Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

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.

The first question this poses is this one: What is "an ordinary knife"?

I have little doubt that a sharp-pointed knife CAN penetrate the sternum if enough force is applied, and if the blade is tough and sturdy enough. It goes without saying, more or less.

However, I am equally certain that a frail and smallish blade will not penetrate the sternum.

So what I feel Killeen is saying is that the blade used for the 38 wounds was so small as to make him believe that it could not have penetrated the sternum. It was spoken of a pen-knife, and pen-knifes are typically not the strongest of knives.

At the end of the day, what is of importance here is not whether "an ordinary knife" (whatever that is ...?) can penetrate the sternum, but instead whether or not Killeen was able to establish that two blades were used when stabbing Tabram. And as I have said a few times by now, if the appearance of the wounds had been the same throughout, then Killeen would of course not have reasoned that the sternum stab was inflicted by another weapon. What he instead says is that no knife would have produced the kind of hole he saw in the sternum. That puts the matter to rest, the way I see things.

[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.

To support her comment, Cornwell cites a case from Germany where a table knife was said to have penetrated a woman’s sternum ‘...as if it were butter. The edges of the wound indicated that the table knife cleanly penetrated the bone once and went through the right lung, the pericardium, and the aorta.’ Are table knives significantly stronger than penknives/‘ordinary’ knives?

I think I’m right in saying that currently in the UK it takes five and a half years for someone with an existing medical background to qualify as a consultant forensic pathologist. Clearly the opinions of a newly qualified GP would not be as informed as those who had trained in the field for several years. They would be more likely to get things wrong than a fully qualified and more experienced pathologist. Or else why bother with the 5 1/2 years of training?

It’s not just the question of whether one or two weapons was used on Tabram that is important, perhaps even more so is whether the type of weapon/s narrows the suspect field in some way.

[MrBarnett]

It’s curious that when the coroner’s office issued Martha’s death certificate, it contained no medical information whatsoever. It merely stated that her cause of death was:

Violent Wilful
Murder against
some person or
persons unknown

Compare that to the death certs of the C5. It’s odd, right?

[Fisherman]

To support her comment, Cornwell cites a case from Germany where a table knife was said to have penetrated a woman’s sternum ‘...as if it were butter. The edges of the wound indicated that the table knife cleanly penetrated the bone once and went through the right lung, the pericardium, and the aorta.’ Are table knives significantly stronger than penknives/‘ordinary’ knives?

I think I’m right in saying that currently in the UK it takes five and a half years for someone with an existing medical background to qualify as a consultant forensic pathologist. Clearly the opinions of a newly qualified GP would not be as informed as those who had trained in the field for several years. They would be more likely to get things wrong than a fully qualified and more experienced pathologist. Or else why bother with the 5 1/2 years of training?

It’s not just the question of whether one or two weapons was used on Tabram that is important, perhaps even more so is whether the type of weapon/s narrows the suspect field in some way.

Every year, I visit the beautiful city of Copenhagen. This year, it seems like it may be difficult to cross the border, and so the Danes will perhaps need to find out a way to extract my my money without getting myself at the same time. Danes are clever, so I suppose they will find a way.
However, what I wanted to say was that on my yearly visit to Copenhagen, I always visit a restaurant called "LīEducation Nationale" on Larsbjörnsstraede, to eat their sumptuous entrecote. If you ever go there, donīt miss it! Now, when I sit down at the table, the dish arrives with cutlery involving a formidable knife. The staff even takes care to warn me that it is extremely sharp. It is also sturdy and wide - and it is a table knife. The blade is at least five inches, sturdy and rock hard.

I formerly asked what an "ordinary knife" is. Now, what is a "table knife"? They come in all sorts of shapes and strengths, Gary! The one thing that binds them together, though, is that they are all made out of stainless steel. Which was invented in 1913! And which will normally not break. It may bend, but it will not break. And the knife from Līeducation Nationale is not likely to bend unless thrust by a grizzly against a tank. So in answer to your question whether a table knife is stronger than ordinary knives, Iīd say that it may very well be. AND less susceptible to breaking!

The blades back in 1888 were made out of carbon steel. Which will normally not bend, but it certainly will break! Normal knives, for normal people were normally not made out of the best steel available either. Thus they often broke. Comparing them to todays cutlery in terms of durability of the steel is comparing widely different matters.

I note that you tell me that it is not just about the question of one or two blades (which is no question at all, to my mind), but also about the type of blade/s used, since it may help us to make a better call if we obtain knowledge about it.
I agree about that - but I donīt think Killeen is much help. He was not adamant about the type in either case, one was "an ordinary knife" or "pen knife", seemingly of small dimensions, and that is a very wide description. The same goes for the larger blade, some sort of "dagger or bayonet", long and strong. That too is a wide description. How on earth can we narrow that down?

[Fisherman]

It’s curious that when the coroner’s office issued Martha’s death certificate, it contained no medical information whatsoever. It merely stated that her cause of death was:

Violent Wilful
Murder against
some person or
persons unknown

Compare that to the death certs of the C5. It’s odd, right?

It is. I try to free myself from a suspicion that it all could boil down to Tabram belonging to a class of people who may not have been looked upon as worthy of too much work on behalf of the authorities. In that vein, maybe it can be argued that Killeen was also a cheapskate solution to a costly problem, I donīt know. It does not automatically mean, though, that Killeen was not quaified to do the job.

