Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Michael W Richards]

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

Its been considered Mr Barnett. But when you use probabilities, practicalities and logic it seems so unlikely as to be little more than a distraction as an idea. I submit that if one man started stabbing her with the pen knife, which left her still technically alive for the last blow, which was a much larger blade, its because he used the knife he had on him. Why would he use something that was essentially useless for killing someone by stabbing if he had something else that could kill with a single stab? Why would it only be used once? Because by that time one final stab was all that was needed to end the attack once and for all.

[MrBarnett]

Its been considered Mr Barnett. But when you use probabilities, practicalities and logic it seems so unlikely as to be little more than a distraction as an idea. I submit that if one man started stabbing her with the pen knife, which left her still technically alive for the last blow, which was a much larger blade, its because he used the knife he had on him. Why would he use something that was essentially useless for killing someone by stabbing if he had something else that could kill with a single stab? Why would it only be used once? Because by that time one final stab was all that was needed to end the attack once and for all.

Because the smaller weapon was easier to use and in his rage he struck with the easiest/closest weapon he had to hand. When his rage subsided and he realised he needed to make sure his victim was dead he used another weapon. There is nothing whatsoever illogical or impractical about that.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Is it too illogical to work with the killer striking the fatal blow first before moving on to post mortem mutilation, as was the Whitechapel killers MO? Assuming Tabram was victim to the same killer. I'm not stating this as fact, but exploring all options.

[MrBarnett]

Is it too illogical to work with the killer striking the fatal blow first before moving on to post mortem mutilation, as was the Whitechapel killers MO? Assuming Tabram was victim to the same killer. I'm not stating this as fact, but exploring all options.

Nope. And there’s nothing in Killeen’s testimony that would gainsay that.

[MrBarnett]

Nope. And there’s nothing in Killeen’s testimony that would gainsay that.

That’s not true of course. Silly me. Killeen was of the opinion that all the wounds had been inflicted while Martha was still alive. But would he have been able to distinguish wounds inflicted immediately after death from those inflicted during life?

[harry]

It is because of a difference in only one wound,that the suspicion of a second weapon was recorded.Sternum injuries are likely to show other than a clean wound,sometimes because of the force needed to withdraw.So my opinion is that there was only one weapon used in the murder of Tabram.

[MrBarnett]

It is because of a difference in only one wound,that the suspicion of a second weapon was recorded.Sternum injuries are likely to show other than a clean wound,sometimes because of the force needed to withdraw.So my opinion is that there was only one weapon used in the murder of Tabram.

But Dr Killeen was of the opinion that two weapons had been used. And he was an experienced (at least a few weeks/months) doctor - ‘Fully qualified’ he was at pains to explain at the inquest.

[Michael W Richards]

Is it too illogical to work with the killer striking the fatal blow first before moving on to post mortem mutilation, as was the Whitechapel killers MO? Assuming Tabram was victim to the same killer. I'm not stating this as fact, but exploring all options.

Stabs with a pen knife would be hard pressed to be referred to as mutilation Al, even 37 of them. And why use a weapon and inflict a fatal wound first? Surely that negates then having to stab the woman over and over again because the second weapon used was insufficient to kill with one stab. Why use an inferior killing tool first? Because its the only one available is most likely the correct answer for me.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Stabs with a pen knife would be hard pressed to be referred to as mutilation Al, even 37 of them. And why use a weapon and inflict a fatal wound first? Surely that negates then having to stab the woman over and over again because the second weapon used was insufficient to kill with one stab. Why use an inferior killing tool first? Because its the only one available is most likely the correct answer for me.

Hi Michael,

Certainly a head scratcher. Killeen is pretty sure that the sternum injury is from a different blade. He could have been wrong, but we have to assume he knew what he was talking about, and his post mortem in the baby case suggests he did. But no matter what angle I look at it, all the possible scenarios are bizarre. One man with two knives? Two men, but one inflicts 37 lesser wounds before his mate shows him how to do it properly? And why the sternum for a coup de grace? Why not the throat, easier and far less unpredictable than trying to go for the heart? And why was Martha passive during all this? Fainted maybe, drunk likely, both possibly. And the genital stabs, that's specific, intentional, maybe not something you'd see in a frenzied attack?

The two attackers and/or two weapons is certainly not the easy option, but I don't see particularly good cause to doubt Killeen. And if he was so inexperienced, would he have noted a difference at all? So two blades is what we have, but why, we'll never fathom out. Logically, it would be the work of two individuals, but I'll always struggle to reconcile the circumstances.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Michael,

Certainly a head scratcher. Killeen is pretty sure that the sternum injury is from a different blade. He could have been wrong, but we have to assume he knew what he was talking about, and his post mortem in the baby case suggests he did. But no matter what angle I look at it, all the possible scenarios are bizarre. One man with two knives? Two men, but one inflicts 37 lesser wounds before his mate shows him how to do it properly? And why the sternum for a coup de grace? Why not the throat, easier and far less unpredictable than trying to go for the heart? And why was Martha passive during all this? Fainted maybe, drunk likely, both possibly. And the genital stabs, that's specific, intentional, maybe not something you'd see in a frenzied attack?

The two attackers and/or two weapons is certainly not the easy option, but I don't see particularly good cause to doubt Killeen. And if he was so inexperienced, would he have noted a difference at all? So two blades is what we have, but why, we'll never fathom out. Logically, it would be the work of two individuals, but I'll always struggle to reconcile the circumstances.

Hi Al,

Were there any genital stabs? That’s new to me.

The simplest explanation IMO is that the attacker was carrying more than one knife. He used the smaller knife in a rage and then used a larger, possibly more unwieldy weapon/tool to finish the job.

Martha had a contused wound to her head, so may have been stunned by a blow before the knife attack began.

Gary

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Were there any genital stabs? That’s new to me.

Hi Gary,

Might be worth erring caution on that one, it's from a report by Swanson, and let's face it, he wasn't always spot on.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

Might be worth erring caution on that one, it's from a report by Swanson, and let's face it, he wasn't always spot on.

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

[MrBarnett]

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

I should add that the very interesting 8th August report in the Sheffield Evening Star speaks of a single wound of ‘a revolting nature’.

Martha’s genitals were not the focus of the attack.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Unless I’ve missed something, Swanson spoke of ‘wounds’ rather than stabs and didn’t contradict Killeen’s statement that there was a single cut to the genital area. 1 out of 39. Clearly not the focus of the attack.

I don’t think Killeen identifies all 39 of the wounds, but I would have thought that if there was more than one to her genital area, he would have said so.

Yeah, I can go for that. Bit of a side issue anyhow, and definitely not the focus of the attack.

I do wonder, did the newly appointed Dr Killeen arrive in London seeking his fortune, gets a handful of awful crimes to look at and decided to up sticks back to Ireland because being a doctor was more appealing than performing autopsies on murdered women and children?

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, I can go for that. Bit of a side issue anyhow, and definitely not the focus of the attack.

I do wonder, did the newly appointed Dr Killeen arrive in London seeking his fortune, gets a handful of awful crimes to look at and decided to up sticks back to Ireland because being a doctor was more appealing than performing autopsies on murdered women and children?

I wondered that myself. Whether his intention was to make a career in London or to finish off his education with practical experience there, he doesn’t seem to have stayed very long.

He couldn’t have chosen a worse time to rock up in Whitechapel if he was at all squeamish. ;-)