Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Michael W Richards]

I acquiesce on the issue whether or not a "Pen knife" could penetrate deep enough to make a 2 blade conclusion premature, I would however question whether all who refer to the blade as such are talking about the same category of weapon. Pen Knives have been at some point in time self describing,... Folding knives, Pocket knives..people have been making easy to carry knives of all sizes for some time. The descriptor Pen Knife is a specific category. That it folds and can be carried are just features.

I have no trouble accepting that Killeen saw something different in that one wound to validate his statement, and I don't believe that a modern expert or the fact that pathology was primitive in those days as reasons to challenge it. This is still, for me, a question of the number of assailants, not weapons...the different wounds allow for that question.

[harry]

Michael,
If you read it properly,the wound extended past the breastbone,which had been incised.
Does a difference in the penknives matter? The arguement in Tabrams murder was that a penknife could not have penetrated the sternum.It did not state the kind of penknife.That arguement has been shown to be incorrect.

[rjpalmer]

In 2008 there was a stabbing murder in Calgary. The police thought that all the stabs, 37 of them, were made by a butcher knife from the block in the kitchen that the killer had by him when they arrived. It was later discovered that in fact 3 different knives were used. So much for modern experts there.

Thanks, Michael.

But the fact that someone (was it the police or was is it the medical examiner?) believed that one knife was used in an attack, when three knives were actually used, is not a valid counterargument to my view.

It actually supports my contention that it is difficult to determine what weapon was used, and that errors are not infrequent.

This should not be controversial; numerous forensic experts have warned us about this, including Trevor's consultant, Dr. Biggs.

[Michael W Richards]

Doctor Grabham's autopsy report on Bryan.
There was a large gaping clean cut wound in front of the chest,having an oval outline,and measuring 6 and a half inches by 2 and a half inches.It's upper limit was on the breast bone,about 1and a half inches below the upper end of that bone.The lower limit was about 2 inches above the left nipple.The direction of the wound was completely downwards towards the left side.The wound had exposed the spaces between the first and second,and the second and third ribs.
The gristly extremity of the second rib had been completely cut across,and there was also a deep incision in the gristly portion of the breast bone.The cut surface of the gristly was perfectly smooth. On opening the chest,the wound already described,was found to extend to the space in which the heart lies,and to have penetrated the left auricle of the heart,an aperture of about half an inch in length having been formed.
The incised wound on the heart was the primary cause of death,and the immediate cause hemmorrage from the wound.
The weapon claimed to have inflicted this wound was described as a penknife.It was produced in the court.The claim a penknife could not have caused that wound was made. Twelve people on the jury,the prosecution and the police obviously thought differently. The accused was found guilty and hanged.

If I read that correctly the penetration of the knife into the pericardium was through "gristle". Yes, that penknife was capable of grievous injury. Is that to say that's the same kind of penknife that made the wounds Killeen saw? No.

[harry]

Doctor Grabham's autopsy report on Bryan.
There was a large gaping clean cut wound in front of the chest,having an oval outline,and measuring 6 and a half inches by 2 and a half inches.It's upper limit was on the breast bone,about 1and a half inches below the upper end of that bone.The lower limit was about 2 inches above the left nipple.The direction of the wound was completely downwards towards the left side.The wound had exposed the spaces between the first and second,and the second and third ribs.
The gristly extremity of the second rib had been completely cut across,and there was also a deep incision in the gristly portion of the breast bone.The cut surface of the gristly was perfectly smooth. On opening the chest,the wound already described,was found to extend to the space in which the heart lies,and to have penetrated the left auricle of the heart,an aperture of about half an inch in length having been formed.
The incised wound on the heart was the primary cause of death,and the immediate cause hemmorrage from the wound.
The weapon claimed to have inflicted this wound was described as a penknife.It was produced in the court.The claim a penknife could not have caused that wound was made. Twelve people on the jury,the prosecution and the police obviously thought differently. The accused was found guilty and hanged.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Gary - Understood, but I think we are treading water. A 'great' wound and a series of smaller "frightful" wounds can be inflicted with the same weapon.

Further, the article quoting Hewitt also states the other wounds (plural) were inflicted with 'great force'...and even suggests a bayonet.

"Frightful"..."great force"... a "bayonet"...wounds that we know penetrated the rib cage...

I'm not seeing anything that indicates that the difference between the wounds was obvious and beyond dispute.

And it's not me suggesting caution and skepticism..it's Dr. Biggs, Dr. Rivello, etc.

