Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

Yes, you’re right, Christer, Killeen did say the heart wound would have been fatal.

However, 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.

Well, that´s where my lack of medical insights let me down, but if you are correct on this, I can see how the large wound could have been deemed the final one if enough time passed before it was dealt.

There is no obvious answer supported by the evidence, but for me it’s the 38 small wounds first and the heart wound last to finish the job. And I don’t see any reason to choose between one man/two knives and two men/a knife each.

I agree all over.

The thing that is uppermost in my mind at the moment is why it took Killeen half an hour to reach a destination 3 minutes or so away from 68, Brick Lane. And the apparent contradiction between Hewitt’s description of blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen’s suggestion of a TOD of around the time Barrett had his encounter with his soldier three hours previously.

Yeah, well... These are hard matters to discuss since we have such scarce material. The answers to your questions are perhaps easy enough. The "flowing" blood, for example, may perhaps have flowed earlier, presenting a sight that made Hewitt use that wording as he described a flow that had already halted?

[MrBarnett]

I believe he did say that the wound to the heart in itself would have been enough to kill. On a more general level, I am no medico and so I cannot comment on the details with any expertise. The point that I made though, was that contrary to what Harry claimed, there IS evidence that the sternum blow was the last one. Whether that evidence is correct or not is a somewhat different matter.

Yes, you’re right, Christer, Killeen did say the heart wound would have been fatal.

However, 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.

There is no obvious answer supported by the limited evidence that remains, but for me it’s the 38 small wounds first and the heart wound last to finish the job. And I don’t see any reason to choose between one man/two knives and two men/a knife each.

The thing that is uppermost in my mind at the moment is why it took Killeen half an hour to reach a destination 3 minutes or so away from 68, Brick Lane. And the apparent contradiction between Hewitt’s description of blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen’s suggestion of a TOD of around the time Barrett had his encounter with his soldier three hours previously.

[harry]

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.

[Fisherman]

I don’t think Killeen tells us which of the wounds would certainly have been fatal, but presumably it was the one to the heart which was singled out for separate mention by both Him and Hewitt because of its size.

The other thing Killeen doesn’t specify is whether the fatal wound would have been immediately fatal. And, although I’m no expert, from what I’ve read wounds inflicted immediately - within seconds or a minute or two - after death are not easily distinguishable from those inflicted during life.

So, all in all, you pays your money and you takes your choice.


Oh, and I should add that although Killeen suggested that one of the wounds could have been made by a left-handed person, he doesn’t say it definitely was, and again he doesn’t specify which of the wounds he was referring to.

I believe he did say that the wound to the heart in itself would have been enough to kill. On a more general level, I am no medico and so I cannot comment on the details with any expertise. The point that I made though, was that contrary to what Harry claimed, there IS evidence that the sternum blow was the last one. Whether that evidence is correct or not is a somewhat different matter.

[Fisherman]

You have been told many times that Victorian Doctors medical opinions were at times nothing more than guesswork, and that modern medical experts now show and tell why that was so. In this case, you still keep stating that Killeen should be believed without question.

I again refer to Dr Biggs

it is entirely feasible for a “normal” knife to penetrate the chest bone, so there is no need for a separate dagger-type weapon to have been used. It is far more likely that a single implement was used, and that the different appearance of the wounds is nothing more than the variation than we expect to see in such cases.

Why do you continue to ignore what modern-day medical experts tell us?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are working from a wrongful assumption, Trevor. Nobody is ignoring what Dr Biggs says, and on a general level he is quite correct. If there are 39 stabs to a body, they are more likely than not to have been delivered by the same blade. It is only in cases where the evidence is of a character that disenables this to be true that we should work from a different assumption, and this is the exact case at hand: Killeen tells us that there is no way that the sternum wound was made by the same blade.

Once more: Killeen saw the wounds and compared them.

Once more: Biggs did not see the wounds and cannot compare them. There is. no way in hell, and Biggs is quite aware of this. Ask him if you are in any doubt!

Furthermore, there ARE cases when it is beyond any doubt that two blades have been used. One such case was quoted by Gary Barnett earlier on the thread. In it, two different types of knife tips was all it took for the examining expert to tell the two blades apart.

Is it so very strange then that I am going with what Killeen said, not least since the contemporary press reports speak of a very much larger and deeper wound in the sternum case? What you seem to suggest is that we should never accept that two blades may have been used on a single victim; it must always and with no exceptions be a case of one blade only.

That stance would be bonkers, I´m afraid.

[MrBarnett]

I´m afraid that is not correct. And when something is not correct, I point it out and I correct it. I much prefer that to naming the one who is incorrect a deliberate liar since I prefer the term explain over the term inflame.

That being said, I must of course explain here and now why it is incorrect to claim that there is not a jot of evidence that the sternum wound was the last one dealt. I have already told R J why this seems to have been the case, but I don´t mind telling you too, Harry.

