. This would be have been a very important distinction in an unsolved crime, would it not? Would Swanson have been so loose in his description had he believed the two weapon theory? He doesn't even allude to it. He refers to uncertainty about the ONE weapon.

Well, Killeen makes no bones about it:

"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument." (Times)

"death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood...except for the wound on the chest bone, all injuries seem to have been inflicted by a right-handed person, using a penknife; the stab wound to the heart might have been made by a dagger or bayonet by a left-handed person". (Manchester Guardian)

What I tend to think is that a pen-knife is typically single-edged whereas a dagger and/or a bayonet will normally be double-edged, and I think this may be (in part, at least) what led Killeen to think of those kinds of blades.

As for Swanson, I donīt think that we should read too much into his choice of "or" over "and". To begin with, as per Killeen, the wounds WERE inflicted by either a pen-knife or a dagger - the 38 lesser ones by pen-knife and the larger one by a dagger, so the wording as such works regardless of which term is used. It also applies that Swanson could be a tad sloppy in his reports. He says on the 19:th of September that Charles Cross found Nicholsī body, whereafter Paul joined him. But a month later, he says that the body was found by Cross AND Paul, which is not true - and he knew it was not true, as proven by his earlier report. Likewise, he says that Phillips proposed a TOD for Chapman of 4.30, but to be fair, Phillips said that it COULD (only just) be 4.30, but it was probably earlier.
In conclusion, there is not enough in it in any way to claim that Swanson entertained an idea of one blade only in the Tabram attack.

[Fisherman]

Nor, I think, should we automatically assume that a very inexperienced doctor who went on to have a seemingly mediocre career can be relied upon to supply us with a sound description of the weapon(s) that caused Martha’s injuries.

Well, then thatīs where we differ somewhat. Personally, I think that the starting point must always be that a professional is very much more likely to know what he is talking about than the other way around. And to me, that is not affected by how it may "seem" that he possibly had a "mediocre career". I would want to have factually based material telling us that Killeen was mediocre in any way, and there is no such material at hand.

It does not mean that I categorically rule out that he - or indeed any doctor, regardless of the level of experience - could have been wrong on many matters. Nor does it mean that I think that Killeens youth and relative inexperience cannot be used to make points. But it does mean that I will not put as much faith in such points as I put faith in Killeen knowing his trade.

At the end of the day, I think Killeens first assumption when he saw that he was dealing with a victim of stabbing must have been that the stabs were likely dealt with the same weapon, all of them. It takes a significant portion of inherent dissimilarities before such a stance is dissolved. Making the call Killeen made goes against logic (which is probably why people tend to disbelieve him in the first place), and to me, that tells a story of Killeen having checked thoroughly before definitively ruling out that a single blade was used. And quite possibly, he may have discussed the matter with colleagues of his if he felt in any way uncertain about it - although such a thing is not in evidence, of course.

[Fisherman]

It’s somewhat telling that Swanson didn’t even know how to spell ‘Killeen’.

Touché - a pointe.

[Fisherman]

There were 38 wounds that were caused by the "pen-knife". That was a lot of material to use for Killeen to establish the width and the thickness of the blade. Killeen will reaasonably have known these measurements quite well.

If the wound through the sternum had had the same type of width and thickness, then of course Killeen could not have said that the kind of blade that caused the other 38 wounds could not possibly penetrate the sternum, for the simple reason that he would have had clear evidence that it not only COULD do so, but actually HAD done it!

Ergo, the hole through the sternum gave away a very different width and thickness of the blade - enough to make the penetration, as it were.

In the end, what decides if a blade can pass through the sternum are three matters (provided that the thrust is always the same).

1. The thickness of the material in the blade.
2. The toughness of the material in the blade.
3. The toughness of the sternum.

If the measurements of the lesser blade allowed for passing through the sternum, provided the material of the blade was tough enough, then Killeen would not have said that it could not do so. Therefore, the measurements of that blade gave away that REGARDLESS of the quality of the steel, it was simply too thin to pass through the sternum.

That is how I see the matter.

[MrBarnett]

There were 38 wounds that were caused by the "pen-knife". That was a lot of material to use for Killeen to establish the width and the thickness of the blade. Killeen will reaasonably have known these measurements quite well.

If the wound through the sternum had had the same type of width and thickness, then of course Killeen could not have said that the kind of blade that caused the other 38 wounds could not possibly penetrate the sternum, for the simple reason that he would have had clear evidence that it not only COULD do so, but actually HAD done it!

Ergo, the hole through the sternum gave away a very different width and thickness of the blade - enough to make the penetration, as it were.

In the end, what decides if a blade can pass through the sternum are three matters (provided that the thrust is always the same).

1. The thickness of the material in the blade.
2. The toughness of the material in the blade.
3. The toughness of the sternum.

If the measurements of the lesser blade allowed for passing through the sternum, provided the material of the blade was tough enough, then Killeen would not have said that it could not do so. Therefore, the measurements of that blade gave away that REGARDLESS of the quality of the steel, it was simply too thin to pass through the sternum.

That is how I see the matter.

Makes sense to me, Fish, but I would add that the shape of the weapon may also have played a part in its effectiveness. A thin, pointed weapon would have worked best, I would have thought.

[MrBarnett]

Touché - a pointe.

We can perhaps excuse Swanson for not knowing how to spell the surname of an East End GP, but the East London Observer made the same mistake.

[Fisherman]

We can perhaps excuse Swanson for not knowing how to spell the surname of an East End GP, but the East London Observer made the same mistake.

Others made that spelling mistake - and numerous others - too. But I find it somewhat more understandable when a paper does it than when Swanson does. We all accept that the paper reports were written under stress and with no demand to get every letter correct; they are supposed to give as good an account as possible of what went down. The police reports, however, are supposed to be an exact narrative of the proceedings.

