Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[harry]

Yes that rest will come for sure,in the meantime i'm struggling to extract myself from under the pile of garbage you've unloaded in your posts Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Yes that rest will come for sure,in the meantime i'm struggling to extract myself from under the pile of garbage you've unloaded in your posts Fisherman.

So thatīs where to find you? In a pile of garbage?

Okay.

[Michael W Richards]

We are almost on 17 pages of this topic and Ive yet to see why Killeens assertion he saw 2 different weapons used needs challenging. All along this is about whether 2 weapons most probably equals 2 men, not about whether the sternum wound was distinctive and different than the rest. It was. Unless, again....there is some reason to challenge this finding...…….?

[rjpalmer]

Had The Sheffield Daily Telegraph been the only account of the murder to have survived, no one would have dreamed that it was suggesting that two different knives had been used. Indeed, rather than support Killen's account, it seems to directly contradict it.

"The wounds (plural) on the deceased appear as if they had been inflicted with a bayonet plunged into the body with great force."

Yet, we are told, it was more or less obvious that these wounds were, in fact, inflicted with a mere penknife, and it was only the "radically different" wound to the chest that had been inflicted with a bayonet.

I'm not sure why this report is being used to support Killeen, but evidently it is.


Hi Michael- the reason some of us feel that Killeen still needs challenging is that he had little experience; modern forensic experts tell us--again and again--that it is highly problematic to determine the size of a blade by the resulting wound; that a scientific study I presented earlier determined that stabs made through clothing tend to be deceptively small; another that wounds to the sternum tend to gape; that the 'logic' behind a man in a frenzy suddenly switching weapons--and RESORTING TO HIS WEAK HAND--does not strike us as plausible in the 'real world' of a street murder.

Which brings me to my question. Why is the assembled cognoscenti so convinced that the wound to the sternum was the LAST wound inflicted?

What evidence/logical argument is there that this was the case? Isn't it merely a theory made to make the 'two weapon' claim more palatable? Is there anything in the evidence to suggest that it was the last wound inflicted rather than the first, or the fourth, or the twenty-second?

[Fisherman]

Had The Sheffield Daily Telegraph been the only account of the murder to have survived, no one would have dreamed that it was suggesting that two different knives had been used. Indeed, rather than support Killen's account, it seems to directly contradict it.

"The wounds (plural) on the deceased appear as if they had been inflicted with a bayonet plunged into the body with great force."

Yet, we are told, it was more or less obvious that these wounds were, in fact, inflicted with a mere penknife, and it was only the "radically different" wound to the chest that had been inflicted with a bayonet.

I'm not sure why this report is being used to support Killeen, but evidently it is.

How lucky, then, that we have good old Sugden to turn to. He writes "The records of the Metropolitan Police still contain a contemporary digest in tabular form of all the official reports made upon the case. In one column, headed 'Nature and description of wounds as given in surgeonīs report', is written in the comment 'twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen apparently inflicted with a penknife'".

I think I would choose that information over The Sheffield Daily Telegraph every day in the week.

[rjpalmer]

Fish -- Yes, I am aware of that, but by all appearances the unknown commentator of that snippet is just repeating Killeen's conclusion. It shouldn't be construed as an independent opinion. And why only 20 wounds? Is it just sloppy commentary? And I believe it was you who were bringing in the Sheffield Telegraph in support of your theories of the unique nature of the breast wound---not the opposition.

Do you (and Gary?) accept Killen's belief that these 38-9 wounds were inflicted 'during life'? And I ask again, since no answer has been given, why assume the wound to the sternum was the last wound inflicted? Is that your view, and, if so, why?

If it was the twenty-second wound inflicted, wouldn't that fundamentally undermine your belief in two weapons?

[Fisherman]

Fish -- Yes, I am aware of that, but by all appearances the unknown commentator of that snippet is just repeating Killeen's conclusion.

That would be the reasonable conclusion to draw, yes. The reason I posted it is that it establishes that Killeen did speak of the presence of a penknife on the scene, much in opposition to what the Sheffield Telegraph did.

It shouldn't be construed as an independent opinion.

Of course not. I have all along said that there is one expert witness only who assessed and commented on the wounds as far as we know, and that is Killeen.

And why only 20 wounds? Is it just sloppy commentary?

That remains an open question. Killeen only described 21 of the lesser wounds in his comments, and those were the ones that had pierced inner organs. Maybe the "twenty" wounds means that there were twenty-ish other wounds that did not pierce any organs (although there are only 17 wounds unaccounted for if the tally was 39 altogether). But, once again, the reason why it said twenty is anybodyīs guess.

And I believe it was you who were bringing in the Sheffield Telegraph in support of your theories of the unique nature of the breast wound---not the opposition.

It was not I who posted the Sheffield Telegraph snippet, no. The paper I quoted on the chest wounds was the Star from the 8:th. If it was the quotation about "the great gash", I think it was Gary who originally posted it.

Do you (and Gary?) accept Killen's belief that these 38-9 wounds were inflicted 'during life'?

I cannot answer for Gary, of course, so he will have to chip in himself if he wishes to. My own take on it is that this will have been gauged by means of the bloodflow, but I am no physician (as Trevor likes to point out).
Generally speaking, I tend to think that not even a Victorian physician simply guessed away in matters like these. Maybe there is a physician who reads this and who can throw some further light on it.

And I ask again, since no answer has been given, why assume the wound to the sternum was the last wound inflicted? Is that your view, and, if so, why?

Well, it is fairly easy as far as Iīm concerned. The wound to the sternum pierced the heart and was described as a great gash, by far the largest wound and so on. In other words, it would doubtlessly have killed Tabram if she was not already dead when it was dealt. Add to this that Killeen said that all of the wounds were "caused during life", and we can see that there is only one possible way to allow for such a thing.

If it was the twenty-second wound inflicted, wouldn't that fundamentally undermine your belief in two weapons?

I donīt think that it could possibly have been the twenty-second wound inflicted, R J, because in such a case, 22 of the wounds would have been caused during life, whereas 17 would have been caused after death. And Killeen would have known that quite well.
But to answer your question as if that did not matter to me, Iīd say that it would not alter my belief in two weapons one little bit. That belief is not grounded in any conviction about in which order one or two killers will stab a victim (because it is impossible to know) , but instead in how I think that Killeen would never very clearly and unhesitatingly have told the blades apart without an excellent reason to do so. If there had been any doubt at all, I think he would have done an R J Palmer and reasoned that it was probably the same blade, all of it.

If somebody wants to express this as me having blind faith in a Victorian medico of little experience, then they are welcome (well ...) to do so, but I think that they may want to ponder the the implications of the two descriptions about stabs "apparently made by a penknife" and a stab described as "a great gash" and "by far the largest and deepest wound" and "made by some long, strong instrument". I cannot weigh those descriptions together without getting a picture of something quite different from a penknife - much larger and sturdier, and therefore quite incomparable to a penknife, and easy-peasy to tell apart from it even if you have close to no experience at all.

Iīm afraid I am totally and utterly unlikely to end up in any other place than this one when discussing the matter.

[Abby Normal]

can someone please explain to me why people are so adamantly arguing against two knives being used? the doctor who saw the wounds said so and killers have been known to use more than one weapon on a victim so whats the big deal?!? am i missing something?

[MrBarnett]

My reason for posting the SDT account was because of its early date and its mention of a bayonet. If their reporter did obtain his information on the afternoon of the 7th as they claim, that was long before the inquest, possibly even before Killeen had completed the PM. Where might Hewitt have got the idea of a bayonet from at that early stage? I don’t buy the idea that he had independently reached that conclusion because soldiers had been drinking nearby on the night of the murder. So had men of dozens of other occupations that might have required the use of a variety of sharp instruments, not to mention the local knife-wielding crims.

I suggest the origin of the bayonet idea was Barrett’s sighting of a soldier, mentioned on the landing of GYB while he, Killeen and a few residents were present.

