Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[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It is also recorded fact ,that a knife or any bladed weapon,when forcibly withdrawn ,will cause a wound that is larger than the weapon itself,giving a false belief that another weapon may have been used.My experience?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.

[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

[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.

[John G]

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

His conclusion is not definitive.

[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]

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]

One more thing before I go: In the Star of the 15:th of August it was said that:
"The wound over the heart was alone sufficient to kill, and death must have occurred as soon as that was inflicted. Unless the perpetrator were a madman, or suffering to an unusual extent from drink-delirium, no tangible explanation can be given of the reason for inflicting the other thirty-eight injuries, some of which almost seem as if they were due to thrusts and cuts from a penknife."

Note how it says that SOME of the 38 lesser wounds seemed as if they had been inflicted by a pen-knife. What this tells us is that not all of these 38 wounds looked the exact same, and that stands to reason - the stabs must have rained down from various angles and the blade will have been retracted in various ways, causing significant differences. But Killen was nevertheless able to tell that these varying wounds COULD all have been made by the same blade. This is good solid evidence that the doc was no absolute fool, and as aware as R J:s doctor Whateverhisnamewas of how there will be differences involved.

And thatīs all the news thatīs fit to print.

[Fisherman]

Im thinking the ripper was a man who was accustomed to carrying around a pen/clap/smaller knife with him most of the time. And if Millwood was his first street attack, it was with this smaller knife. Realizing that that just wouldnt do it for him, he also started carrying around a larger knife.

when he encountered Tabram, in the heat of the moment attacked her with the smaller knife and then switched to the larger knife to finish her off.

next time out he abandoned the smaller knife all together and just brought the larger knife with nichols.

its a narrative that makes sense. to me anyway.

Could be, Abby, yes. Personally, I donīt care if it all was down to how an ironmonger turned up at the George Yard landing and sold the killer a hefty dagger in the act, so to speak. "Here you are, gov - this one will do a better job!"

Two weapons were used, and it is up to us to make whatever sense of it we can, instead of swopping facts for personal opinions.

It would be nice if everything that happened always followed a "normal scenario", but alas, the world is more complicated than that!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish. Hold on a minute.

I usually don't like posting this sort of thing, but it does demonstrate an important principle. Here is a photograph of an actual stabbing victim. A tragic case, I might add.

The knife wounds vary from 15 mm, 18 mm, 20 mm, 23 mm, 24 mm, 25 mm, to 30 mm wide. (Not all are visible). The largest wound is TWICE the size of the smallest, but without conducting a layer-by-layer dissection, it appears to be just another stab wound.

Two weapons?

Nope; they were all made with the same knife, which was recovered by the police.

The blade was exactly 19.5 mm wide at its broadest. Thus, although all the wounds were relatively deep, one was a 4.5 mm smaller than the blade, while another was 10.5 mm wider than the blade's width. Hardly the difference between two similar cannon balls, Fish!!

One thing that worries me about Killeen is that nowhere does he make any observations about the difficulties that he is facing---almost as if he was unaware of those difficulties. Yet, again and again, we see modern forensic experts, such as Drs. Biggs and Rivello, acknowledging the ambiguities of knife wounds. Why wouldn't that raise alarm bells, Fish? He's fresh out of medical school--a GP--in the year 1888.

I think I'm done here as well. Thanks Gary and Kattrup and Fish, and to everyone for the comments and attachments. I've got more reading to do.

P.S. Killeen doesn't really concisely describe the wound to the sternum, does he, Fish? How do you know how large it is through the bone? Killeen seems to be stating that the penetration of the bone is what sets it apart. At least that's my reading of it.

R J, there were 37 stab wounds to Tabrams body that were reasonably all roughly similar. That would be the reason that Killeen formed the idea that they were caused by the same blade. If they had not been similar, he would not have made that call, as we know from bhow he ruled the large wound out. But these smaller wounds gave away a blade that was small and narrow (we may conclude this since Killeen thought it too frail to pierce the sternum).

Then there was the wound you and Killeen disagree about. it was made by a long and strong implement, and it was "by far the largest wound" on the body. It stood out as a fearful and large stab to Hewitt, who we now know saw the accompanying wounds the Star mentioned, nasty wounds too, all of them - but nothing at all as big as the sternum wound.

In your opinion, this humongous hole in Tabrams body could have been made by the same blade that appeared small, narrow and relatively frail to Killeen.This you base on how wounds from the same blade may vary in size, which is not exactly rocket science.

Where this goes awry is when you think that you are fit to challenge Killeen, a trained medico who saw the wounds and traced them in the body of Tabram, although you have no idea whatsoever how big a difference there was between the large hole and the small ones.
Presumably, you realize that not ALL differences can be explained away so as to produce a solution you think less "absurd"?
Presumably, you realize that we cannot extrapolate a picture such as the one you put up to cover ALL sorts of variations?

Suggesting that Killleen was not aware about the difficulties involved in these matters does not make things one bit better. Once again: he was a trained medico! Out of all the many occupations there were in the Victorian society, who du you think is most likely to know about these things?

My money is on the medicos. Furthermore, I think they were well aware of how wounds could differ in size and shape even if they were inflicted by the same blade - it was part of their profession.

