Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Trevor Marriott]

Has anyone heard of the Tighe murder case of 1899?

A Wigan miner named Martin Tighe stabbed/cut his wife over 26 times, using two knives. All of the wounds were described as superficial except one in the stomach which had penetrated as far as the spine. It was this wound that proved fatal. Two bloody knives were found at the murder scene. At some point and for some reason Tighe had changed weapons.

Tighe’s counsel suggested to the jury that his client had been in an excited state at the time of the murder and had acted on a sudden impulse, repeatedly stabbing his wife without consideration of the consequences. Nevertheless the jury brought in a verdict of murder.

Why did Tighe change knives? It was never established. But I remember once reading an account of how horse slaughterers kept a bucket of water close at hand in which to wash knives that had become so smeared with blood that they were difficult/dangerous to use. That’s one possible reason for a change of weapon, no doubt there are others.

That a single killer might repeatedly stab their victim with one knife and then switch to another to continue the attack really isn't obviously ‘illogical’.

No one is saying it would have been impossible for two knives to have been used, but that it is highly unlikely based on what we now know 131 years later about knife wounds in the 21st Century.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Has anyone heard of the Tighe murder case of 1899?

A Wigan miner named Martin Tighe stabbed/cut his wife over 26 times, using two knives. All of the wounds were described as superficial except one in the stomach which had penetrated as far as the spine. It was this wound that proved fatal. Two bloody knives were found at the murder scene. At some point and for some reason Tighe had changed weapons.

Tighe’s counsel suggested to the jury that his client had been in an excited state at the time of the murder and had acted on a sudden impulse, repeatedly stabbing his wife without consideration of the consequences. Nevertheless the jury brought in a verdict of murder.

Why did Tighe change knives? It was never established. But I remember once reading an account of how horse slaughterers kept a bucket of water close at hand in which to wash knives that had become so smeared with blood that they were difficult/dangerous to use. That’s one possible reason for a change of weapon, no doubt there are others.

That a single killer might repeatedly stab their victim with one knife and then switch to another to continue the attack really isn't obviously ‘illogical’.

[MrBarnett]

I haven't seen that particular piece before, but from my understanding up until I read this, ALL soldiers, retired and active, could wear bayonets and short swords with uniforms on Bank Holidays. Im looking for something that says that specifically. Your quote says nothing about Bank Holidays specifically. On Leave would refer to only active soldiers too.

Couple of points that seem to not be clear to some people....yes, Killeens report suggests 2 weapons, yes...the single large wound was enough to kill on its own, and no...its not logical that a killer would switch weapons for one stab after stabbing in a frenzy for 38 stabs, or to one that he would use repeatedly after already essentially killing her with just a single sternum stab. Not to say killers don't use weapons on victims even after they have been wounded sufficiently to succumb. Some do. Did this killer? Outdoors...where he could be caught at any minute? After already stabbing her bad enough to kill her? No. He almost certainly finished her with the large weapon, and again, its highly unlikely he had that large weapon on him when he was working up a sweat stabbing with his penknife.

Lets be realistic in our scenarios so we don't waste time just exploring improbabilities.

That’s your view, Michael, and of course you’re welcome to it. I personally see nothing improbable about the use of a second weapon by one attacker.

Are you familiar with the attack upon a group of prostitutes in Limehouse apparently by Johannes Morgenstern, MJK’s ‘landlord’? He started with kicks and stabs and then removed his jacket and vest, picked up a poker and beat his final victim with that. There were two distinct phases to the attack, and that’s what I feel may well have happened on the landing of GYB.

[Michael W Richards]

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

I haven't seen that particular piece before, but from my understanding up until I read this, ALL soldiers, retired and active, could wear bayonets and short swords with uniforms on Bank Holidays. Im looking for something that says that specifically. Your quote says nothing about Bank Holidays specifically. On Leave would refer to only active soldiers too.

Couple of points that seem to not be clear to some people....yes, Killeens report suggests 2 weapons, yes...the single large wound was enough to kill on its own, and no...its not logical that a killer would switch weapons for one stab after stabbing in a frenzy for 38 stabs, or to one that he would use repeatedly after already essentially killing her with just a single sternum stab. Not to say killers don't use weapons on victims even after they have been wounded sufficiently to succumb. Some do. Did this killer? Outdoors...where he could be caught at any minute? After already stabbing her bad enough to kill her? No. He almost certainly finished her with the large weapon, and again, its highly unlikely he had that large weapon on him when he was working up a sweat stabbing with his penknife.

Lets be realistic in our scenarios so we don't waste time just exploring improbabilities.

[Fisherman]

Killeen stated that Martha's lungs were pierced a total of seven times. Surely, if she had been alive for any appreciable time after this, then almost certainly she would have been coughing up blood. Yet according to the ELO account, Reeves stated that there was no blood coming from Tabram's mouth.
Curious.