Perhaps there was more...we have no actual medical report...but a strict reading of Killeen's inquest statement indicates that the blade's ability to break through the sternum was what differentiated that wound from the others.

Is that enough?

Folding pocket knives are dangerous to the holder rj, particularly when pressure is applied to the blades tip. There are 3 other ways it could break...left/right/back and the danger of it folding back in on itself is obvious.

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

Im not sure these modern "experts" are qualified to comment on wounds that they very little specific description of...depth of each wound, width, girth, length, angle of puncture, ...all those measurable attributes. Secondly, they have no visuals. Thirdly, most of these medical experts would not be familiar with knives available to all in the area at that time.

In 2008 there was a stabbing murder in Calgary. The police thought that all the stabs, 37 of them, were made by a butcher knife from the block in the kitchen that the killer had by him when they arrived. It was later discovered that in fact 3 different knives were used. So much for modern experts there.

[harry]

I made an error.I should have checked first.The wound I described was of another person involved in the same incident.He recovered.
Joseph Bryan received a wound across the chest which penetrated to the heart.Both however had been attacked by the accused.Only the one weapon was used,and it was as described in the above post.

[harry]

19 August 1898,Joseph Bryan was killed by a single thrust to the abdomen.The weapon,produced in court,was referred to as both a penknfe and knife.He was killed in view of witnesses.
One internet site states a distance of only 2 inches between the outer layer of skin and the heart.Not implying that was the case with Tabram,but I believe,as the article states,most people imagine a much greater distance.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Gary - Understood, but I think we are treading water. A 'great' wound and a series of smaller "frightful" wounds can be inflicted with the same weapon.

Further, the article quoting Hewitt also states the other wounds (plural) were inflicted with 'great force'...and even suggests a bayonet.

"Frightful"..."great force"... a "bayonet"...wounds that we know penetrated the rib cage...

I'm not seeing anything that indicates that the difference between the wounds was obvious and beyond dispute.

And it's not me suggesting caution and skepticism..it's Dr. Biggs, Dr. Rivello, etc.

Perhaps there was more...we have no actual medical report...but a strict reading of Killeen's inquest statement indicates that the blade's ability to break through the sternum was what differentiated that wound from the others.

Is that enough?

[Michael W Richards]

The difference between the smallest dagger and the largest penknife is what?

If you have to ask that I can see why you might assume either of them would make the same wound. Categorically, they would not. I dont care who says its difficult to tell the difference between those 2 kinds of wounds, it isnt.

[MrBarnett]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

Hi RJ,

Both Killeen and Francis Hewitt singled the heart wound out for special mention. Hewitt reportedly described it as ‘great’. If you are speaking about a body exhibiting 39 wounds and you describe just of them as ‘great’, there’s a fair chance that the other 38 were not so ‘great’, I’d have thought.

Gary

[rjpalmer]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

[MrBarnett]

I don't see lack of field expertise as an obstacle to determining the size of a weapon used on a victim though Mr Barnett. Im sure that lack of specific experience may have caused him to be unsure whether a single wound was caused by a double edged blade...for example 2 stabs in the same spot from alternate angles could look like double edges made one stab....that kind of thing. But again, we are talking about determining wounds made by a pen knife, an innocuous folding pocket knife that should have been fairly consistent in wound depths, to one that was substantially larger than that and had penetrated much deeper that the average pocket knife could...

This isn't a litmus test on his abilities in general, its discussion about whether he could tell the difference between a small folding knife wound and one he felt compelled to describe as a "dagger" or bayonet. I have zero experience with this, and I feel I could differentiate between small and large pretty easily. As to assigning specific types or names to the blades, maybe his lack of experience might factor in there. Dagger or Bayonet covers a pretty broad spectrum of blades...I think he just knew that it was larger.

Both Killeen and Hewitt perceived a difference in the size of the heart wound. But perhaps neither of them was aware that wounds from the same knife might appear different depending on where they were inflicted and with how much force.

A doctor with little or no pathological training or experience might have been as clueless as a layman in that respect.

A Dr doesn’t gain pathological insight when he receives his diploma, he gains it through training and subsequent experience. There is a question mark over whether, in August, 1888, Killeen would have had much of either.

But I fear I may be repeating myself...

[MrBarnett]

There were certainly some issues with the teaching of pathology in Dublin while Killeen was studying there. Here’s an attempt to deny the accusation that the teaching of pathology was “totally and confessedly non-existent” in Dublin in the late 1880s. King and Queens College, where Killeen trained, doesn’t even get a mention.


From The Lancet 18th February, 1888: