Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I see you attempt,as you normally do,to answer my posts in a sarcastic manner,it might be wise to address what I write.I have no need to comment on the skill or experience of killeen,in fact I have agreed with him,that one of the wounds was sufficiently different from the others,as to require explanation.I do not need to be there,or see the difference,but there is an explanation,as I have demonstrated,that equals his opinion,and yours.,.Now if you or anyone else can prove that my explanation has no merit and is false,you are entitled to do so,but the feeble excuse of Killeen was a doctor and was there, will get you nowhere.It proves nothing and is childish,but of course it is the only defence you have.
One more thing.The two weapons theory is mainly based on the last stab being through the sternum,and if you cannot see the fault with that theory,then you need to revise.The sternum wound could have been in any order,and it would not have made any difference,except it would have lessened a belief that two different weapons were used.Pity Killeen didn't remark on the order of injuries,then we would not require the expert? opinions of you.

Harry, you sometimes invite sarcasm, since you do not always grasp very basic matters. Or maybe it is more a question of you not WANTING to grasp them?
Once again, you DO need to know the sizes of the wounds before you can say whether Tabram was likely killed by one or two weapons. There ARE differences that cannot be explained by different angles and movements of a blade. And whether your explanation HAS merit hinges on that and nothing else.
It is a lot easier than you seem to think. Tabram MAY have been killed by one weapon only. She MAY also have been killed by two weapons. And before we can see and measure the wounds and track them in her body, guess what: We can NOT tell what applies.

Therefore, we neede to ask ourselves whether a medico in them days was more or less likely to be correct when making a call about damage done to a physiognomy.

If you can prove (you like that word, donīt you?) that Tabram was as likely or more likely to have been killed by one weapon only, go ahead and do so. If you are merely speculating, pray tell us.

The problem with your reasoning is that it is based on a correct weighing - which is not the weighing that should be done. You ask yourself "If there are 39 wounds by knife to a body, is it likelier that they will all have been caused by one blade or that it was done by two or more blades?" What you SHOULD ask yourself is "Is it likelier that a medico who compares 39 knife wounds in a body to each other and reaches the conclusion that one or more of them was caused by another blade than the rest, gets it right than it is that he gets it wrong?"

That is the VERY basic level we should employ. If we had had pictures of the stabs and comments about how they proceeded inside the body, we could have compared them and perhaps said "But that sternum wound isnīt really that dramatically much bigger, is it?", and THEN we could make a case for Killlen having been mistaken. But it equally applies that we may have gone "Wow, the sternum wound is by far the largest and deepest of them all!", the way the Star commented on it, and then we would have been forced to realize that we were wrong to mistrust Killeen on what he said.

BUT-BEFORE-WE-SEE-THE-WOUNDS-WE-CANīT-TELL-EITHER-WAY-AND-SO-YOUR-SUSPICION-MUST-REMAIN-AN-UNSUBSTANTIABLE-ONE-AND-THE-RULE-OF-MEDICOS-BEING-MORE-LIKELY-THAN-NOT-IN-MATTERS-LIKE-THESE-PREVAILS!

Now, can you see how this works? Iīm not asking you to like it, only to understand it.

[harry]

Michael,
Saying it was a likely cause of a wound,leaves doubt.Even doctors explanations can be challenged if they used those terms,and there is an alternate explanation.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I see you attempt,as you normally do,to answer my posts in a sarcastic manner,it might be wise to address what I write.I have no need to comment on the skill or experience of killeen,in fact I have agreed with him,that one of the wounds was sufficiently different from the others,as to require explanation.I do not need to be there,or see the difference,but there is an explanation,as I have demonstrated,that equals his opinion,and yours.,.Now if you or anyone else can prove that my explanation has no merit and is false,you are entitled to do so,but the feeble excuse of Killeen was a doctor and was there, will get you nowhere.It proves nothing and is childish,but of course it is the only defence you have.
One more thing.The two weapons theory is mainly based on the last stab being through the sternum,and if you cannot see the fault with that theory,then you need to revise.The sternum wound could have been in any order,and it would not have made any difference,except it would have lessened a belief that two different weapons were used.Pity Killeen didn't remark on the order of injuries,then we would not require the expert? opinions of you.

[Michael W Richards]

Its really quite astounding how often people attempt to re-write history by suggesting that people were wrong with their estimates, their times, their actions. The only reason to surmise mistakes may have been made is when proof mistakes have been made previously by that same person. In the case of TOD, too many variables to make any one person an expert on that ….and with the lack of sophistication or technology they could use to make those guesses more accurate, all those estimates could have been off. The TOD estimates on Chapman is one example that these guesses are just that.

