Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[John G]

I have set out below the professional opinion of my forensic pathologist Dr Biggs on the issue of two knives in the Tabram case. My thanks go to Dr Biggs for taking time out in his busy scehdule.

Sometimes, a particular knife will leave specific tell-tale signs in the skin that indicate that it has been used, for example a serrated knife will sometimes leave regular serration marks along the edge of the wound. However, that is not always the case, and so serrated blades can leave “non-serrated” marks, “double-edged” blades can leave apparently “single-edged” marks, etc. In reality, most stab wounds look like generic stab wounds, and tell us very little about the blade other than some crude dimensions. So in theory there might be a situation where two very specific blades have left their “signatures” in the skin of the same victim, therefore “proving” two different blades have been used… but far more commonly the same blade will simply have left behind lots of wounds of different shapes, leading the observer to think that perhaps more than one blade was used.

Most of the stab wound cases we deal with are caused by a single weapon, even though wounds in the same victim may vary considerably in appearance. We often get asked in court whether multiple knives could have been used in a particular case, and where there is more than one wound we invariably have to say “it’s possible” as it is something we can (never say) never rule out.

Getting back to the case in question, 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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Biggs' analysis makes sense. I don't understand why a killer would stab a victim 37 times with one knife and then inflict a single wound with another knife. It's very illogical. But who knows?

Interestingly, Dr McFall, in the Wallace case (1932), initially concluded that 4 blows had heen inflicted on the victim and then, without explanation, decided to change that to 11! And, unlike Dr Kileen, he was a forensic expert! Caution is required when considering these cases from antiquity.

[Fisherman]

Dr Biggs' analysis makes sense. I don't understand why a killer would stab a victim 37 times with one knife and then inflict a single wound with another knife. It's very illogical. But who knows?

Well, we do, thanks to Dr Killeen who examined Tabram and concluded it.

[John G]

Well, we do, thanks to Dr Killeen who examined Tabram and concluded it.

His conclusion is not definitive.

[Fisherman]

His conclusion is not definitive.

Actually, it is. At least in the sense that no efforts on our behalf in 2020 can do anything about the fact that a professional statement from a medico is always more likely to be correct than not, generally speaking. If there was detailed documentation, we could have an informed discussion about it and maybe the misgivings you have could stand on some sort of factual ground, but without that information we are left with how it is a historically recorded fact (recorded by Killeen) that two weapons were used.

As I have already said, it is not impossible that he was wrong - but it must be regarded as less likely than the opposite.

That is where the discussion started and that is where it ends.

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, it is. At least in the sense that no efforts on our behalf in 2020 can do anything about the fact that a professional statement from a medico is always more likely to be correct than not, generally speaking. If there was detailed documentation, we could have an informed discussion about it and maybe the misgivings you have could stand on some sort of factual ground, but without that information we are left with how it is a historically recorded fact (recorded by Killeen) that two weapons were used.

As I have already said, it is not impossible that he was wrong - but it must be regarded as less likely than the opposite.

That is where the discussion started and that is where it ends.

And yet again you challenge the experts with you own superior medical knowledge and expertise, which you clearly gained by reading "A beginners course in Basic First Aid"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

It is also recorded fact ,that a knife or any bladed weapon,when forcibly withdrawn ,will cause a wound that is larger than the weapon itself,giving a false belief that another weapon may have been used.My experience? Instructing in the use of such weapons.My instructors?People who had much more experience on the subject than Killeen.Including medical people.

[Fisherman]

And yet again you challenge the experts with you own superior medical knowledge and expertise, which you clearly gained by reading "A beginners course in Basic First Aid"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, I see: I say that Killeen, who was the expert who did the autopsy on Tabram, probably knew what he was talking about.

And you say that he probably didnīt.

And in your Closeau universe, that results in me being the one challenging the experts?

Great stuff, Trevor. Truly great stuff.

[Fisherman]

It is also recorded fact ,that a knife or any bladed weapon,when forcibly withdrawn ,will cause a wound that is larger than the weapon itself,giving a false belief that another weapon may have been used.My experience? Instructing in the use of such weapons.My instructors?People who had much more experience on the subject than Killeen.Including medical people.

Just one question, Harry, a mere trifle:

Did you and your instructors see Tabrams wounds?

You see, what I am saying has never been that wounds from the same blade could not differ. Try to understand that, Harry, please. What I am saying is that Killeen is more likely to be right than wrong, becasue he actually DID see the wounds. And I am further saying that there are wounds that differ so much in size and character that they cannot have come from the same blade.

Then again, maybe your instructors forgot to tell you that ...?

How careless of them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just one question, Harry, a mere trifle:

Did you and your instructors see Tabrams wounds?