Two weapons seems more likely to me, and like Abby, I don’t understand why people have a problem with one man, two weapons.

[MrBarnett]

“I suggest the origin of the bayonet idea was Barrett’s sighting of a soldier, mentioned on the landing of GYB while he, Killeen and a few residents were present.”

I should have added, “and discussed in the context of their observation of the noticeably different ‘great gaping wound’ to Martha’s heart.

[harry]

I have never said there could not have been two weapons used,I have questioned why it needed two weapons when one would have sufficed.We do not know the extent of the difference that Killeen noted,but that there was a differnce can be accepted.All weapons have the ability to produce different effects,and those effects are more noticeable where,like in the case of Tabram,two different types of tissue are involved,and the weapon used is a knife.As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.That being so,is it plausable that a different knife need be used for just one wound.If so Why?

[MrBarnett]

I have never said there could not have been two weapons used,I have questioned why it needed two weapons when one would have sufficed.We do not know the extent of the difference that Killeen noted,but that there was a differnce can be accepted.All weapons have the ability to produce different effects,and those effects are more noticeable where,like in the case of Tabram,two different types of tissue are involved,and the weapon used is a knife.As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.That being so,is it plausable that a different knife need be used for just one wound.If so Why?

To make sure she was dead?

[Fisherman]

As to whether the last wound to Tabram was the sternum wound,has been covered by RJ,and there is of course not a jot of evidence to show it was the last.

Iīm afraid that is not correct. And when something is not correct, I point it out and I correct it. I much prefer that to naming the one who is incorrect a deliberate liar since I prefer the term explain over the term inflame.

That being said, I must of course explain here and now why it is incorrect to claim that there is not a jot of evidence that the sternum wound was the last one dealt. I have already told R J why this seems to have been the case, but I donīt mind telling you too, Harry.

Dr Killeen, who was the medical expert examining Tabram and doing her post-mortem, thereby qualifying himself to be the one person who was by far best suited to establish the medical status of Tabram, said that all the knife wounds to the body were "caused during life". Since the sternum wound would undoubtedly have killed Tabram, we may therefore conclude that it must have been dealt last, according to Killeen.

You may of course believe that Timoty Killeen was perhaps not qualified to make the kind of statements that he did about Tabram, but even if this was true (and there is not a jot of evidence to prove it, as the saying goes) it still remains that his verdict IS evidence. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that there is not a jot of evidence to tell us that the sternum wound was the last one dealt to Tabram.

[Trevor Marriott]

Iīm afraid that is not correct. And when something is not correct, I point it out and I correct it. I much prefer that to naming the one who is incorrect a deliberate liar since I prefer the term explain over the term inflame.

That being said, I must of course explain here and now why it is incorrect to claim that there is not a jot of evidence that the sternum wound was the last one dealt. I have already told R J why this seems to have been the case, but I donīt mind telling you too, Harry.

Dr Killeen, who was the medical expert examining Tabram and doing her post-mortem, thereby qualifying himself to be the one person who was by far best suited to establish the medical status of Tabram, said that all the knife wounds to the body were "caused during life". Since the sternum wound would undoubtedly have killed Tabram, we may therefore conclude that it must have been dealt last, according to Killeen.

You may of course believe that Timoty Killeen was perhaps not qualified to make the kind of statements that he did about Tabram, but even if this was true (and there is not a jot of evidence to prove it, as the saying goes) it still remains that his verdict IS evidence. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that there is not a jot of evidence to tell us that the sternum wound was the last one dealt to Tabram.

You have been told many times that Victorian Doctors medical opinions were at times nothing more than guesswork, and that modern medical experts now show and tell why that was so. In this case, you still keep stating that Killeen should be believed without question.

I again refer to Dr Biggs

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.

Why do you continue to ignore what modern-day medical experts tell us?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

I imagine Dr Biggs could tell the difference between a wound made by a hat pin and one made by a pick axe. I doubt could he tell the difference between two very similar-sized penknives.

What Dr Killeen believed he saw was something in between those two extremes.