But, we are talking about the size of a wound. About a doctors ability to determine what is the likely instrument used to create the wound. In this particular case, barring any evidence at all that Killen had ever demonstrated a failing in this regard previously, there are no grounds for questioning his findings. It was 2 weapons. All this discussion trying to invalidate that opinion is just modern theorists quibbling with facts that don't fit with their own preconceptions, without any substantive evidence to support it.

What is needed is to determine if 2 weapons means 2 killers, and in my opinion, in this case it does.

[Fisherman]

It's a bit difficult for anyone today to evaluate Dr Killeen's conclusions as he didn't take precise measurements of the wounds, or photographs etc. For instance, was he able to exclude the possibility that the larger wound was a multiple strike In the same area?

Was he an expert? Did he have any forensic training? What experience did he have of this type of case?

Exactly, John: since we do not know the precise measurements, we cannot say whether or not Killeen was likely to be right or wrong. All we can do is to accept that Victorian medicos more often than not knew what they were talking about - unless they discussed psychology, that is!

On the other questions, yes he was an expert in medical matters and summoned as one by the coroner to do the post mortem on Tabram. Whether or not he had any forensic training we do not know, although I concur with those who say he likely didnīt. But the long and the short of it is that we simply donīt know.

It is easier to establish that he would not have had much experience of the type of case Tabram represented. The fewest had, regardless of how long they had served.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In High School I could run the 300 meter high hurdles in under 65 seconds. Now it takes about twenty minutes, unless I stop for a pint along the way.

In high school I could out run Diesel Vauxhall Astra police cars and teachers looking for truants...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish.

No offense, but I’m a little put off by the liberal use of quotation marks in Post #163. Who are you quoting? You earlier wrote that the wound to the sternum was “radically different” than the other wounds. You now (in quotes) write that it is “by far the largest wound” and “by far the largest and deepest of them”. But these are your own words, are they not, and not Dr. Killeen’s?

So far, I have not taken up the habit of quoting myself. The wording is from the Star of the 8th, as I have pointed out before, giving the source and all. Here it is again:
"The wounds on the body are frightful. There are about eight on the chest, inflicted in almost circular form, while the probably fatal one - certainly much the largest and deepest of any - is under the heart. The wounds appear to be the result of sword or dagger thrusts, rather than that of a knife."

Let’s return to what Hewitt actually states in the piece from the Daily Telegraph.

“I saw the poor woman lying on the stone staircase, blood flowing from a great wound over her heart.”

“There were many other stab wounds of a frightful character upon her.”

That’s it. That’s the extent of his descriptions of the wounds. Entirely subjective—and from a layperson.

And then, the journalist:

“The wounds on the deceases appear as if they had been inflicted by a bayonet plunged into the body with great force.”

I don’t mean to be a smart-arse, Fish, but what is the difference, using millimeters, between a “great wound” and a “frightful stab”?

I wouldnīt try to answer that, R J. It takes actually seeing the wounds and measuring them before you can do such a thing. Like Killeen did.

Or between a “great wound” and other wounds that were made with “great force”?

These remarks are descriptive, but they are utterly worthless from our standpoint.

"Our" standpoint? Which is "our" standpoint? My own standpoint is that when various sources tell a wound apart from other wounds in terms of size in so dramatic a fashion as is the case here, we are likely looking at one quite large wound and 38 small ones. Killeens verdict only serves to underline it.

It appears to me that Dr. K’s conclusion is not primarily based on the size of the wound, or its shape (which is nowhere described in detail), or its depth in relationship to other wounds (which did, after all, enter the lungs, the spleen, etc.) but because it broke through the sternum and entered the heart.

In short, I think you are over-stating the difference between the various wounds. It seems to me there is a very real likelihood of error.

On which exact measurements do you base that? There is a POSSIBILITY of error, but it cannot be gauged in any way at all for the simple reason that we do not know the measurements of the wounds! Any assessment of a likelihood of Killeen having gotten oit wrong MUST be accompanied by that kind of evidence, and not simply by a totally baseless hunch.

Once more, letīs speculate that the wounds were of a reasonably similar size, meaning that Killeen, as you suggest, didnīt base his take on things so much on the size of the wounds as on how the heart blade, if you will, was able to pierce the sternum.
If this was so, and the stabs WERE reasonably similar in size, why would not Killeen think that the 38 non-heart stabs were made by the same blade that pierced the sternum?
In my world, any take on Killeens behalf of a stronger blade MUST have been led on by a difference in size, unless he was a complete idiot.

Anyway, here is something to ponder; among the many things left unexplained is the pool of blood found between Martha’s legs.

Puncture wounds have very little external bleeding unless they strike a major artery. Why is there so much blood down below? Swanson describes Tabram having been 'pierced.'

If there was that much blood, it sounds like one of the lower wounds must have been very large, or had cut through the femoral artery, etc.

