Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[MrBarnett]

I moved on from Killeen when I found that his family were still living in the area of Clare where he was born and spent almost his entire life, and that there had recently been a tragedy in the family. It ceased being a parlour game at that point and felt intrusive. A similar thing happened when I was researching the Tomkins family.

What became clear about Killeen by looking into his life after Whitechapel is that he never really progressed beyond being a local GP in an area in which his family were seemingly quite influential.

I was left with the impression that he was either:

Not very ambitious,

Not overly competent,

or, to put a positive slant on it, very dedicated to the poor people of his part of County Clare.

I’ve no idea if any of those, singly, or in combination are true.

[MrBarnett]

The comment you made was that Killeen did not mention the incised wound. That is why I pointed to how Llewellyn was very sparse about the wounds to Nichols, just as Phillips would have been if Baxter had not disallowed it. The left out cause of death on Tabrams death certificate does not prove any incompetence on behalf of Killeen. and once again, the matter of punctured/incised wounds is not something that makes me despair about Killeenīs abilities.

Is Killeens inexperience "an interesting fact"? Yes, it is - the way ALL facts in the Ripper drama are interesting per se. The pertinent question is another one, however: does his inexperience allow us to reason that he was more likely than not to get the matter of the two wepaons wrong? it is a question you have avoided so far, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about it. Do you agree with me that he COULD have been wrong, or do you promote the idea that he WOULD have been wrong?

Could. And is more likely to have been than a more experienced man.

[MrBarnett]

Never mind, I found it in a post from Dave O some years back:


There's some testimony from Killeen from another case that's included among records from the North East Middlesex coroner's district held at the LMA (2nd box). I thought I'd put it up if it's of interest. This inquest was held on the body of a newborn infant found dead in Spitalfields, October 1888.

From the initial investigation by the coroner's officer, B. Beavis, for a warrant to hold an inquest:

Mysterious death. The mother of Decd. (unmarried) went to bed about 11 pm on Tuesday 9 Oct. the person with whom she lived (inserted ‘Mrs. Green’) had then no reason to suppose that she was enceinte. About 7 a m on Wednesday 10th. Inst., Mrs. Green went into the bed room + found that she had given birth to decd – who was dead. Dr. Killeen asks for a Post Mortem examination to ascertain whether dead was born alive [see his letter] (lma/mj/spc/ne296a, from form for request for a warrant for an inquest by B. Beavis, coroner’s officer).

No letter is preserved in the record, but Killeen's testimony is included:

Timothy Robert Killeen, on his oath says I reside at 68 Brick Lane I am LRC.PI + [illegible]. I was called on Wednesday 10th October to 16 Church Street Spitalfields and found that Dinah Israel a Single Woman had during the night given birth to a female child apparently full formed and well developed. The child was dead and unattended to. Cord and [illegible] with Placenta attached.
External appearance – No marks of violence
Skin – Livid
Fingers were lightly closed on palms of the hands
I have since by your order made a Post Mortem examination on the 11th Inst and I find
Brain Membranes. Congested. with the Sinuses full
of dark blood
Brain Substance. Healthy
Lungs & Pleura Healthy and no fluid in Cavity
Lungs + Heart attached Float in water
Lungs without Heart Float in water
Liver - Very large and full of dark blood and there was still dark blood in the portion of Cord which would become the obliterative remains of the umbilical cord
In my opinion and to the best of my belief death was due to want of proper attendance at birth
The Child was born alive
The Length was the ordinary one and the weight was above the ordinary
The Child was covered with Dust. it did not seem to me the dust that would come from the ceiling. A portion of the Ceiling was broken there was not sufficient dust on the floor to cause the child to be covered – The mother told me she had put the child in a pail. I asked to see it but Mrs. Green told me she knew nothing about it. She said there was no pail there (lma/m/spc/ne296b)

I'm taken by Killeen's examination of the dust.

Dave

I cannot see where Killen must have been wrong here. Or that he acted wrongfully when making his call. Can you?

Someone seems to have made a mistake. If the case for a charge of illegal killing of some description was based on Killeen’s medical evidence, perhaps that was at fault in some way. Or perhaps the police drew the wrong conclusion from the evidence.

Incidentally, there is no requirement on anyone to prove or disprove Killeen’s competence. However, if in researching his background we find certain indications that not only was he very green but his training may have been lacking in some way, it’s worth discussing. At least I think so.

[Fisherman]

When I was looking at this before I consulted an 1888 pathology textbook and the distinction between punctured and incised wounds was very clear.