Your money, however, seems to be on all medicos but Killeen...?

37 small wounds caused by what would have been a smallish blade and one wound that is "by far the largest and deepest of them" - that really isnīt the kind of challenge you will have us believe. The smaller wounds would have varied in apparition to some degree in Tabrams body, which is reasonably why Killeen says that they COULD have been made by the same small knife, whereas the fact that he explicitly tells us that the large one could not tells the story. Whether we want to listen to it or whether we prefer a little rewriting of the historical facts is up to each and every one of us.

Thank you.

PS. I know as little as you do about how large the hole through the sternum was. But I also know that Timothy Killeen did the post-mortem on Tabram, and HE will have known whether the hole allowed for any other interpretation than that of a large and sturdy weapon. He will even have trqaced the wound in the heart and he will have known whether there was a lot of wriggling or not as the blade was retracted. End of.

[Abby Normal]

Im thinking the ripper was a man who was accustomed to carrying around a pen/clap/smaller knife with him most of the time. And if Millwood was his first street attack, it was with this smaller knife. Realizing that that just wouldnt do it for him, he also started carrying around a larger knife.

when he encountered Tabram, in the heat of the moment attacked her with the smaller knife and then switched to the larger knife to finish her off.

next time out he abandoned the smaller knife all together and just brought the larger knife with nichols.

its a narrative that makes sense. to me anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's not forget that all the wounds were exit wounds.That is the final appearance,as Killeen observed,would have been made by the withdrawl of the weapon.As no really detailed description of each wound was given,we are left with the one believable comment of Killeen,that the wound to the sternum differed in extent to the other wounds.His(Killeen)opinion was that the difference was due to another weapon being used.My opinion,is that the wound, being in hard tissue required more force,and equallly more and different movement,than the other wounds.So one weapon only,and untill someone can conclusively prove a penknife could not have been used in all the wounds,I'll stick with one weapon,and one assailant.

Totally agree on one knife !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Let's not forget that all the wounds were exit wounds.That is the final appearance,as Killeen observed,would have been made by the withdrawl of the weapon.As no really detailed description of each wound was given,we are left with the one believable comment of Killeen,that the wound to the sternum differed in extent to the other wounds.His(Killeen)opinion was that the difference was due to another weapon being used.My opinion,is that the wound, being in hard tissue required more force,and equallly more and different movement,than the other wounds.So one weapon only,and untill someone can conclusively prove a penknife could not have been used in all the wounds,I'll stick with one weapon,and one assailant.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. I'm not certain, but in the above case, I think the wounds were generally larger than the blade because the assailant was considerably taller than the victim, and the thrusts were coming from a downward angle, making for an oblique entry.

[rjpalmer]

What Dr Rivello says is that the exact measures of a knife cannot always be established. And that is true. It is sometimes impossible to tell from the wounds if a blade is fourteen of sixteen millimeters wide. Bravo!

The exact same problem arises when somebody is shot by a cannon and a fine-calibre revolver: it is hard to tell whether the cannonball had a diameter of 72 or 74 millimeters. Although most forensic specialists will be able to make an informed guess about what calibre the bullet was, if it was likely a smallish gun or a Magnum revolver that fired it, right?

Hi Fish. Hold on a minute.

I usually don't like posting this sort of thing, but it does demonstrate an important principle. Here is a photograph of an actual stabbing victim. A tragic case, I might add.

The knife wounds vary from 15 mm, 18 mm, 20 mm, 23 mm, 24 mm, 25 mm, to 30 mm wide. (Not all are visible). The largest wound is TWICE the size of the smallest, but without conducting a layer-by-layer dissection, it appears to be just another stab wound.

Two weapons?

Nope; they were all made with the same knife, which was recovered by the police.

The blade was exactly 19.5 mm wide at its broadest. Thus, although all the wounds were relatively deep, one was a 4.5 mm smaller than the blade, while another was 10.5 mm wider than the blade's width. Hardly the difference between two similar cannon balls, Fish!!

One thing that worries me about Killeen is that nowhere does he make any observations about the difficulties that he is facing---almost as if he was unaware of those difficulties. Yet, again and again, we see modern forensic experts, such as Drs. Biggs and Rivello, acknowledging the ambiguities of knife wounds. Why wouldn't that raise alarm bells, Fish? He's fresh out of medical school--a GP--in the year 1888.

I think I'm done here as well. Thanks Gary and Kattrup and Fish, and to everyone for the comments and attachments. I've got more reading to do.

P.S. Killeen doesn't really concisely describe the wound to the sternum, does he, Fish? How do you know how large it is through the bone? Killeen seems to be stating that the penetration of the bone is what sets it apart. At least that's my reading of it.

[Kattrup]

In fact, the only person to comment specifically on the similarities/dissimilarities of the wounds involved in the two series was not Hebbert. Hebbert only said that the skill level was different - which was of course always to be expected if one victim was cut at leisure and the other at great haste.

Hebbert also said that what told the Ripper apart from the Torso killer was that he took out organs from the bodies of his victims.

I hope that amuses you too, Kattrup.

PS. You DO know what the one person who compared the wounds said about them? Yes?

Well, as I recall more people did so I‘m not sure who you’re thinking of. But apparently I‘m mistaken so who was it?