You see, what I am saying has never been that wounds from the same blade could not differ. Try to understand that, Harry, please. What I am saying is that Killeen is more likely to be right than wrong, becasue he actually DID see the wounds. And I am further saying that there are wounds that differ so much in size and character that they cannot have come from the same blade.

Then again, maybe your instructors forgot to tell you that ...?

How careless of them.

What does Dr Biggs say on this topic which you choose to ignore.

Getting back to the case in question, 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.

I wonder how many case of multiple stab wounds Killeen encountered for you to regard him as expert in knife wounds?

If you are postulating that the same killer (Lechmere) killed Tabram and the rest of the victims, how come we do not see evidence of multiple stab wounds to any other victims?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Actually, it is. At least in the sense that no efforts on our behalf in 2020 can do anything about the fact that a professional statement from a medico is always more likely to be correct than not, generally speaking. If there was detailed documentation, we could have an informed discussion about it and maybe the misgivings you have could stand on some sort of factual ground, but without that information we are left with how it is a historically recorded fact (recorded by Killeen) that two weapons were used.

As I have already said, it is not impossible that he was wrong - but it must be regarded as less likely than the opposite.

That is where the discussion started and that is where it ends.

But why is it more likely to be correct? Forensics was very much in it's infancy in 1888, and Dr Killeen had no forensic experience anyway.

Fast forward to 1932, by which time there had been major developments in forensic science. In the Wallace trial of that year Dr McFall, who was a forensic expert with 30 years experience, initially decided the victim had been struck 4 times, but at the trial he inexplicably increased that to 11.

He was also humiliated on the witness stand when discussing time of death. Not only did he use rigor mortis, the most unreliable method, it transpired that he hadn't even taken periodic readings every 15 minutes, which he was supposed to do. He was merely able to say that he'd undetaken readings "fairly often"-not that he really knew, as he hadn't bothered to take any notes! Then he seemed to get himself hopelessly confused when trying to explain how rigor effected different body densities. The time of death he gave was 45 minutes before the victim had a conversation with a witness. When asked if this showed how fallible rigor was as a time of death method, he simply answered: "No!"

And this from a forensic expert who had apparently dealt with 100 similar cases!

[Fisherman]

What does Dr Biggs say on this topic which you choose to ignore.

Getting back to the case in question, 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.

I wonder how many case of multiple stab wounds Killeen encountered for you to regard him as expert in knife wounds?

If you are postulating that the same killer (Lechmere) killed Tabram and the rest of the victims, how come we do not see evidence of multiple stab wounds to any other victims?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Firstly, have a look at my posts, and you will see that far from ignoring that knife wounds made by a single may look different, I have repeatedly said that this is so. So that takes care of your first point - you are simply either ignorant of, misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting me. From my post 169: "As I have already said, it is not impossible that he was wrong".

Secondly, Doctor Biggs can only be correct in a general sense when he says that it is far more likely that one knife only was used. He is referring to the statistical truth that a killer who uses a knife to kill somebody will in 999 cases out of a thousand use one knife only. However, Dr Biggs is not fit to comment specifically on the wounds in Tabrams body and whether they would have been made by one or two blades. The same applies to you, you are just as unfit to comment on it. And the exact same applies to me, I too am unfit to comment on it. There is one (1) person and one person only with professional insight into the appearance of the wounds, and that person is Timothy Killeen. Which makes it so much more ludicrous that YOU should accuse ME of not listening to the experts!

How many cases of multiple stab wounds did he need to encounter to count as an expert? None, actually. He was a trained and educated medico, he saw and traced and measured the wounds in Tabrams body, and that makes him the one and only expert there is. Itīs another matter altogether that he would likely not have had much experience of the impact of sharp violence to a body, which is the one and only point you can raise. What you cannot do is to take away his role as an expert - he was called upon to do the post mortem BECAUSE he was an expert. He was the expertise appointed by the coroner.

A further point here is that we have absolutely no idea of the level of knowledge Killeen had about sharp violence. He may or may not have been extensively read up on it, just as he may or may not have consulted with colleagues on the matter before testifying at the inquest. Regardless, he remains the one expert we have with extensive knowledge of the damage done to Martha Tabram. And for all we know, it could have been a case where not a single medico would even dream of thinking that the sternum blade was NOT different if they were to give their views. The point of the matter being that we have no measurements at all in the business to work from today - and that total and absolute ignorance is what you use to claim that there was likely only one blade involved.
It is not making facts out of thin air, Trevor, it is producing them in a totally and utterly anaerobic environment.

