Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[MrBarnett]

I´m 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 don´t 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.

I don’t think Killeen tells us which of the wounds would certainly have been fatal, but presumably it was the one to the heart which was singled out for separate mention by both Him and Hewitt because of its size.

The other thing Killeen doesn’t specify is whether the fatal wound would have been immediately fatal. And, although I’m no expert, from what I’ve read wounds inflicted immediately - within seconds or a minute or two - after death are not easily distinguishable from those inflicted during life.

So, all in all, you pays your money and you takes your choice.


Oh, and I should add that although Killeen suggested that one of the wounds could have been made by a left-handed person, he doesn’t say it definitely was, and again he doesn’t specify which of the wounds he was referring to.

[Fisherman]

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

You are working from a wrongful assumption, Trevor. Nobody is ignoring what Dr Biggs says, and on a general level he is quite correct. If there are 39 stabs to a body, they are more likely than not to have been delivered by the same blade. It is only in cases where the evidence is of a character that disenables this to be true that we should work from a different assumption, and this is the exact case at hand: Killeen tells us that there is no way that the sternum wound was made by the same blade.

Once more: Killeen saw the wounds and compared them.

Once more: Biggs did not see the wounds and cannot compare them. There is. no way in hell, and Biggs is quite aware of this. Ask him if you are in any doubt!

Furthermore, there ARE cases when it is beyond any doubt that two blades have been used. One such case was quoted by Gary Barnett earlier on the thread. In it, two different types of knife tips was all it took for the examining expert to tell the two blades apart.

Is it so very strange then that I am going with what Killeen said, not least since the contemporary press reports speak of a very much larger and deeper wound in the sternum case? What you seem to suggest is that we should never accept that two blades may have been used on a single victim; it must always and with no exceptions be a case of one blade only.

That stance would be bonkers, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

I don’t think Killeen tells us which of the wounds would certainly have been fatal, but presumably it was the one to the heart which was singled out for separate mention by both Him and Hewitt because of its size.

The other thing Killeen doesn’t specify is whether the fatal wound would have been immediately fatal. And, although I’m no expert, from what I’ve read wounds inflicted immediately - within seconds or a minute or two - after death are not easily distinguishable from those inflicted during life.

So, all in all, you pays your money and you takes your choice.


Oh, and I should add that although Killeen suggested that one of the wounds could have been made by a left-handed person, he doesn’t say it definitely was, and again he doesn’t specify which of the wounds he was referring to.

I believe he did say that the wound to the heart in itself would have been enough to kill. On a more general level, I am no medico and so I cannot comment on the details with any expertise. The point that I made though, was that contrary to what Harry claimed, there IS evidence that the sternum blow was the last one. Whether that evidence is correct or not is a somewhat different matter.

[harry]

We do not know the wording of any Killeen statement.Again Fisherman,you are quoting newspaper reports,which are hearsay,and are not evidence that can be used in a murder trial.The newspaper prints the wounds were all sustained while alive,and there is not one jot of evidence to suggest the newspaper had access to a report of Killeens, was repeating from such a report, was repeating from information supplied by the police, from inquest testimony,or by personnel involvement with Killeen.
Just another cheap and misleading attempt to create a fact that doesn't exist.So you have corrected nothing.That's nothing unusual.
Now let me clarify why hearsay would not be accepted evidence in court,in this instance.It is because Killeen would have been available to give evidence in court himself.Yes I know it did not come to that,but evidence in the Tabram case should be treated as though it could come to that.

[MrBarnett]

I believe he did say that the wound to the heart in itself would have been enough to kill. On a more general level, I am no medico and so I cannot comment on the details with any expertise. The point that I made though, was that contrary to what Harry claimed, there IS evidence that the sternum blow was the last one. Whether that evidence is correct or not is a somewhat different matter.

Yes, you’re right, Christer, Killeen did say the heart wound would have been fatal.

However, if the killer had inflicted the heart wound and then immediately given Tabram another jab with the penknife or whatever it was, that last wound would probably have had the appearance of one inflicted during life.

There is no obvious answer supported by the limited evidence that remains, but for me it’s the 38 small wounds first and the heart wound last to finish the job. And I don’t see any reason to choose between one man/two knives and two men/a knife each.

The thing that is uppermost in my mind at the moment is why it took Killeen half an hour to reach a destination 3 minutes or so away from 68, Brick Lane. And the apparent contradiction between Hewitt’s description of blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen’s suggestion of a TOD of around the time Barrett had his encounter with his soldier three hours previously.

[Fisherman]

Yes, you’re right, Christer, Killeen did say the heart wound would have been fatal.

However, if the killer had inflicted the heart wound and then immediately given Tabram another jab with the penknife or whatever it was, that last wound would probably have had the appearance of one inflicted during life.