Any stab delivered with great force will compress the underlying structures and thus enable even a relatively short blade to reach deeper situated vessels. Also the term "much blood" is relative. Plus much blood can come in a short time from the cutting of a large vessel only, whereas it may also come from the cutting of a number of smaller vessels that are allowed to bleed over time.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish.

No offense, but I’m a little put off by the liberal use of quotation marks in Post #163. Who are you quoting? You earlier wrote that the wound to the sternum was “radically different” than the other wounds. You now (in quotes) write that it is “by far the largest wound” and “by far the largest and deepest of them”. But these are your own words, are they not, and not Dr. Killeen’s?

Let’s return to what Hewitt actually states in the piece from the Daily Telegraph.

“I saw the poor woman lying on the stone staircase, blood flowing from a great wound over her heart.”

“There were many other stab wounds of a frightful character upon her.”

That’s it. That’s the extent of his descriptions of the wounds. Entirely subjective—and from a layperson.

And then, the journalist:

“The wounds on the deceases appear as if they had been inflicted by a bayonet plunged into the body with great force.”

I don’t mean to be a smart-arse, Fish, but what is the difference, using millimeters, between a “great wound” and a “frightful stab”?

Or between a “great wound” and other wounds that were made with “great force”?

These remarks are descriptive, but they are utterly worthless from our standpoint.

It appears to me that Dr. K’s conclusion is not primarily based on the size of the wound, or its shape (which is nowhere described in detail), or its depth in relationship to other wounds (which did, after all, enter the lungs, the spleen, etc.) but because it broke through the sternum and entered the heart.

In short, I think you are over-stating the difference between the various wounds. It seems to me there is a very real likelihood of error.

Anyway, here is something to ponder; among the many things left unexplained is the pool of blood found between Martha’s legs.

Puncture wounds have very little external bleeding unless they strike a major artery. Why is there so much blood down below? Swanson describes Tabram having been 'pierced.'

If there was that much blood, it sounds like one of the lower wounds must have been very large, or had cut through the femoral artery, etc.

Obviously Hewitt wasn’t present at the PM. All he had to go on was the external appearance of the heart wound and he singled it out for special mention. In one report it was described as a ‘great gaping wound’.

I think only one wound to the ‘lower part’ was mentioned. Again, it was singled out for special mention, presumably because of its location. If there had been more than one wound to that part of Martha’s body - or an internal wound there, as has been suggested - I feel we would have heard about them.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish.

No offense, but I’m a little put off by the liberal use of quotation marks in Post #163. Who are you quoting? You earlier wrote that the wound to the sternum was “radically different” than the other wounds. You now (in quotes) write that it is “by far the largest wound” and “by far the largest and deepest of them”. But these are your own words, are they not, and not Dr. Killeen’s?

Let’s return to what Hewitt actually states in the piece from the Daily Telegraph.

“I saw the poor woman lying on the stone staircase, blood flowing from a great wound over her heart.”

“There were many other stab wounds of a frightful character upon her.”

That’s it. That’s the extent of his descriptions of the wounds. Entirely subjective—and from a layperson.

And then, the journalist:

“The wounds on the deceases appear as if they had been inflicted by a bayonet plunged into the body with great force.”

I don’t mean to be a smart-arse, Fish, but what is the difference, using millimeters, between a “great wound” and a “frightful stab”?

Or between a “great wound” and other wounds that were made with “great force”?

These remarks are descriptive, but they are utterly worthless from our standpoint.

It appears to me that Dr. K’s conclusion is not primarily based on the size of the wound, or its shape (which is nowhere described in detail), or its depth in relationship to other wounds (which did, after all, enter the lungs, the spleen, etc.) but because it broke through the sternum and entered the heart.

In short, I think you are over-stating the difference between the various wounds. It seems to me there is a very real likelihood of error.

Anyway, here is something to ponder; among the many things left unexplained is the pool of blood found between Martha’s legs.

Puncture wounds have very little external bleeding unless they strike a major artery. Why is there so much blood down below? Swanson describes Tabram having been 'pierced.'

If there was that much blood, it sounds like one of the lower wounds must have been very large, or had cut through the femoral artery, etc.

[rjpalmer]

How long does it take to rush 350 yards? 4/5 minutes?

In High School I could run the 300 meter high hurdles in under 65 seconds. Now it takes about twenty minutes, unless I stop for a pint along the way.

[MrBarnett]

Some very good points, which raise serious questions. For instance, how did he estimate time of death? Did he just guess?

Half an hour to walk 350 yards is far too long. I'm in my mid fifties but can walk 1.2 miles in 18 minutes. So that's about 2112 yards in 1080 seconds. By my calculations, at that pace it would take me about 3 minutes to walk 350 yards.

And Killeen was in his early twenties and on his way to a potentially life or death medical emergency.