Whatever record of Polly’s inquest has survived, her death certificate is very clear on the medical cause of her death: ‘Syncope from loss of blood from wounds in neck and abdomen inflicted by some sharp instrument.’ As I say, for all her death cert tells us Tabram may have been drowned or deliberately run over by a Pickfords van.

There’s no witch hunt going on, Killeen’s inexperience is a interesting fact. Over on the other site I’ve dug into his background in a bit more depth.

The comment you made was that Killeen did not mention the incised wound. That is why I pointed to how Llewellyn was very sparse about the wounds to Nichols, just as Phillips would have been if Baxter had not disallowed it. The left out cause of death on Tabrams death certificate does not prove any incompetence on behalf of Killeen. and once again, the matter of punctured/incised wounds is not something that makes me despair about Killeenīs abilities.

Is Killeens inexperience "an interesting fact"? Yes, it is - the way ALL facts in the Ripper drama are interesting per se. The pertinent question is another one, however: does his inexperience allow us to reason that he was more likely than not to get the matter of the two wepaons wrong? it is a question you have avoided so far, but it would be interesting to hear what you think about it. Do you agree with me that he COULD have been wrong, or do you promote the idea that he WOULD have been wrong?

[Fisherman]

It’s on this thread somewhere, I believe. I’ll see if I can find it. A bit later if that’s OK.

Never mind, I found it in a post from Dave O some years back:


There's some testimony from Killeen from another case that's included among records from the North East Middlesex coroner's district held at the LMA (2nd box). I thought I'd put it up if it's of interest. This inquest was held on the body of a newborn infant found dead in Spitalfields, October 1888.

From the initial investigation by the coroner's officer, B. Beavis, for a warrant to hold an inquest:

Mysterious death. The mother of Decd. (unmarried) went to bed about 11 pm on Tuesday 9 Oct. the person with whom she lived (inserted ‘Mrs. Green’) had then no reason to suppose that she was enceinte. About 7 a m on Wednesday 10th. Inst., Mrs. Green went into the bed room + found that she had given birth to decd – who was dead. Dr. Killeen asks for a Post Mortem examination to ascertain whether dead was born alive [see his letter] (lma/mj/spc/ne296a, from form for request for a warrant for an inquest by B. Beavis, coroner’s officer).

No letter is preserved in the record, but Killeen's testimony is included:

Timothy Robert Killeen, on his oath says I reside at 68 Brick Lane I am LRC.PI + [illegible]. I was called on Wednesday 10th October to 16 Church Street Spitalfields and found that Dinah Israel a Single Woman had during the night given birth to a female child apparently full formed and well developed. The child was dead and unattended to. Cord and [illegible] with Placenta attached.
External appearance – No marks of violence
Skin – Livid
Fingers were lightly closed on palms of the hands
I have since by your order made a Post Mortem examination on the 11th Inst and I find
Brain Membranes. Congested. with the Sinuses full
of dark blood
Brain Substance. Healthy
Lungs & Pleura Healthy and no fluid in Cavity
Lungs + Heart attached Float in water
Lungs without Heart Float in water
Liver - Very large and full of dark blood and there was still dark blood in the portion of Cord which would become the obliterative remains of the umbilical cord
In my opinion and to the best of my belief death was due to want of proper attendance at birth
The Child was born alive
The Length was the ordinary one and the weight was above the ordinary
The Child was covered with Dust. it did not seem to me the dust that would come from the ceiling. A portion of the Ceiling was broken there was not sufficient dust on the floor to cause the child to be covered – The mother told me she had put the child in a pail. I asked to see it but Mrs. Green told me she knew nothing about it. She said there was no pail there (lma/m/spc/ne296b)

I'm taken by Killeen's examination of the dust.

Dave

I cannot see where Killen must have been wrong here. Or that he acted wrongfully when making his call. Can you?

[Fisherman]

A better analogy might be that he went from catching goldfish in a Dublin pond with a net and was then dropped on the banks of the river Tweed and asked to catch a grayling with a dry fly.

How about proving the manīs incompetence instead of leading it on with no good reason at all? Or are we past an intelligible discussion?

[Fisherman]

I don't think the analogy is quite on-the-money, Fish. It's more akin to bringing in a deer hunter with one year experience to judge the difference between a cod and a mackerel. You keep implying that a GP would have knowledge of forensic medicine.

He wouldn't...but this is hardly an indictment of Killeen.

The poor guy probably thought he was going to the slums to cure children with whooping cough and ends up being asked to conducted a post-mortem on a murder victim!

The idea that historians shouldn't question the experience/judgement/opinions of historical 'witnesses' is an eccentric one. It's what we do. If we aren't to challenge anyone's judgement, then we might as well conclude that Sir Robert Anderson, who was there, correctly identified the murderer as Kosminski, and leave it at that.