Your last question has nothing at all to do with the core issue here, but I am happy to say that circumstances, driving forces and such matters actually vary on occasion. If they didnīt all murders would look exactly the same at all times. It may be the Marriott truth that this is so, but it is not my truth.
I will help you out nevertheless and produce a suggestion. Mind you, I am not claiming this as a fact, I am SUGGESSTING a scenario. And I pray that you know the difference, although I do not bank on it.

Many of the sexual serial killers we have recorded over the years have killed prostitutes - fact.

Many of these sexual serial killers who killed prostitutes were also users of prostitutes - fact.

If Lechmere was the combined Ripper and Thames Torso killer, then he had killed before he killed Tabram, and he would have dismembered bodies in a skilled manner.

The person who killed Tabram seems not to have planned to cut up and eviscerate her, nor does he seem to have planned to dismember her, going by the types (2 types) of weapons he brought to the scene.

The murder of Martha Tabram was therefore likely not planned as an evisceration or dismberment murder if Lechmere did it.

The suggestion I would make is that he approached Tabram as a punter, genuinely planning to have sex with her, and that he had no intention of killing her. Then something enraged him in the affair, and he proceeded to kill her in a frenzy. When he noticed that the papers wrote extensively about it, he decided to start killing and eviscerating out in the open streets.

This is one possible explanation for how Charles Lechmere could have killed Tabram. There are other possible scenarios too for the same thing. There is also the possibility that it was NOT Charles Lechmere who killed her. Maybe somebody else did, and Lechmere used the murder as an inspiration to take his own evisceration circus to the streets.

Regardless of which explanation applies, the implication is nevertheless that two blades were used in the murder.

Now, if you are going to persist in posting, make sure that you do it in an honest and truthful way. No more falseties about me not accepting that a blade can produce various types and sizes in wounds, please!!

[Fisherman]

But why is it more likely to be correct? Forensics was very much in it's infancy in 1888, and Dr Killeen had no forensic experience anyway.

Sigh. Because the wounds were arguably not very similar, John. The sternum wound was the only one that was described as large, and there was never any question of it being slightly larger. It was "by far the largest and deepest one". It was in a league of itīs own, dwarving the other 38 wounds. And although the other 38 wounds would have differed in apparition, Killeen still said that they could have been made by the same blade, whereas he was emphatic that the sternum wound could not have been. As I said to Trevor, Dr Biggs and the rest of the medical world may well have gone: "Oh, dear me - no, THAT wound cannot possibly have been made by the blade that made the others" if they could see Tabrams body.
If Killeen was not more likely to be correct, we are left with him having had at best a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Which is where we need to ask ourselves this: Out of all the doctors who are shown two stabs and asked if they thought they could have been done by the same implement or not, will 50 per cent or less get it right?
And if you say it all boils down to the difference inbetween the two wounds, I applaud you: Indeed it does! And WHO saw the wounds in the Tabram case? Who traced them in the body, who measured and compared them, one by one? Having opted for the sternum one being made by a much larger wepaon than the others, do you or do you not think he would have carefully checked each and every one of the other 38 ones in comparison? Itīs a no-brainer, Iīm afraid.

Fast forward to 1932, by which time there had been major developments in forensic science. In the Wallace trial of that year Dr McFall, who was a forensic expert with 30 years experience, initially decided the victim had been struck 4 times, but at the trial he inexplicably increased that to 11.

He was also humiliated on the witness stand when discussing time of death. Not only did he use rigor mortis, the most unreliable method, it transpired that he hadn't even taken periodic readings every 15 minutes, which he was supposed to do. He was merely able to say that he'd undetaken readings "fairly often"-not that he really knew, as he hadn't bothered to take any notes! Then he seemed to get himself hopelessly confused when trying to explain how rigor effected different body densities. The time of death he gave was 45 minutes before the victim had a conversation with a witness. When asked if this showed how fallible rigor was as a time of death method, he simply answered: "No!"

And this from a forensic expert who had apparently dealt with 100 similar cases!

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Firstly, have a look at my posts, and you will see that far from ignoring that knife wounds made by a single may look different, I have repeatedly said that this is so. So that takes care of your first point - you are simply either ignorant of, misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting me. From my post 169: "As I have already said, it is not impossible that he was wrong".

Secondly, Doctor Biggs can only be correct in a general sense when he says that it is far more likely that one knife only was used. He is referring to the statistical truth that a killer who uses a knife to kill somebody will in 999 cases out of a thousand use one knife only. However, Dr Biggs is not fit to comment specifically on the wounds in Tabrams body and whether they would have been made by one or two blades. The same applies to you, you are just as unfit to comment on it. And the exact same applies to me, I too am unfit to comment on it. There is one (1) person and one person only with professional insight into the appearance of the wounds, and that person is Timothy Killeen. Which makes it so much more ludicrous that YOU should accuse ME of not listening to the experts!