[MrBarnett]

It is. I try to free myself from a suspicion that it all could boil down to Tabram belonging to a class of people who may not have been looked upon as worthy of too much work on behalf of the authorities. In that vein, maybe it can be argued that Killeen was also a cheapskate solution to a costly problem, I donīt know. It does not automatically mean, though, that Killeen was not quaified to do the job.

I’m pretty sure the absence of any medical information on the death certificate had nothing to do with Martha’s position in society. I’ve seen a good many death certs of the poorest of the poor in the East End and I can’t recall one than provided no medical cause of death. I’ll have a check through my files later to see if I’ve forgotten any.

So we’re left with three possibilities, I think:

An oversight on the part of Baxter or his office.

An uncertainty as to what the cause of death actually was.

A mistake by the registrar.

[Fisherman]

I’m pretty sure the absence of any medical information on the death certificate had nothing to do with Martha’s position in society. I’ve seen a good many death certs of the poorest of the poor in the East End and I can’t recall one than provided no medical cause of death. I’ll have a check through my files later to see if I’ve forgotten any.

So we’re left with three possibilities, I think:

An oversight on the part of Baxter or his office.

An uncertainty as to what the cause of death actually was.

A mistake by the registrar.

Even if people as a rule, and regardless of their societal standing, had the medical information added to their death certificates, I am always wary when things like these happen of the risk that Tabrams being low down on the societal ladder may have played some sort of role. I ask myself whether it could have happened when lord A or earl B died, and I find I answer that question with a "not likely". Maybe itīs just me being cynical, though.

The three possibilities you speak of have one thing in common - neither seems likely. I believe Killeen put the death down to bleeding, although I have always found it a tad odd since he said that the 38 smaller wounds came first and were survived by Tabram, whereas the punctured heart was sufficient to cause death. Are you making the presumption that the left out medical information equals a disqualification of Killeens judgment?

[Fisherman]

As for table knives, Gary, check out the Laguiole ones from France - it is the type I cut that yearly entrecote with. Kind of intimidating!

[MrBarnett]

As for table knives, Gary, check out the Laguiole ones from France - it is the type I cut that yearly entrecote with. Kind of intimidating!

Laguiole are best known for their steak knives, are they not? Not all knives used at the table are commonly called table knives.

In my cutlery drawer I have steak knives, bread knives, carving knives, a cheese knife or two, all of which are used at the table, but I wouldn’t call any of them ‘table knives’.

[Fisherman]

Laguiole are best known for their steak knives, are they not? Not all knives used at the table are commonly called table knives.

In my cutlery drawer I have steak knives, bread knives, carving knives, a cheese knife or two, all of which are used at the table, but I wouldn’t call any of them ‘table knives’.

The Laguiole knives are presented as table knives. And there are others that look equally ferocious, also presented as table knives. I donīt know which type of knife Cornwell had in mind, but it would seem there are heaps of sturdy, sharp and pointed table knives out there. Google the term "table knife" like I did, and you will see.

Personally, if I was to describe what I find is a typical table knife, I would describe a rather dull knife with a serrated edge and a rounded tip. And I donīt see such an implement piercing a sternum. I do, however, see many of the knives described by Google as table knives doing just that. Basically, are not all knives that accompany a plate on the table table knives...? Used to set the table, as it were?

Unless we know the exact type of table knife Cornwell referred to, we may have a hard time agreeing about the ferocity of such implements. Maybe we can agree that although the knife reportedly went through the sternum as if it was butter, we are probably not talking about a butter knife...?

[MrBarnett]

We can also agree that it wasn’t a fish knife, which lets you off the hook.;-)

[MrBarnett]

I’ve trawled through the numerous death certs I’ve accumulated as a result of my interest in JTR and family research and haven’t found a single example of one that didn’t provide a medical cause of death.


If we could find a few examples, we might be able to discern a pattern that explains the lack of such info on the Tabram death cert. Being desperately poor and dying in the Whitechapel registration district doesn’t appear to be the explanation.

[Fisherman]

We can also agree that it wasn’t a fish knife, which lets you off the hook.;-)

Thatīs a relief and a half...!

[Fisherman]

I’ve trawled through the numerous death certs I’ve accumulated as a result of my interest in JTR and family research and haven’t found a single example of one that didn’t provide a medical cause of death.


If we could find a few examples, we might be able to discern a pattern that explains the lack of such info on the Tabram death cert. Being desperately poor and dying in the Whitechapel registration district doesn’t appear to be the explanation.

Good work, Gary - and the matter is interesting. Could it be that the victorians found the true cause of death too revolting to put on paper...? Then again, there were worse examples in the C5 who were even more revolting, so it seems not to have been the case.

I really cannot think of a reason. And I definitely donīt think itīs about disagreeing with Killeen. Do you?

[MrBarnett]

Good work, Gary - and the matter is interesting. Could it be that the victorians found the true cause of death too revolting to put on paper...? Then again, there were worse examples in the C5 who were even more revolting, so it seems not to have been the case.

I really cannot think of a reason. And I definitely donīt think itīs about disagreeing with Killeen. Do you?

I don’t know, Fish.

Yes, the info is provided for the C5, and for Alice McKenzie, whose death cert I received a few weeks back. Here’s what was on Alice’s cert:


Violent

Syncope from loss
of blood through
the Carotid vessels
being divided by
some sharp instrument

Wilful murder

Post Mortem


The other noticeable difference between the two is that there’s no mention of a PM on Martha’s cert.