"The poor guy"?

Letīs try and be fair here, shall we? The analogy of a fisherman learning about fishing like a medico learns about medicine is totally appropriate. If you want to bring a deer hunter into the discussion, then we need to look at elements linked to HIS particular area of expertise, right?

What you justify your dismissal of the analogy with is a claim that I would have implied (one wonder how...?) that Killeen had knowledge of forensic medicine. The long and the short of it is of course that we do not know how much Killeen knew about it, but regardless of this, I have not made any claims about it, have I?

What I have said is that Killeen was a trained medico (and he was), and that his training would have involved the treatment of damages caused by various types of dangers surrounding us, one of them being sharp objects. I donīt think that equals claiming that Killeen had forensic insights.

If you believe that Killeen thought that practising in Brick Lane would only involve curing whooping cough in small kids, you are distansing yourself radically from your former statement that he was not irrational.

The next misattribution you make is to claim that I would somehow not like historians questioning "the experience/judgement/opinions of historical witnesses". I said before, and I may just as well say it again, that I WELCOMED Alīs doubts about Killeens capacities. That is not saying that historians should not challenge various matters, is it?
The true story is that I do not like it when historians - or any other students of the case - take it upon themselves to dismiss what a medico said on the flimsiest of grounds, sgretching their own beliefs into being better and more well-grounded than the medicos judgment. AND without seeing the evidence, even!

I equally dislike it when people who should know a lot better than to engage in these kinds of misattributions, but that is of course another matter.

[MrBarnett]

I don't think the analogy is quite on-the-money, Fish. It's more akin to bringing in a deer hunter with one year experience to judge the difference between a cod and a mackerel. You keep implying that a GP would have knowledge of forensic medicine.

He wouldn't...but this is hardly an indictment of Killeen.

The poor guy probably thought he was going to the slums to cure children with whooping cough and ends up being asked to conducted a post-mortem on a murder victim!

The idea that historians shouldn't question the experience/judgement/opinions of historical 'witnesses' is an eccentric one. It's what we do. If we aren't to challenge anyone's judgement, then we might as well conclude that Sir Robert Anderson, who was there, correctly identified the murderer as Kosminski, and leave it at that.

A better analogy might be that he went from catching goldfish in a Dublin pond with a net and was then dropped on the banks of the river Tweed and asked to catch a grayling with a dry fly.

[MrBarnett]

Iīm afraid that only proves that the case for the prosecution was not regarded as strong enough for a conviction. I have not read the material recently, but does it prove Killeen wrong...? If you could - for simplicityīs sake - put it up here, we can all have a glance. Or link to another post where it can be found.

It’s on this thread somewhere, I believe. I’ll see if I can find it. A bit later if that’s OK.

[rjpalmer]

A fisherman with a years experience only is more likely to be unable to tell a cod from a mackerel than a fisherman with twenty years experience. Thatīs true.

I don't think the analogy is quite on-the-money, Fish. It's more akin to bringing in a deer hunter with one year experience to judge the difference between a cod and a mackerel. You keep implying that a GP would have knowledge of forensic medicine.

He wouldn't...but this is hardly an indictment of Killeen.

The poor guy probably thought he was going to the slums to cure children with whooping cough and ends up being asked to conducted a post-mortem on a murder victim!

The idea that historians shouldn't question the experience/judgement/opinions of historical 'witnesses' is an eccentric one. It's what we do. If we aren't to challenge anyone's judgement, then we might as well conclude that Sir Robert Anderson, who was there, correctly identified the murderer as Kosminski, and leave it at that.

[MrBarnett]

I do not think that a witch-hunt for Killeen is justified. Iīm fine with acknowledging that he was relatively young and inexperienced, but bot with leaping to conclusions from those facts. Once again, he saw the wounds. You and I didnīt.

When I was looking at this before I consulted an 1888 pathology textbook and the distinction between punctured and incised wounds was very clear.

Whatever record of Polly’s inquest has survived, her death certificate is very clear on the medical cause of her death: ‘Syncope from loss of blood from wounds in neck and abdomen inflicted by some sharp instrument.’ As I say, for all her death cert tells us Tabram may have been drowned or deliberately run over by a Pickfords van.

There’s no witch hunt going on, Killeen’s inexperience is a interesting fact. Over on the other site I’ve dug into his background in a bit more depth.

[Fisherman]

My experience of Whitechapel/Spitalfields death certs pre-Tabram suggests otherwise. I have quite a few relating to the poorest of the poor and without exception their medical cause of death is disclosed on them.

We should also bear in mind that the only other PM we know of that Killeen performed, the death of the infant, led initially (presumably based on the medical evidence) to the mother being charged with murder/manslaughter (I forget which) but it was immediately dismissed in court.