Not that I make the mistake of taking the police reports as gospel, mind you ...,

[Fisherman]

Makes sense to me, Fish, but I would add that the shape of the weapon may also have played a part in its effectiveness. A thin, pointed weapon would have worked best, I would have thought.

Yes, the thinner, the better - as long as it has the sturdiness to do the job. But apparently, the 38-stab-blade did not have that sturdiness, whereas the single stab blade did. And equally apparently, the shapes of the holes produced by these blades were different. Therefore, there must have been two blades at work.

If the holes made by the blades had NOT differed in apparition, then Killeen must have drawn the VERY odd conclusion that the chest hole must have been produced by as thin a knife as the others, but with a better quality blade. And even if he was that dumb, then why woud not the 38 stabs also have been made with the high quality blade if they all were the same size...?

[MrBarnett]

Others made that spelling mistake - and numerous others - too. But I find it somewhat more understandable when a paper does it than when Swanson does. We all accept that the paper reports were written under stress and with no demand to get every letter correct; they are supposed to give as good an account as possible of what went down. The police reports, however, are supposed to be an exact narrative of the proceedings.

Not that I make the mistake of taking the police reports as gospel, mind you ...,

But we’re talking about the ELO here, a local newspaper that covered local events in great detail. If Killeen had made an impression in the area, the ELO would probably have got his name right.

[Fisherman]

But we’re talking about the ELO here, a local newspaper that covered local events in great detail. If Killeen had made an impression in the area, the ELO would probably have got his name right.

Probably, yes. So the impression we get is that Killeen had not made an impression in the area at that point in time. But he was new, he was young and he may not have stayed on for more than months, was that not what you said?
So why would he have made an impression? And in what way would it reflect on his ability to tell one wound from another if he had not?

Thereīs just not enough in it to make that kind of a call the way I see things, Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Probably, yes. So the impression we get is that Killeen had not made an impression in the area at that point in time. But he was new, he was young and he may not have stayed on for more than months, was that not what you said?
So why would he have made an impression? And in what way would it reflect on his ability to tell one wound from another if he had not?

Thereīs just not enough in it to make that kind of a call the way I see things, Gary.

It just reinforces how inexperienced he was. The first time we hear of him is in connection with the Tabram case, and one of the most prominent East London papers, which regularly covers local inquests, gets his name wrong. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a post mortem on someone killed with a knife. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a PM full stop.

In most fields of endeavour people become more adept at what they do through experience.

When I consider Killeen’s ‘thoughts’ on the nature of the weapons used to attack Martha, I bear that in mind.

[Fisherman]

It just reinforces how inexperienced he was. The first time we hear of him is in connection with the Tabram case, and one of the most prominent East London papers, which regularly covers local inquests, gets his name wrong. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a post mortem on someone killed with a knife. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a PM full stop.

In most fields of endeavour people become more adept at what they do through experience.

When I consider Killeen’s ‘thoughts’ on the nature of the weapons used to attack Martha, I bear that in mind.

Yes, he was inexperienced. But I donīt think anybody has disagreed on that point? Nor would anybody suggest that Killeen could not have been wrong on matters, generally speaking. I know I wouldnīt, at least.

But that does not mean that he would have been more likely than not to get things wrong, and THAT is my whole point. If we speak of inexperience, we should also consider things like how the younger members of a profession often are at the forefront of knowledge, since their training has taken advantage of the latest information, for example.

Basically, establishing the character of a blade that has passed through flesh is a question of employing your eyesight and a measuring tool. In the case at hand, there were 38 wounds where Killeen considered them so alike in character that he believed that they had been inflicted by the same blade. That means that they were at the very least of the same general width, and quite possibly, most or all of them extended to roughly the same depth too, although one must take the "compressability" of the part that has been stabbed into account - but I think Killeen would have been quite aware of that too. Overall, these 38 wounds would have made a cluster with large inherent similarities.

Then we have the unlucky fact that Killeen did not say "the wound to the sternum looks totally different than the 38 others" but instead "a pen-knife type of weapon like the one I believe was responsible for the other 38 wounds, could not have travelled through the sternum". He gives us information that he thinks further reinforces his view of two weapons, and forgets to mention the real clincher - the visible differences.
As I said before, if the sternum hole looked the same as the other 38 holes, then why would he not think that they were inflicted with the same weapon??? It makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, much as we do not know the exact measurements or the exact character of the wounds, we CAN conclude that they MUST have looked dissimilar. And if they did, then the only logical conclusion must be that they were made by different blades. Killeen spoke of a "long, strong" blade for the sternum wound, and that means that it must have had significantly more mass than the smaller blade. It probably also penetrated the body to a greater depth than the smaller blade, otherwise why would he say that it was long?

Actually, in the ELO, Killeen does say that the wound on the sternum DID look dissmilar to the other 38 ones:

"The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound, I should think, would have been inflicted with some form of a dagger."

These are fairly basic matters to my mind, and I consider any idea that the blade was the same in all 39 stabs more or less poorly grounded, Iīm afraid. I would not want to prioritize the idea that Killeens inexperience probably made him get it wrong over the suggestion that he was in all probability right, quite simply. And I am not saying that you propose it either. You may well be pointing to a possibility, not a probability, and thatīs fine by me, although until such a possibility becomes a probability, I personally donīt think it makes much difference.

I think that covers what I have to say on the matter quite well.

[MrBarnett]

For what it’s worth, Patricia Cornwell did not agree with Killeen’s assessment.

‘A penetration of the sternum does not merit the emphasis Dr Killeen gave it. A sharp-pointed knife can penetrate bone, including the skull.’

So if part of his reasoning was that an ‘ordinary knife’ was insufficient to the task, he was perhaps mistaken in that respect.