Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

If there´s nothing more - and there really shouldn´t be - I´ll call it a day.

[Fisherman]

From the pen of Dr. R. Rivello:

"There are several things that can be learned about the weapon from looking at the wound itself. However, determining the dimensions of the weapon and depth of penetration are not among them. This is due to the effect of elasticity of skin shrinking slightly on withdrawal of the object (by up to 2 mm). Also, when the blade has entered the skin at an oblique angle, the length of the entry slit may be longer than expected. Skin elasticity and Langer’s lines (orientation of collagen fibers in the dermis) can cause wounds to gape, contributing to miscalculations. If the weapon has not fully entered the skin, the wound depth will correspond to the part that has penetrated the skin and will not represent the maximum length of the weapon. In addition, objects are rarely pushed into the body and withdrawn at exactly the same angle, and rocking of the knife distorts a wound’s appearance. Finally, compressible body parts, like the abdomen or chest wall, often indent during the stabbing, and thus the area penetrated can be at a depth greater than the weapon."


Isn't that what Dr. Killeen was claiming to do, Fish? Determining the dimension of the blade by looking at the wounds?? Why do you assume that he knew any of this in 1888, fresh out of medical school?

The issue involved are a lot more complicated than what you let on.

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?

Telling that a very large stab was not made by the same blade as a very small stab is equally perfectly accomplishable. Ask Killeen.

[Fisherman]

No problem, RJ.

Here’s an extract from the Sheffield Daily Telegraph report, including Hewitt’s statement that I think conveys the uniqueness, in appearance at least, of the heart wound.

I hope it works, I’m crap at putting up images on here.

Bingo, Gary. Thanks for that. Hewitt saw numerous wounds, just a should be expected.

[Fisherman]

Thank you, RJ, very sensible.

I find it amusing how Fisherman insists that Killeen would know best, having seen the wound (I agree), but Hebbert, having seen AND compared the wounds caused by JtR and Torso killer, would not
(Yes, Fisherman, I know that Hebbert was anthropolically challenged, it’s still amusing )

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?

[rjpalmer]

If a wound to a bare sternum might naturally gape open, what about the wounds to the lower body, assuming they were made through clothing?

The following modern study suggests they would have appeared smaller than the actual weapon used.

Recall that skin is elastic. The clothing "dulls" the point of the knife just enough that the skin stretches as the knife enters it. It then shrinks back when the blade is withdrawn, leaving the resulting wound smaller than the width of the knife. What looks like a "pen-knife" wound may have actually been made with a larger blade.

Experiments on cuts made through clothing were conducted by two forensic experts in New Zealand. Note the conclusion: in 93% of the cases, the wounds were the same or smaller (narrower) than the actual knife used. Only 7% were larger. This tendency alone could have thrown off Dr. Killeen's calculations and conclusions, especially considering the gaping wound to the sternum.

I don't believe there were two knives. I think Killeen wouldn't have been trained in any of this, and was simply mistaken.

Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volume 30, Issue 2, March 1990, Pages 89-95

Do stab-cuts reflect the weapon which made them?

P.A.Costello M.E.Lawton

"A series of experimental stab-cuts was made using three knives and a variety of clothing. The cuts were made through single and multiple clothing layers, at angles to the warp and weft of the fabric, and when clothing was loosely draped or stretched over a surface. Comparisons between knife blade widths and resulting stab lengths were made. Stab-cut lengths were generally smaller than the blade width, with only 7% of the cuts measuring more than the blade width. Those cuts were all made by one knife. It was concluded that stab-cut dimensions in clothing do not accurately reflect the knife blade width."

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish --

As I read your posts, it seems to me that you think that human skin and tissue are like clay and leave a clear impression of the weapon's incision, making these calculations simple and trouble free.

This is not true.

Skin and tissue have collagen fibers running through them, leaving a sort of 'grain'--not unlike wood. Layers of skin are also elastic.

Depending on how one cuts into the dermis in relationship to these fibers, the wound will either shrink shut, or gape open--which is why you cannot accurately determine the weapon used simply by looking at the wound and measuring it. Miscalculations are the norm--not the exception.

Here is something Dr. Killeen could not have known in the 1880s, in the years before open heart surgery.

What is perhaps the most problematic area on the entire human body in regards to an incision?

The sternum.

I am not a surgeon, but, if my understanding is correct, the tension lines in the layers of skin over the breast bone naturally lead the wound to gape open, which is why modern surgeons are trained to use a zig-zag pattern so they can more easily close the incision back up and allow the wound to heal properly. (Study the diagram below, which shows skin tension lines).

Note the tensions lines to the neck, which run vertically, which is one reason cutting someone's throat horizontally leaves to such a horrible, gaping wound.

Depending on the orientation of the knife, flesh wounds can have radically different appearances, leading to miscalculations---which is what Trevor's consultant, Dr. Biggs is saying.

My doubts about Dr. Killeen are not 'flimsy,' to use your words, they are based on having studied a considerable number of forensic papers.