Two odd results don’t constitute a pattern, but they are there for all to see.

Iīm afraid that only proves that the case for the prosecution was not regarded as strong enough for a conviction. I have not read the material recently, but does it prove Killeen wrong...? If you could - for simplicityīs sake - put it up here, we can all have a glance. Or link to another post where it can be found.

[Fisherman]

Benner’s Model of Expertise identifies five stages of learning:


The NOVICE rigidly adheres to rules or plans, has little situational perception and can’t make judgments. This individual is learning skills in clinical settings and must be closely supervised when delivering patient care.


The ADVANCED BEGINNER is a new graduate. The person functions with limited situational perception (the ability to put clues together to make decisions) and has difficulty discriminating between what is important.


The COMPETENT PRACTITIONER can see his or her actions within a broader context, and is capable of making sounder judgments. Conscious deliberate planning takes place along with standardized and routine procedures:


The PROFICIENT INDIVIDUAL sees the situation holistically rather than in terms of its component parts. This individual more readily makes decisions, perceives differences from the normal pattern of a patient, and functions better with ambiguity. The proficient person has learned from experience and has an easier time making decisions.



Bearing in mind that Killeen didn’t obtain his midwifery qualification until 1887, but the qualification does not appear in the Medical Directory for that year, he was seemingly still a medical student a few months before he arrived in Whitechapel.


Where would he fit in Benner’s model? Well, at the time it was said that there was virtually no pathological training available in Dublin, so I can’t see how he could be considered as having been anything other than a novice when it came to conducting PM’s on murder victims.

A fisherman with a years experience only is more likely to be unable to tell a cod from a mackerel than a fisherman with twenty years experience. Thatīs true.

How much experience had Benner had of compiling experience tables when he did this one, by the way...?

Once again, we all know that experience helps. But donīt we also know that people with medical licenses are - generally speaking - well suited to perform medical tasks...?

[Fisherman]

As I think I suggested before, there’s one apparent error in Killeen’s evidence. He said, or so it was reported, that Tabram had 39 ‘punctured’ wounds. However, one of the wounds he described was not a ‘punctured’ wound, it was an incised wound.

Merriam-Webster uses the definition "to pierce with or as if with a pointed instrument or object", and sure enough, the wound to the lower abdomen was a cut, not a stab. But the skin had to be punctured in the process, in the sense that the kinfe had to pass through it. It is not exactly the kind of thing that would make me demand Killeens medical license back, Gary ...


In layman’s terms, a punctured wound is a stab, distinguished by its depth being greater than its width. An incised wound is a cut or a slash, its width being greater than its depth. The wound to the lower part of Tabram’s body was 3in wide and 1 in depth, so it was an incised wound. Yet there’s no mention of any incised wounds in the versions of Killeen’s evidence that have come down to us.

The wounds Killeen report on are the ones that damaged inner organs, so that will be the reason that the cut - together with numerous other wounds - were left uncommented on. Once again, I am prepared to let Killeen hang on to his license.


A journalistic omission? Or an error by the inexperienced Dr Killeen? Either way, we can’t be certain of how many wounds there were in total. It may have been 39 punctured wounds and x incised wounds. Or 39 wounds in total some (at least one) of which were incised wounds.

We know precious little about Polly Nicholsī wounds too. Llewellyn was 38 at the time he did the post mortem on her. Was it his inexperience that made him leave out details at the inquest?
Was it Phillipīs inexperience that prompted him to tell Baxter that he did not wish to comment on much of the damage done to Chapman?


Don’t bother looking to Martha’s death cert for elucidation, for all the info that provides she may have been shot, strangled or bludgeoned to death.

I do not think that a witch-hunt for Killeen is justified. Iīm fine with acknowledging that he was relatively young and inexperienced, but not with leaping to conclusions from those facts. Once again, he saw the wounds. You and I didnīt.

[MrBarnett]

This makes me wonder if they took a bit of slap dash approach to this? Considering who the victim was, where it happened etc. If it was not for subsequent events, the murder would have probably been all but forgotten. Would the findings of the postmortem/inquest been more conclusive if it had taken place a few months later?

Tristan

My experience of Whitechapel/Spitalfields death certs pre-Tabram suggests otherwise. I have quite a few relating to the poorest of the poor and without exception their medical cause of death is disclosed on them.

We should also bear in mind that the only other PM we know of that Killeen performed, the death of the infant, led initially (presumably based on the medical evidence) to the mother being charged with murder/manslaughter (I forget which) but it was immediately dismissed in court.

Two odd results don’t constitute a pattern, but they are there for all to see.