It is indeed!

[Fisherman]

Well, I still lean towards one man in possession of more than one weapon.

But to answer your question, I believe Tabram’s body was found next to an area where there were toilets. Might there have also been coppers for clothes washing nearby? If so, there could have been something, an old poker perhaps, hanging around. But that would mean Killeen mistaking a wound made by a blunt, cylindrical implement for one caused by a dagger.

Or perhaps, as you mention, he was a resident and was able to pop back to his flat to obtain a second weapon.

Or...perhaps he had a cart outside and he was able to retrieve a second weapon from that, eh, Fish?

;-)

Yes, that must have been it! Nah, to be perfectly honest, Tabram is and remains something of the odd one out in the Ripper tally. I can personally see my way through to her having been killed by someone else, serving as an inspiration for that cart driver you are thinking of. Then again, the location where she was killed and the hour it happened does fit the overall schedule that is on offer for him, so if I have to vote, I would count her in. In which case it seems she was not the victim of an intended evisceration attack, going by the choice of weapon brought. It can be reasoned that Lechmere may have been a user of unfortunates as so many serial killers after him who focused on prostitutes, and that something went very wrong with Tabram. Afterwards, the widespread publicity rang a bell inside him, and he decided to take his business to the open streets to feed his narcissism.

... but that is only one of many possibilities. When I nail him, I wonīt primarily be using Tabram, letīs just leave it there...

PS. You are correct in saying that Tabram was found outside the loos on one of the landings. But I think we are looking for something with a pointed end, and not with a cylindrical shape. Was there any such implement that a carter was likely to use, for example ...?

[MrBarnett]

The more I think of this, the more I warm to the idea that the larger weapon was perhaps not even there as the first 38 stabs were dealt.

If the reason that Killeen felt that all the stabs were inflicted while Tabram was still alive, then the logical thing to expect is perhaps that he was able to see that the 38 smaller wounds had bled for some considerable time before the sternum stab was dealt. And if so, the reason that there were two weapons employed could perhaps lie in how the killer only had access to the small knife from the outset. When he realized that it was not a weapon that ensured death, he got up and fetched the larger weapon and used it to finish his victim.

That would explain how Killeen could tell that Tabram was alive throughout the stabbing, it would fix the sternum stab as the last one, and it would explain why there were two weapons involved.

The question that arises is of course where he got the larger weapon from. Did the killer live in the house, and got the larger blade from his lodgings? Did he have it in a cart outside George Yard? Was it a weapon at all, or something else that he used as a weapon? What - if any - implements could there be in the surroundings that could possibly be used as a weapon?

Any ideas?

Well, I still lean towards one man in possession of more than one weapon.

But to answer your question, I believe Tabram’s body was found next to an area where there were toilets. Might there have also been coppers for clothes washing nearby? If so, there could have been something, an old poker perhaps, hanging around. But that would mean Killeen mistaking a wound made by a blunt, cylindrical implement for one caused by a dagger.

Or perhaps, as you mention, he was a resident and was able to pop back to his flat to obtain a second weapon.

Or...perhaps he had a cart outside and he was able to retrieve a second weapon from that, eh, Fish?

;-)

[Joshua Rogan]

Killeen stated that Martha's lungs were pierced a total of seven times. Surely, if she had been alive for any appreciable time after this, then almost certainly she would have been coughing up blood. Yet according to the ELO account, Reeves stated that there was no blood coming from Tabram's mouth.
Curious.

[Fisherman]

...if the killer had inflicted the heart wound and then immediately given Tabram another jab with the penknife or whatever it was, that last wound would probably have had the appearance of one inflicted during life.

The more I think of this, the more I warm to the idea that the larger weapon was perhaps not even there as the first 38 stabs were dealt.

If the reason that Killeen felt that all the stabs were inflicted while Tabram was still alive, then the logical thing to expect is perhaps that he was able to see that the 38 smaller wounds had bled for some considerable time before the sternum stab was dealt. And if so, the reason that there were two weapons employed could perhaps lie in how the killer only had access to the small knife from the outset. When he realized that it was not a weapon that ensured death, he got up and fetched the larger weapon and used it to finish his victim.

That would explain how Killeen could tell that Tabram was alive throughout the stabbing, it would fix the sternum stab as the last one, and it would explain why there were two weapons involved.

The question that arises is of course where he got the larger weapon from. Did the killer live in the house, and got the larger blade from his lodgings? Did he have it in a cart outside George Yard? Was it a weapon at all, or something else that he used as a weapon? What - if any - implements could there be in the surroundings that could possibly be used as a weapon?

Any ideas?

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Joshua.

I think the point I was querying was whether ‘all’ soldiers were allowed to carry side arms.

Bearing in mind that PP identified two privates at the ID parade, what corporals and sergeants were allowed to do may not be relevant. And, of course, PP said she hadn’t noticed whether her two soldiers were wearing side arms.