Dr Killeen, who was the medical expert examining Tabram and doing her post-mortem, thereby qualifying himself to be the one person who was by far best suited to establish the medical status of Tabram, said that all the knife wounds to the body were "caused during life". Since the sternum wound would undoubtedly have killed Tabram, we may therefore conclude that it must have been dealt last, according to Killeen.

You may of course believe that Timoty Killeen was perhaps not qualified to make the kind of statements that he did about Tabram, but even if this was true (and there is not a jot of evidence to prove it, as the saying goes) it still remains that his verdict IS evidence. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that there is not a jot of evidence to tell us that the sternum wound was the last one dealt to Tabram.

I don’t think Killeen tells us which of the wounds would certainly have been fatal, but presumably it was the one to the heart which was singled out for separate mention by both Him and Hewitt because of its size.

The other thing Killeen doesn’t specify is whether the fatal wound would have been immediately fatal. And, although I’m no expert, from what I’ve read wounds inflicted immediately - within seconds or a minute or two - after death are not easily distinguishable from those inflicted during life.

So, all in all, you pays your money and you takes your choice.


Oh, and I should add that although Killeen suggested that one of the wounds could have been made by a left-handed person, he doesn’t say it definitely was, and again he doesn’t specify which of the wounds he was referring to.

[MrBarnett]

I imagine Dr Biggs could tell the difference between a wound made by a hat pin and one made by a pick axe. I doubt could he tell the difference between two very similar-sized penknives.

What Dr Killeen believed he saw was something in between those two extremes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m afraid that is not correct. And when something is not correct, I point it out and I correct it. I much prefer that to naming the one who is incorrect a deliberate liar since I prefer the term explain over the term inflame.

That being said, I must of course explain here and now why it is incorrect to claim that there is not a jot of evidence that the sternum wound was the last one dealt. I have already told R J why this seems to have been the case, but I don´t mind telling you too, Harry.

Dr Killeen, who was the medical expert examining Tabram and doing her post-mortem, thereby qualifying himself to be the one person who was by far best suited to establish the medical status of Tabram, said that all the knife wounds to the body were "caused during life". Since the sternum wound would undoubtedly have killed Tabram, we may therefore conclude that it must have been dealt last, according to Killeen.

You may of course believe that Timoty Killeen was perhaps not qualified to make the kind of statements that he did about Tabram, but even if this was true (and there is not a jot of evidence to prove it, as the saying goes) it still remains that his verdict IS evidence. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that there is not a jot of evidence to tell us that the sternum wound was the last one dealt to Tabram.

You have been told many times that Victorian Doctors medical opinions were at times nothing more than guesswork, and that modern medical experts now show and tell why that was so. In this case, you still keep stating that Killeen should be believed without question.

I again refer to Dr Biggs

it is entirely feasible for a “normal” knife to penetrate the chest bone, so there is no need for a separate dagger-type weapon to have been used. It is far more likely that a single implement was used, and that the different appearance of the wounds is nothing more than the variation than we expect to see in such cases.

Why do you continue to ignore what modern-day medical experts tell us?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.

I´m afraid that is not correct. And when something is not correct, I point it out and I correct it. I much prefer that to naming the one who is incorrect a deliberate liar since I prefer the term explain over the term inflame.

That being said, I must of course explain here and now why it is incorrect to claim that there is not a jot of evidence that the sternum wound was the last one dealt. I have already told R J why this seems to have been the case, but I don´t mind telling you too, Harry.

Dr Killeen, who was the medical expert examining Tabram and doing her post-mortem, thereby qualifying himself to be the one person who was by far best suited to establish the medical status of Tabram, said that all the knife wounds to the body were "caused during life". Since the sternum wound would undoubtedly have killed Tabram, we may therefore conclude that it must have been dealt last, according to Killeen.

You may of course believe that Timoty Killeen was perhaps not qualified to make the kind of statements that he did about Tabram, but even if this was true (and there is not a jot of evidence to prove it, as the saying goes) it still remains that his verdict IS evidence. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that there is not a jot of evidence to tell us that the sternum wound was the last one dealt to Tabram.

[MrBarnett]

I have never said there could not have been two weapons used,I have questioned why it needed two weapons when one would have sufficed.We do not know the extent of the difference that Killeen noted,but that there was a differnce can be accepted.All weapons have the ability to produce different effects,and those effects are more noticeable where,like in the case of Tabram,two different types of tissue are involved,and the weapon used is a knife.As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.That being so,is it plausable that a different knife need be used for just one wound.If so Why?

To make sure she was dead?

[harry]

I have never said there could not have been two weapons used,I have questioned why it needed two weapons when one would have sufficed.We do not know the extent of the difference that Killeen noted,but that there was a differnce can be accepted.All weapons have the ability to produce different effects,and those effects are more noticeable where,like in the case of Tabram,two different types of tissue are involved,and the weapon used is a knife.As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.That being so,is it plausable that a different knife need be used for just one wound.If so Why?

