Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Michael W Richards]

Killeen didn’t say the heart wound had
been fatal, only that it ‘would be sufficient to cause death’ (Times).

He certainly didn’t say that it would have been instantly fatal - for all we know it may have taken several minutes for the blood leaking from such a wound to stop the heart.

As it stands we have no official cause of death. Unusually, the coroner (presumably) chose not to record one on the death cert.

So your counter argument is that the killer A) used 2 knives at the same time, alternating from large blade back to smaller one, or B) 2 men used 1 knife each?

[Fisherman]

I donīt think there would have been any reason not to list a cause of death in a broader fashion. As has been pointed out, the given reason of death for Polly Nichols was "Syncope from loss of blood from wounds in neck and abdomen", meaning that no decision was taken whether it was the neck wounds or the abdominal ditto that killed her. Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds came first, and he will have gone with the blood evidence - it the neck had come first, there would reasonaby have been a lot of blood underneath the neck, but there was not. At any rate, the blood loss killed her, and the issue about which wounds supplied the fatal bloodloss was left open.
I donīt see why the same verdict could not have been given for Tabram.
There was "some blood in the pericardium" of the heart, according to the ELO. Would there not have been any blood in the pericardium if Tabram was dead when she received the stab through the heart? And would there have been a lot of blood in the pericardium if she had been very much alive when stabbed there? Is anybody medically versed enough to tell out here?
Any which way, even if Killeen could not say whether the heart stab killed her or whether the 38 stabs did, we do know that he did say that she died from blood loss. Meaning that he could reasonably have stated that Tabram dies from syncope caused by massive bloodloss after having received 39 stabs to her body.

I just donīt see the issue having been a matter of contention to a degree where the coroner decided that no reason at all should be given. And I cannot see, if the medical implications were such so as to suggest that no certainty could be reached, how that would reflect poorly on Dr Killeen. There must have been many deaths where the cause of the demise could not be determined, and as I understand it, that never meant that no medical information was given on the death certificates...?

[MrBarnett]

So your counter argument is that the killer A) used 2 knives at the same time, alternating from large blade back to smaller one, or B) 2 men used 1 knife each?

No, I’m just pointing out that we can’t determine the order of the wounds from Killeen’s evidence. He also states that all the wounds were caused while the victims were alive. How could he have been so sure? It’s unlikely that the whole attack lasted more than a few minutes. I’m no medical expert, but I think wounds caused immediately after death are practically indistinguishable from those caused during life.


Killeen speaks of 39 ‘punctured’ wounds, but the only wound he describes in any detail, the one to Martha’s lower body - three inches long and one inch deep - is not a punctured wound, it’s an incised wound. So what should we understand from that: that the 39 were all punctured wounds and in addition there was one or more incised wounds? Or that there were only 38 punctured wounds and one incised wound?

[MrBarnett]

I donīt think there would have been any reason not to list a cause of death in a broader fashion. As has been pointed out, the given reason of death for Polly Nichols was "Syncope from loss of blood from wounds in neck and abdomen", meaning that no decision was taken whether it was the neck wounds or the abdominal ditto that killed her. Llewellyn said that the abdominal wounds came first, and he will have gone with the blood evidence - it the neck had come first, there would reasonaby have been a lot of blood underneath the neck, but there was not. At any rate, the blood loss killed her, and the issue about which wounds supplied the fatal bloodloss was left open.
I donīt see why the same verdict could not have been given for Tabram.
There was "some blood in the pericardium" of the heart, according to the ELO. Would there not have been any blood in the pericardium if Tabram was dead when she received the stab through the heart? And would there have been a lot of blood in the pericardium if she had been very much alive when stabbed there? Is anybody medically versed enough to tell out here?
Any which way, even if Killeen could not say whether the heart stab killed her or whether the 38 stabs did, we do know that he did say that she died from blood loss. Meaning that he could reasonably have stated that Tabram dies from syncope caused by massive bloodloss after having received 39 stabs to her body.

I just donīt see the issue having been a matter of contention to a degree where the coroner decided that no reason at all should be given. And I cannot see, if the medical implications were such so as to suggest that no certainty could be reached, how that would reflect poorly on Dr Killeen. There must have been many deaths where the cause of the demise could not be determined, and as I understand it, that never meant that no medical information was given on the death certificates...?

You may well be right, Fish, but if we are considering Killeen’s involvement in the Tabram case we need all the info we can get. Killeen’s lack of experience, the possibility that he had never performed a PM before that on Tabram and the really strange fact that her death cert doesn’t tell us the medical reason for her death are all of interest.

[Michael W Richards]

No, I’m just pointing out that we can’t determine the order of the wounds from Killeen’s evidence. He also states that all the wounds were caused while the victims were alive. How could he have been so sure? It’s unlikely that the whole attack lasted more than a few minutes. I’m no medical expert, but I think wounds caused immediately after death are practically indistinguishable from those caused during life.


Killeen speaks of 39 ‘punctured’ wounds, but the only wound he describes in any detail, the one to Martha’s lower body - three inches long and one inch deep - is not a punctured wound, it’s an incised wound. So what should we understand from that: that the 39 were all punctured wounds and in addition there was one or more incised wounds? Or that there were only 38 punctured wounds and one incised wound?