No matter how big, masculine-looking and drunk PP may have been, she was still a vulnerable woman and I think it’s unlikely that she spent almost two hours in the company of two soldiers expecting that she might well have to accompany one or the other of them into a secluded corner at the end of the night and missed the fact that they had bayonets hanging from their belts.

[MrBarnett]

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

Thanks, Joshua.

I think the point I was querying was whether ‘all’ soldiers were allowed to carry side arms.

Bearing in mind that PP identified two privates at the ID parade, what corporals and sergeants were allowed to do may not be relevant. And, of course, PP said she hadn’t noticed whether her two soldiers were wearing side arms.

[Joshua Rogan]

Where does that idea come from, Michael? I’ve seen a number of photos of Victorian military men who were out on the town but who did not appear to have been wearing side arms.

I’m sure there’s a source for what you are saying, I’ve heard it said many times before.

But all that would tell us is that soldiers were one category of men out of dozens who might have carried knives.

Why point the finger solely at soldiers and not at others?

Think of the numerous East End ne’er-do-wells who carried knives for nefarious reasons, the butchers, slaughtermen, leather workers etc etc etc Why focus purely on soldiers?

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

[MrBarnett]

A question for RJ.

Where do you get the ‘resorting to his weak hand’ idea from?

Is there a version of Killeen’s evidence where he says with certainty that one of the wounds was a left handed blow? And did he say which wound that was?

I must have missed it if there is. From what I’ve read he says that one of the wounds ‘might’ have been made by a left-handed person, but he doesn’t specify which wound that might have been.

[Michael W Richards]

Had The Sheffield Daily Telegraph been the only account of the murder to have survived, no one would have dreamed that it was suggesting that two different knives had been used. Indeed, rather than support Killen's account, it seems to directly contradict it.

"The wounds (plural) on the deceased appear as if they had been inflicted with a bayonet plunged into the body with great force."

Yet, we are told, it was more or less obvious that these wounds were, in fact, inflicted with a mere penknife, and it was only the "radically different" wound to the chest that had been inflicted with a bayonet.

I'm not sure why this report is being used to support Killeen, but evidently it is.


Hi Michael- the reason some of us feel that Killeen still needs challenging is that he had little experience; modern forensic experts tell us--again and again--that it is highly problematic to determine the size of a blade by the resulting wound; that a scientific study I presented earlier determined that stabs made through clothing tend to be deceptively small; another that wounds to the sternum tend to gape; that the 'logic' behind a man in a frenzy suddenly switching weapons--and RESORTING TO HIS WEAK HAND--does not strike us as plausible in the 'real world' of a street murder.

Which brings me to my question. Why is the assembled cognoscenti so convinced that the wound to the sternum was the LAST wound inflicted?

What evidence/logical argument is there that this was the case? Isn't it merely a theory made to make the 'two weapon' claim more palatable? Is there anything in the evidence to suggest that it was the last wound inflicted rather than the first, or the fourth, or the twenty-second?

That's the kind of rebuttal Im looking for rj...was Killeen up to the task. We can never know that for sure without some evidence he had in the past made errors. I believe the cumulative data, which would have to include that quote from the Sheffield Daily, suggests that at the very least a dagger or some kind of larger blade...including a bayonet, was likely used on Martha. And smaller stabs, unlikely to have been the result of someone who was controlling the depth to which he plunged, were also present. That substantiates a claim of 2 weapons in my view. Now, why would the large one be last? Well for one, all the rest would have not been needed, and for a second, it appears we would also have to assume he then changed to a smaller blade to in a frenzied manner stab away. Improbable. It speaks of a coup de grace. ""Would you just die for Christ sakes".....

This also implies something to me eye anyway, that even that last blow was done in an impassioned manner. To stab someone violently and repeatedly in close quarters suggests a heated state, so does a strong thrust once with a large blade. Its that kind of passion that I don't see in some murders that for me differentiates killers.

[Fisherman]

We do not know the wording of any Killeen statement.Again Fisherman,you are quoting newspaper reports,which are hearsay,and are not evidence that can be used in a murder trial.The newspaper prints the wounds were all sustained while alive,and there is not one jot of evidence to suggest the newspaper had access to a report of Killeens, was repeating from such a report, was repeating from information supplied by the police, from inquest testimony,or by personnel involvement with Killeen.
Just another cheap and misleading attempt to create a fact that doesn't exist.So you have corrected nothing.That's nothing unusual.
Now let me clarify why hearsay would not be accepted evidence in court,in this instance.It is because Killeen would have been available to give evidence in court himself.Yes I know it did not come to that,but evidence in the Tabram case should be treated as though it could come to that.

I couldnīt care less, Harry. It remains that what Killeen is recorded as having said is evidence.