Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Fisherman,
It appears you are the one that doesn't understand or do not want to.Read what I replied to Michael.
No, I do not have to rely on the size of the wounds to state whether Tabram's injuries were caused by one or two weapons.All I have to do is rely on Killeen's statement there was a difference in the wound to the sternum.
My reasoning is based on training,experience and published material.What amazes me ,is your continued reliance on just the word of one person,but then again that is all you have.And no,I haven't,despite your misleading insinuations,asserted that one weapon only could have been used.I have stated the opinion that only one weapon need to have been used,and I have explained why,in detail.You do not have to stray from these boards to understand that weapon is a penknife.In nothing I have read from you,have you been able to convey a knowledge that a penknife COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED ALL THE WOUNDS.
That's how it works,if only you were able to understand.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

If your focused on the likely part Harry, ok. I believe any hedging here would be due to the inconclusive evidence as to specifically what weapon the larger one was. We have dagger and bayonet offered. Both larger than a pen-knife to be sure, but also potentially quite different looking blades. Width, single/double edged, 6-8 inches/11-13 inches...some bayonets even served well as short swords too. So likely in my estimation is appropriate and not weak. And the message is clear. One stab was made by a larger blade. Whether that was larger width, girth, length...who can say. But there was a discernible difference.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
It appears you are the one that doesn't understand or do not want to.Read what I replied to Michael.
No, I do not have to rely on the size of the wounds to state whether Tabram's injuries were caused by one or two weapons.All I have to do is rely on Killeen's statement there was a difference in the wound to the sternum.

U-huh. So when Killeen says that the smaller knife could not have pierced the sternum, this information allows you to conclude that the wound in the sternum was small enough to fit with a stab of the lesser weapon?
Thatīs an entirely new and VERY fresh approach to science. It is in fact a science all of itīs own. Maybe we should call it, say .. a harried conclusion?

Let me inform you that Killeen nowhere and at no time says that it was only this factor that governed his decision. Pointing out that the lesser blade would in his opinion have been at risk to break at the sternum does not in any shape or form include grading down the sixe of the sternum weapon to fit with the smaller one. It is nothing but an invention of yours, staying true to the glaring misinterpretations you so often supply these boards with.

My reasoning is based on training,experience and published material.

No, it is based on a complete absence of facts, a trip to La-La Land and a complete misunderstanding of how to use the records.

What amazes me ,is your continued reliance on just the word of one person,but then again that is all you have.

One must say, though, that is a whole lot better than basing it on no person at all and having to phantasize everything up on your own. Not that you are not up to the task, of course. Ready and willing!

And no,I haven't,despite your misleading insinuations,asserted that one weapon only could have been used.I have stated the opinion that only one weapon need to have been used,and I have explained why,in detail.

To no avail at all, sadly.

You do not have to stray from these boards to understand that weapon is a penknife.

One, moreover, that caused a damage described in one report as a "great gaping wound". It will have much resembled the great gaping hole in your reasoning, methinks; more of a meat cleaver hole than a pen knife one.

That caused a hole in the sternum described as In nothing I have read from you,have you been able to convey a knowledge that a penknife COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED ALL THE WOUNDS.

I can play that game too: No matter what you are informed, you just put your hands over your ears, close your eyes and say "No, no, no, no, no, no, no ....

That's how it works,if only you were able to understand.

But I DO understand how you work, Harry. All of it. Easy-peasy. Now I am not willing to spend any more time on your delusions and old pals who knew all there is to know about stab wounds, I have got better things to do. I only wish you had too. So go ahead, the stage is yours - congrats!

[Michael W Richards]

Harry, it occurs to me that the Victorian definition of a pen-knife includes a folding feature, and I think that in and of itself would indicate that it was a very dangerous weapon to the user if attempting to penetrate anything that offered great resistance. Like bone. In todays vernacular the term is used to describe a variety of pocket blades and tools, but back then it was commonly used to describe a smallish, single bladed, folding knife capable of being carried in your pocket.

[MrBarnett]

Harry, it occurs to me that the Victorian definition of a pen-knife includes a folding feature, and I think that in and of itself would indicate that it was a very dangerous weapon to the user if attempting to penetrate anything that offered great resistance. Like bone. In todays vernacular the term is used to describe a variety of pocket blades and tools, but back then it was commonly used to describe a smallish, single bladed, folding knife capable of being carried in your pocket.

Is that Canadian vernacular, Michael? I’d still consider a penknife to be a folding pocket knife. The sort of thing you might have ready to hand when you become enraged at someone’s behaviour and which you first use on them before realising that the wounds caused by that weapon might leave your victim alive long enough to reveal your identity to the next passer-by. So then what do you do? Well, if you have a larger, albeit unwieldier, tool to hand, you might deliver a coup de grace with that, using both hands possibly.

I’m not saying that is what happened, but there’s nothing remotely implausible about the scenario.

[Michael W Richards]

Is that Canadian vernacular, Michael? I’d still consider a penknife to be a folding pocket knife. The sort of thing you might have ready to hand when you become enraged at someone’s behaviour and which you first use on them before realising that the wounds caused by that weapon might leave your victim alive long enough to reveal your identity to the next passer-by. So then what do you do? Well, if you have a larger, albeit unwieldier, tool to hand, you might deliver a coup de grace with that, using both hands possibly.

I’m not saying that is what happened, but there’s nothing remotely implausible about the scenario.

I think that's about right Harry, though I think if I had a larger blade to begin with why would I be using a small blade that I would have had to fish out of my pocket then unfold to use? A Dagger, or a bayonet, whichever, implies a sheath, or a scabbard, or something tucked done behind his belt. Im sure you get my point, the larger blade would be far easier to access anyway. I think if you can accept a 2 blade premise, which it seems you could, then logic dictates 2 people.

I think it also suggests that the pen knife man had to use that knife.

ps....I gave you Dictionary definitions of pen-knife...the general understanding of what that was in Victorian times was different than it is now.

[MrBarnett]

I think that's about right Harry, though I think if I had a larger blade to begin with why would I be using a small blade that I would have had to fish out of my pocket then unfold to use? A Dagger, or a bayonet, whichever, implies a sheath, or a scabbard, or something tucked done behind his belt. Im sure you get my point, the larger blade would be far easier to access anyway. I think if you can accept a 2 blade premise, which it seems you could, then logic dictates 2 people.

I think it also suggests that the pen knife man had to use that knife.

ps....I gave you Dictionary definitions of pen-knife...the general understanding of what that was in Victorian times was different than it is now.

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.

[MrBarnett]

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph piece is useful in giving us an idea of where the idea of a bayonet may have come from.

On afternoon of the 7th, Fras Hewitt was already putting forward the theory that Tabram had been killed with a bayonet because soldiers had been seen drinking nearby. Now that in itself doesn’t necessarily follow. All sorts and conditions of men whose occupations or lifestyles might have led them to carry a variety of sharp instruments would have been drinking within a short distance of GYB that night.

But if Hewitt had been privy to a conversation between Killeen and Barrett when Barrett mentioned, perhaps as no more than an aside, that he had seen a soldier lurking nearby a few hours previously, the possibility of the ‘great gaping wound’ at least having been made by a bayonet would be an easy assumption to make.

This was before the inquest, possibly even before Killeen had completed the PM, and certainly before Pearly Poll turned up at Commercial Street nick with her soldier story.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n736972]

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.

[QUOTE]


That's where we differ then. It seems you can accept the idea of small/large weapons which is what Killeen said, suggesting that someone would stab someone 37 or 8 times with a puny weapon when all the while he also had a large deadly one on him to me is at the very least, highly improbable. In my opinion, its is also illogical.