Spot on - it is not true that I would think that human skin and tissue acts like clay or that I would at any occasion have said so. But it is just as untrue to beleive that a very large knife hole in a body and a very small and narrow one will magically shrink/grow to spitting images of one another. And it is truly optimistic to think that one out of 39 holes would singularly grow into a much larger hole than the other 38 - whereas none of these 38 smaller holes all stayed true to the impression that a smallish blade had made them.

It is also a fact that the large wound to the sternum not only pierced the skin - it pierced bone and heart too, meaning that the specific properties of those materials were also involved in Killeens estimation.

Dermis and fibers and collagen aside, we will always remain at the disadvantage of not having seen the wounds and having to phantasize about it if we want to challenge what Killeen said. That is why - regardless of your commandable studies of forensic papers - your view of the matter is and remains on a much flimsier base (usually denoted "guesswork") than that of Killeen (usually denoted "careful studies of the specific wounds). I would have thought that this was too obvious to be challenged, but Ripperology never seizes to baffle me ...

[Kattrup]

Thank you, RJ, very sensible.

I find it amusing how Fisherman insists that Killeen would know best, having seen the wound (I agree), but Hebbert, having seen AND compared the wounds caused by JtR and Torso killer, would not
(Yes, Fisherman, I know that Hebbert was anthropolically challenged, it’s still amusing )

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary. My apologies for nit-picking, but Tabram's blouse was torn open, wasn't it? Hewitt did indeed call the wound to the chest "great," but wasn't that the only wound that was readily visible? He couldn't have 'drawn a distinction,' could he, unless he was able to actually examine the other wounds?

I don't dispute Killeen's observations, of course, but I am skeptical about Fisherman's use of the phrase "radically different" to describe the wound to the sternum. Those are not Killeen's words. Such interpretation are unavoidably subjective, but Killeen's recorded remarks don't sound particularly emphatic to me.

"The wounds might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

Radically different, or only moderately different, based on assumptions about a blade's ability to cut through bone?

Which leads us back to Patricia Cornwell's case of the vicious butter knife.

No problem, RJ.

Here’s an extract from the Sheffield Daily Telegraph report, including Hewitt’s statement that I think conveys the uniqueness, in appearance at least, of the heart wound.

I hope it works, I’m crap at putting up images on here.

[rjpalmer]

From the pen of Dr. R. Rivello:

"There are several things that can be learned about the weapon from looking at the wound itself. However, determining the dimensions of the weapon and depth of penetration are not among them. This is due to the effect of elasticity of skin shrinking slightly on withdrawal of the object (by up to 2 mm). Also, when the blade has entered the skin at an oblique angle, the length of the entry slit may be longer than expected. Skin elasticity and Langer’s lines (orientation of collagen fibers in the dermis) can cause wounds to gape, contributing to miscalculations. If the weapon has not fully entered the skin, the wound depth will correspond to the part that has penetrated the skin and will not represent the maximum length of the weapon. In addition, objects are rarely pushed into the body and withdrawn at exactly the same angle, and rocking of the knife distorts a wound’s appearance. Finally, compressible body parts, like the abdomen or chest wall, often indent during the stabbing, and thus the area penetrated can be at a depth greater than the weapon."


Isn't that what Dr. Killeen was claiming to do, Fish? Determining the dimension of the blade by looking at the wounds?? Why do you assume that he knew any of this in 1888, fresh out of medical school?

The issue involved are a lot more complicated than what you let on.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish --

As I read your posts, it seems to me that you think that human skin and tissue are like clay and leave a clear impression of the weapon's incision, making these calculations simple and trouble free.

This is not true.

Skin and tissue have collagen fibers running through them, leaving a sort of 'grain'--not unlike wood. Layers of skin are also elastic.

Depending on how one cuts into the dermis in relationship to these fibers, the wound will either shrink shut, or gape open--which is why you cannot accurately determine the weapon used simply by looking at the wound and measuring it. Miscalculations are the norm--not the exception.

Here is something Dr. Killeen could not have known in the 1880s, in the years before open heart surgery.

What is perhaps the most problematic area on the entire human body in regards to an incision?

The sternum.

I am not a surgeon, but, if my understanding is correct, the tension lines in the layers of skin over the breast bone naturally lead the wound to gape open, which is why modern surgeons are trained to use a zig-zag pattern so they can more easily close the incision back up and allow the wound to heal properly. (Study the diagram below, which shows skin tension lines).

Note the tensions lines to the neck, which run vertically, which is one reason cutting someone's throat horizontally leaves to such a horrible, gaping wound.

Depending on the orientation of the knife, flesh wounds can have radically different appearances, leading to miscalculations---which is what Trevor's consultant, Dr. Biggs is saying.

My doubts about Dr. Killeen are not 'flimsy,' to use your words, they are based on having studied a considerable number of forensic papers.

[Fisherman]

Killeen's recorded remarks don't sound particularly emphatic to me.

"The wounds might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

Thanking you for the vote of confidence on my behalf, I´d like to offer the continuation of the quotation you cut short:

"His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger..."