How many cases of multiple stab wounds did he need to encounter to count as an expert? None, actually. He was a trained and educated medico, he saw and traced and measured the wounds in Tabrams body, and that makes him the one and only expert there is. Itīs another matter altogether that he would likely not have had much experience of the impact of sharp violence to a body, which is the one and only point you can raise. What you cannot do is to take away his role as an expert - he was called upon to do the post mortem BECAUSE he was an expert. He was the expertise appointed by the coroner.

A further point here is that we have absolutely no idea of the level of knowledge Killeen had about sharp violence. He may or may not have been extensively read up on it, just as he may or may not have consulted with colleagues on the matter before testifying at the inquest. Regardless, he remains the one expert we have with extensive knowledge of the damage done to Martha Tabram. And for all we know, it could have been a case where not a single medico would even dream of thinking that the sternum blade was NOT different if they were to give their views. The point of the matter being that we have no measurements at all in the business to work from today - and that total and absolute ignorance is what you use to claim that there was likely only one blade involved.
It is not making facts out of thin air, Trevor, it is producing them in a totally and utterly anaerobic environment.

Your last question has nothing at all to do with the core issue here, but I am happy to say that circumstances, driving forces and such matters actually vary on occasion. If they didnīt all murders would look exactly the same at all times. It may be the Marriott truth that this is so, but it is not my truth.
I will help you out nevertheless and produce a suggestion. Mind you, I am not claiming this as a fact, I am SUGGESSTING a scenario. And I pray that you know the difference, although I do not bank on it.

Many of the sexual serial killers we have recorded over the years have killed prostitutes - fact.

Many of these sexual serial killers who killed prostitutes were also users of prostitutes - fact.

If Lechmere was the combined Ripper and Thames Torso killer, then he had killed before he killed Tabram, and he would have dismembered bodies in a skilled manner.

The person who killed Tabram seems not to have planned to cut up and eviscerate her, nor does he seem to have planned to dismember her, going by the types (2 types) of weapons he brought to the scene.

The murder of Martha Tabram was therefore likely not planned as an evisceration or dismberment murder if Lechmere did it.

The suggestion I would make is that he approached Tabram as a punter, genuinely planning to have sex with her, and that he had no intention of killing her. Then something enraged him in the affair, and he proceeded to kill her in a frenzy. When he noticed that the papers wrote extensively about it, he decided to start killing and eviscerating out in the open streets.

This is one possible explanation for how Charles Lechmere could have killed Tabram. There are other possible scenarios too for the same thing. There is also the possibility that it was NOT Charles Lechmere who killed her. Maybe somebody else did, and Lechmere used the murder as an inspiration to take his own evisceration circus to the streets.

Regardless of which explanation applies, the implication is nevertheless that two blades were used in the murder.

Now, if you are going to persist in posting, make sure that you do it in an honest and truthful way. No more falseties about me not accepting that a blade can produce various types and sizes in wounds, please!!

Lets analyze your facts you seek to rely on facts which are easily rebuttable

There is no evidence that any of the murders were sexually motivated other than the victims may have been soliciting!

There is no evidence that Tabrams killer was responsible for any other murders!

There is no evidence that Lechmere was the killer of Tabram or any of the other murders, or had any connection to the Torsos

All of the above facts you seek to rely on are nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated personal opinions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Lets analyze your facts you seek to rely on facts which are easily rebuttable

There is no evidence that any of the murders were sexually motivated other than the victims may have been soliciting!

There is no evidence that Tabrams killer was responsible for any other murders!

There is no evidence that Lechmere was the killer of Tabram or any of the other murders, or had any connection to the Torsos

All of the above facts you seek to rely on are nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated personal opinions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From my post:

"I will help you out nevertheless and produce a suggestion. Mind you, I am not claiming this as a fact, I am SUGGESTING a scenario. And I pray that you know the difference, although I do not bank on it."

Boy, did you miss out royally on that one!!!

I mentioned two (2) things as proven facts in my SUGGESTION:

"Many of the sexual serial killers we have recorded over the years have killed prostitutes - fact.

Many of these sexual serial killers who killed prostitutes were also users of prostitutes - fact."

Are those the facts you believe are "easily rebuttable", Trevor...? Becasue I stated no other facts. I learnt how to handle these things by reading "A Beginners Course in getting Things you write Correct". Maybe you never took that one?

[Fisherman]

Letīs see how long it takes before Mr Marriott returns to his old ways of claiming that I am wearing rose tinted spectacles and that he has no further wish to engage with me. My money is on it turning up quite soon, judging by how things are going for him.