[MrBarnett]

“I suggest the origin of the bayonet idea was Barrett’s sighting of a soldier, mentioned on the landing of GYB while he, Killeen and a few residents were present.”

I should have added, “and discussed in the context of their observation of the noticeably different ‘great gaping wound’ to Martha’s heart.

[MrBarnett]

My reason for posting the SDT account was because of its early date and its mention of a bayonet. If their reporter did obtain his information on the afternoon of the 7th as they claim, that was long before the inquest, possibly even before Killeen had completed the PM. Where might Hewitt have got the idea of a bayonet from at that early stage? I don’t buy the idea that he had independently reached that conclusion because soldiers had been drinking nearby on the night of the murder. So had men of dozens of other occupations that might have required the use of a variety of sharp instruments, not to mention the local knife-wielding crims.

I suggest the origin of the bayonet idea was Barrett’s sighting of a soldier, mentioned on the landing of GYB while he, Killeen and a few residents were present.

Two weapons seems more likely to me, and like Abby, I don’t understand why people have a problem with one man, two weapons.

[Abby Normal]

can someone please explain to me why people are so adamantly arguing against two knives being used? the doctor who saw the wounds said so and killers have been known to use more than one weapon on a victim so whats the big deal?!? am i missing something?

[Fisherman]

Fish -- Yes, I am aware of that, but by all appearances the unknown commentator of that snippet is just repeating Killeen's conclusion.

That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, yes. The reason I posted it is that it establishes that Killeen did speak of the presence of a penknife on the scene, much in opposition to what the Sheffield Telegraph did.

It shouldn't be construed as an independent opinion.

Of course not. I have all along said that there is one expert witness only who assessed and commented on the wounds as far as we know, and that is Killeen.

And why only 20 wounds? Is it just sloppy commentary?

That remains an open question. Killeen only described 21 of the lesser wounds in his comments, and those were the ones that had pierced inner organs. Maybe the "twenty" wounds means that there were twenty-ish other wounds that did not pierce any organs (although there are only 17 wounds unaccounted for if the tally was 39 altogether). But, once again, the reason why it said twenty is anybody´s guess.

And I believe it was you who were bringing in the Sheffield Telegraph in support of your theories of the unique nature of the breast wound---not the opposition.

It was not I who posted the Sheffield Telegraph snippet, no. The paper I quoted on the chest wounds was the Star from the 8:th. If it was the quotation about "the great gash", I think it was Gary who originally posted it.

Do you (and Gary?) accept Killen's belief that these 38-9 wounds were inflicted 'during life'?

I cannot answer for Gary, of course, so he will have to chip in himself if he wishes to. My own take on it is that this will have been gauged by means of the bloodflow, but I am no physician (as Trevor likes to point out).
Generally speaking, I tend to think that not even a Victorian physician simply guessed away in matters like these. Maybe there is a physician who reads this and who can throw some further light on it.

And I ask again, since no answer has been given, why assume the wound to the sternum was the last wound inflicted? Is that your view, and, if so, why?

Well, it is fairly easy as far as I´m concerned. The wound to the sternum pierced the heart and was described as a great gash, by far the largest wound and so on. In other words, it would doubtlessly have killed Tabram if she was not already dead when it was dealt. Add to this that Killeen said that all of the wounds were "caused during life", and we can see that there is only one possible way to allow for such a thing.

If it was the twenty-second wound inflicted, wouldn't that fundamentally undermine your belief in two weapons?

I don´t think that it could possibly have been the twenty-second wound inflicted, R J, because in such a case, 22 of the wounds would have been caused during life, whereas 17 would have been caused after death. And Killeen would have known that quite well.
But to answer your question as if that did not matter to me, I´d say that it would not alter my belief in two weapons one little bit. That belief is not grounded in any conviction about in which order one or two killers will stab a victim (because it is impossible to know) , but instead in how I think that Killeen would never very clearly and unhesitatingly have told the blades apart without an excellent reason to do so. If there had been any doubt at all, I think he would have done an R J Palmer and reasoned that it was probably the same blade, all of it.

If somebody wants to express this as me having blind faith in a Victorian medico of little experience, then they are welcome (well ...) to do so, but I think that they may want to ponder the the implications of the two descriptions about stabs "apparently made by a penknife" and a stab described as "a great gash" and "by far the largest and deepest wound" and "made by some long, strong instrument". I cannot weigh those descriptions together without getting a picture of something quite different from a penknife - much larger and sturdier, and therefore quite incomparable to a penknife, and easy-peasy to tell apart from it even if you have close to no experience at all.

I´m afraid I am totally and utterly unlikely to end up in any other place than this one when discussing the matter.