Unless this was a dagger that was so small that Cornwells butter knife (which was not a butter knife but a table knife, so much for getting things wrong) was comparable in size, one must make the assumption that Killeen meant that this was a bigger (and longer and stronger) instrument than the other knife. Otherwise, why on earth would he tell them apart in the first place? Did he magically sense that the sternum blade was stronger, although it was of roughly the same size? And if this was truly the case, then why would he not presume that the 38 other wounds were also inflicted with the sternum blade?

Of course, if we look at other publications than that of your choice, we get a very different picture. Take, for example, the Daily News:

"In the witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently with a penknife. The large wound could have been caused by a sword bayonet or dagger."

"The large wound". As opposed to ... what? Have a guess!

There is of course also the pre-inquest report from the Star of the 8:th, reporting:

"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 paper goes on to claim that "The wounds appear to be the result of sword or dagger thrusts, rather than that of a knife", but that does not take away from the impression that there was one wound that was much, much larger than the other 38.

You also claim that the wound to the sternum may have been the only one visible to Frances Hewitt, but since the clothing was thrown up over Tabrams body and not least since the sternum is the middle point of the chest which was the main focus for the attack according to what was said, why would the sternum wound only be visible to Hewitt?

[rjpalmer]

Francis Hewitt’s statement to the Sheffield Daily Telegraph on 8th August certainly drew a distinction between the ‘great wound over her heart’ and the others Martha had suffered.

Hi Gary. My apologies for nit-picking, but Tabram's blouse was torn open, wasn't it? Hewitt did indeed call the wound to the chest "great," but wasn't that the only wound that was readily visible? He couldn't have 'drawn a distinction,' could he, unless he was able to actually examine the other wounds?

I don't dispute Killeen's observations, of course, but I am skeptical about Fisherman's use of the phrase "radically different" to describe the wound to the sternum. Those are not Killeen's words. Such interpretation are unavoidably subjective, but Killeen's recorded remarks don't sound particularly emphatic to me.

"The wounds might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

Radically different, or only moderately different, based on assumptions about a blade's ability to cut through bone?

Which leads us back to Patricia Cornwell's case of the vicious butter knife.

[Michael W Richards]

Wasn't the testimony of pearly poll questionable at best? In no way conclusive. Therefore I would take the whole soldier perpetrator with a serious pinch of salt. Here is a question. In your theory why didn't the first soldier use his bayonet in the first place? Why use a penknife and then have to wait for his mate to finish off the job? Doesn't make much sense to me?

FWIW The thoughts of Trevor's expert ring very true I believe.

Tristan

The point was that we already have evidence that soldiers were out in pairs that night. In my "theory" the last stab is by someone other than penknife man, because penknife man used what he had and still didnt finish the job to his satisfaction, the larger blade was furnished by his mate coming to look for him and finding him in this mess. I have a large collection of knives and bayonets and swords,...from the mid-1800's to modern day, and they vary in length, breadth, depth. Bayonets are thicker and longer blades than any penknife or table knife. A butchers knife might compare...but we dont have mad butchers running around with their knives on them that night do we? Oh yeah...we DO have Soldiers being permitted to wear short swords and bayonets on Bank Holidays, and we do have.. as I said.. cases where 2 or more soldiers were seen out together. So, whats that leave us with....2 weapons used as per Killeen, the larger one used only once, and pairs of men out that night where 1 or both might be wearing a blade that matches a bayonets profile.

My suggestion uses the evidence above. Others do not.

That Trevors source mentions most knifings are with a single knife, he omits mentioning thats if 1 person is doing all the stabbing. My suggestion is that 2 people stabbed.

[MrBarnett]

Francis Hewitt’s statement to the Sheffield Daily Telegraph on 8th August certainly drew a distinction between the ‘great wound over her heart’ and the others Martha had suffered.

Hewitt claimed that ‘blood was flowing’ from that wound when he saw it, which was probably shortly after Reeves had discovered the body at 4.45 am. But Killeen believed that Martha had been dead for ‘some three hours’ when he saw the body at around 5.30.*

Dr Tim’s timing and his ID of a bayonet as a possible weapon (if indeed he did so) rather conveniently tie in to the details of Barrett’s soldier story. How likely is is that as Barrett and Killeen stood on the landing together Barrett mentioned that he had spoken to a soldier whose pal had gone into George Yard (though not necessarily GYB) with a woman about three hours previously?


* As reported in the East London Advertiser. Why would it have taken 45 minutes to get a doctor from Brick Lane to George Yard in such an obviously serious case?

(So much for my self-restraint.)

[Fisherman]

In Martha Tabrams body, 38 (or 37, if we rule out the cut) wounds had a similar appearance, leading Killeen to opt for them all having been made by the same blade, that gave the impression of being a small one. The 39:th wound was radically different, disclosing a much larger weapon. If a blade can make all sorts of damage, then why did Killeen not think that 39 knives were used...?

As for wriggling and twisting the blade out of the sternum, one must keep in mind that such a thing would leave traces in the underlying heart.

Once more, Killeen is much more likely to have been right than wrong, regardless of any wriggling or twisting. Once again, the world is something slightly more complicated than we sometimes wish.

Over and out.