The idea that a larger weapon if available would be used then it would then be switched for a smaller blade for some stabs isn't logical. The idea that a small blade was used until a larger blade was produced is.

[MrBarnett]

The idea that a larger weapon if available would be used then it would then be switched for a smaller blade for some stabs isn't logical. The idea that a small blade was used until a larger blade was produced is.

My guess would be that the heart wound was last, but there’s nothing in the medical evidence we have to confirm that. And there are logical explanations why the larger weapon might have been used before some or all of the smaller ones:

There may have been more than one killer.

The larger weapon may have proved too cumbersome, so the killer switched to a smaller one.

The killer may have been attempting to divert attention from the larger weapon by stabbing repeatedly in roughly the same area. It clearly didn’t work, but if he had used a sword bayonet and realised that might give away his occupation, stabbing Martha repeatedly in the breast and elsewhere with a smaller weapon wouldn’t have been ‘illogical’. Ineffective, but not illogical in the heat of the moment.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The idea that a larger weapon if available would be used then it would then be switched for a smaller blade for some stabs isn't logical. The idea that a small blade was used until a larger blade was produced is.

Unless the larger blade was used to kill, leaving the perpetrator to inflict multiple wounds with impunity. That's alot of wounds to inflict without a fight or serious noise.

[Michael W Richards]

Unless the larger blade was used to kill, leaving the perpetrator to inflict multiple wounds with impunity. That's alot of wounds to inflict without a fight or serious noise.

If you can accept that it is highly unlikely that a single killer would switch from a large blade to a small blade and back again...which I can easily....then you have a wound that was intended on its own to end life. That all suggests that either A) the killer finally got tired of trying to kill this woman with a penknife and remembers he has a larger blade on him to finish the job, or someone else has the large blade and uses it to end the attack.

I think the far more probable scenario is based on a second man arriving to find his mate struggling to kill someone with a penknife and steps in to end it and get him the hell out of there. 2 Soldiers, for my money. The noise with the penknife stabs isn't really a huge issue with one hand over her mouth.

[harry]

If the intent,from the beginning,was to kill,and the killer had two weapons,isn't it logical to expect he would first use the most suitable weapon to achieve that object?

[MrBarnett]

Killeen even got a mention in the House of Commons. This is from HANSARD, 28th April, 1890:


“THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN THE KILLANIR (sic) DISTRICT.

MR. JORDAN I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Constabulary in the Killanir Dispensary district, Ennis Union, County Clare, were taken from under the medical care of Dr. T. R. Killeen, the medical officer of the district, and who was receiving pay from the Constabulary at the time, and handed over to Dr. Faris, Ennis, who had no connection with the district; whether the Inspector General of Royal Irish Constabulary issued, or caused to be issued, an order under the regulations of the Force, that every medical officer of a dispensary district should be medical attendant on the constabulary of his district if he cared to accept the position, and provided he was not unfitted for the appointment; whether Dr. Killeen was unfitted; and whether there is another dispensary district in Clare where the medical officer for such district is not also medical attendant on the constabulary in his district?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR The Constabulary authorities report that Dr. Killeen had merely acted under a private arrangement with the previous medical attendant as his locum tenens when the latter was incapacitated through ill health, but be had never been the appointed Constabulary medical attendant of the district. There is no regulation of the nature indicated in the second paragraph. Prior to 1883 some, such regulation did exist, but it was in that year cancelled by the Government of the day, as it was found to work unsatisfactorily. The gentleman appointed in the room of the late medical attendant has been selected by the Constabulary authorities as being, in their opinion, the most suited for the appointment. The reply to the inquiry in the last paragraph is in the affirmative.”


A man from another district was preferred to Killeen, the existing MO for Killaniv District who had been performing the Constabulary role as a locum.

[MrBarnett]

In 1895, Tim applied for the position of Medical Officer of the Ennis Union. There were three candidates. Tim came third.

[Michael W Richards]

If the intent,from the beginning,was to kill,and the killer had two weapons,isn't it logical to expect he would first use the most suitable weapon to achieve that object?

Yes, for sure, Harry. Although if when he starts he is just venting and uncontrolled then the use of a parger weapon may be the result of him recognizing that the injuries he inflicted to that point could send him to jail for life if the woman lived to tell the tale. So he ends the assault with a final, dramatic fatal stab. Using a large blade. Did he start the assault with the intention of ending life? Who can say.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, for sure, Harry. Although if when he starts he is just venting and uncontrolled then the use of a larger weapon may be the result of him recognizing that the injuries he inflicted to that point could send him to jail for life if the woman lived to tell the tale. So he ends the assault with a final, dramatic fatal stab. Using a large blade. Did he start the assault with the intention of ending life? Who can say.

I believe its a non-starter to suggest that one man used a pen knife first then the dagger.

[Michael W Richards]

I know of a case a few years back in Calgary Alberta where the defender/attacker used 3 different knives to stab someone 35 times...the difference being he was in his own kitchen and he grabbed new ones from the knife holder on the counter as they broke. Marthas killer carried what he used.

[MrBarnett]

I believe its a non-starter to suggest that one man used a pen knife first then the dagger.

Why a ‘non-starter’? That suggests you think it is too unlikely even to be considered.