[John G]

Half an hour?

According to the ELA, Killeen ‘first said he was called about 5 o'clock, and arrived on the scene at half-past, when he found the woman was dead.’

Half an hour to attend to an obvious emergency such a short distance away seems a long time. Whoever called Killeen up was presumably not medically qualified, so the doctor could not have been sure that he was being called to examine a corpse. Half an hour to reach what could have been a seriously injured but living patient is a very long time. A patient who was alive but seriously injured at just before 5 could have died in the time it took Killeen to arrive.

Unless the numbering has changed since 1888, 68, Brick Lane was roughly on the corner of Heneage Street, which was around 350 yards from GYB. (I think. If someone could check that, it’d be useful.) How long does it take to rush 350 yards? 4/5 minutes?

Bear in mind that the whole process of Reeves finding the body, alerting PC Barrett and then someone calling at the surgery in Brick Lane apparently took only 15 minutes, why did it then take half an hour for Killeen to turn up at GYB?

There’s also the contradiction between Hewitt saying that he saw blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen saying that Tabram had been dead for 3 hours when he examined her. Either Hewitt meant ‘had flowed’ rather than ‘flowing’, or Killeen’s TOD was well out.

Some very good points, which raise serious questions. For instance, how did he estimate time of death? Did he just guess?

Half an hour to walk 350 yards is far too long. I'm in my mid fifties but can walk 1.2 miles in 18 minutes. So that's about 2112 yards in 1080 seconds. By my calculations, at that pace it would take me about 3 minutes to walk 350 yards.

[MrBarnett]

Half an hour?

According to the ELA, Killeen ‘first said he was called about 5 o'clock, and arrived on the scene at half-past, when he found the woman was dead.’

Half an hour to attend to an obvious emergency such a short distance away seems a long time. Whoever called Killeen up was presumably not medically qualified, so the doctor could not have been sure that he was being called to examine a corpse. Half an hour to reach what could have been a seriously injured but living patient is a very long time. A patient who was alive but seriously injured at just before 5 could have died in the time it took Killeen to arrive.

Unless the numbering has changed since 1888, 68, Brick Lane was roughly on the corner of Heneage Street, which was around 350 yards from GYB. (I think. If someone could check that, it’d be useful.) How long does it take to rush 350 yards? 4/5 minutes?

Bear in mind that the whole process of Reeves finding the body, alerting PC Barrett and then someone calling at the surgery in Brick Lane apparently took only 15 minutes, why did it then take half an hour for Killeen to turn up at GYB?

There’s also the contradiction between Hewitt saying that he saw blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen saying that Tabram had been dead for 3 hours when he examined her. Either Hewitt meant ‘had flowed’ rather than ‘flowing’, or Killeen’s TOD was well out.

[John G]

Iīm afraid this is not the Tabram case. We have no indications or reported incidents of any mistakes on Killeens behalf. Why the doctor in the Wallace case initially mistook 11 strikes for 4, I cannot say. But I CAN say that he was nevertheless the expert with insight into the case, and basically, the one we should rely on. If he goofed up, that does not mean that we may rule out the entire medical profession as useless and unreliable. We may in fact not even rule Killeen out as incompetent on account of what a medico said half a century after the Tabram case.
As an aside, I have read about the case, but it is some years ago, so I donīt have it fresh in memory. I seem to remember that the husband was accused of having battered his wife to death, and if so, blows to a body are much less distinctive than stabs, not least if many blows are directed towards the same general area of the body. Counting stabs is a lot easier.

It's a bit difficult for anyone today to evaluate Dr Killeen's conclusions as he didn't take precise measurements of the wounds, or photographs etc. For instance, was he able to exclude the possibility that the larger wound was a multiple strike In the same area?

Was he an expert? Did he have any forensic training? What experience did he have of this type of case?

[Michael W Richards]

The next newsworthy kill is Polly, and there are substantial fundamental differences with just these 2 murders. The killer of Martha would have had to change dramatically to have then killed Polly, if only based on the temperament displayed. Let alone the manner of kill. This is why virtually all students of the crimes exclude her, as did almost all the contemporary investigators, from the list that Jack made or any so called Canonical Group.

The fact that its quite probable by the known evidence that 2 people were involved in killing Martha, and theres no credible evidence in any of the other cases to suggest that Jack didn't work alone, make a pretty sound defensible position that the "series" began with Polly and Martha died by someone using a bayonet style weapon that killed her after she had suffered dozens of stabs by a pocket pen-knife first. If it was 2 weapons and they were quite different on overall size,....and I believe the testimony of the attending physician on this, then the only real question is whether the large stab was the last. If it was, then I think its highly improbable pen-knife man finally resorted to a bayonet he forgot he was carrying. Which means someone else introduced it to the crime scene.