Well, that´s where my lack of medical insights let me down, but if you are correct on this, I can see how the large wound could have been deemed the final one if enough time passed before it was dealt.

There is no obvious answer supported by the evidence, but for me it’s the 38 small wounds first and the heart wound last to finish the job. And I don’t see any reason to choose between one man/two knives and two men/a knife each.

I agree all over.

The thing that is uppermost in my mind at the moment is why it took Killeen half an hour to reach a destination 3 minutes or so away from 68, Brick Lane. And the apparent contradiction between Hewitt’s description of blood ‘flowing’ from the heart wound and Killeen’s suggestion of a TOD of around the time Barrett had his encounter with his soldier three hours previously.

Yeah, well... These are hard matters to discuss since we have such scarce material. The answers to your questions are perhaps easy enough. The "flowing" blood, for example, may perhaps have flowed earlier, presenting a sight that made Hewitt use that wording as he described a flow that had already halted?

[Fisherman]

We do not know the wording of any Killeen statement.Again Fisherman,you are quoting newspaper reports,which are hearsay,and are not evidence that can be used in a murder trial.The newspaper prints the wounds were all sustained while alive,and there is not one jot of evidence to suggest the newspaper had access to a report of Killeens, was repeating from such a report, was repeating from information supplied by the police, from inquest testimony,or by personnel involvement with Killeen.
Just another cheap and misleading attempt to create a fact that doesn't exist.So you have corrected nothing.That's nothing unusual.
Now let me clarify why hearsay would not be accepted evidence in court,in this instance.It is because Killeen would have been available to give evidence in court himself.Yes I know it did not come to that,but evidence in the Tabram case should be treated as though it could come to that.

I couldn´t care less, Harry. It remains that what Killeen is recorded as having said is evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

That's the kind of rebuttal Im looking for rj...was Killeen up to the task. We can never know that for sure without some evidence he had in the past made errors. I believe the cumulative data, which would have to include that quote from the Sheffield Daily, suggests that at the very least a dagger or some kind of larger blade...including a bayonet, was likely used on Martha. And smaller stabs, unlikely to have been the result of someone who was controlling the depth to which he plunged, were also present. That substantiates a claim of 2 weapons in my view. Now, why would the large one be last? Well for one, all the rest would have not been needed, and for a second, it appears we would also have to assume he then changed to a smaller blade to in a frenzied manner stab away. Improbable. It speaks of a coup de grace. ""Would you just die for Christ sakes".....

This also implies something to me eye anyway, that even that last blow was done in an impassioned manner. To stab someone violently and repeatedly in close quarters suggests a heated state, so does a strong thrust once with a large blade. Its that kind of passion that I don't see in some murders that for me differentiates killers.

[MrBarnett]

A question for RJ.

Where do you get the ‘resorting to his weak hand’ idea from?

Is there a version of Killeen’s evidence where he says with certainty that one of the wounds was a left handed blow? And did he say which wound that was?

I must have missed it if there is. From what I’ve read he says that one of the wounds ‘might’ have been made by a left-handed person, but he doesn’t specify which wound that might have been.

[Joshua Rogan]

Where does that idea come from, Michael? I’ve seen a number of photos of Victorian military men who were out on the town but who did not appear to have been wearing side arms.

I’m sure there’s a source for what you are saying, I’ve heard it said many times before.

But all that would tell us is that soldiers were one category of men out of dozens who might have carried knives.

Why point the finger solely at soldiers and not at others?

Think of the numerous East End ne’er-do-wells who carried knives for nefarious reasons, the butchers, slaughtermen, leather workers etc etc etc Why focus purely on soldiers?

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

[MrBarnett]

Echo 10 Aug
It has been ascertained that only corporals and sergeants are allowed to wear side arms when on leave. This fact, of course, narrows the issue as to the possible identity of the assailant-presuming he was a soldier.

Thanks, Joshua.

I think the point I was querying was whether ‘all’ soldiers were allowed to carry side arms.

Bearing in mind that PP identified two privates at the ID parade, what corporals and sergeants were allowed to do may not be relevant. And, of course, PP said she hadn’t noticed whether her two soldiers were wearing side arms.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Joshua.

I think the point I was querying was whether ‘all’ soldiers were allowed to carry side arms.

Bearing in mind that PP identified two privates at the ID parade, what corporals and sergeants were allowed to do may not be relevant. And, of course, PP said she hadn’t noticed whether her two soldiers were wearing side arms.

No matter how big, masculine-looking and drunk PP may have been, she was still a vulnerable woman and I think it’s unlikely that she spent almost two hours in the company of two soldiers expecting that she might well have to accompany one or the other of them into a secluded corner at the end of the night and missed the fact that they had bayonets hanging from their belts.

[Fisherman]

...if the killer had inflicted the heart wound and then immediately given Tabram another jab with the penknife or whatever it was, that last wound would probably have had the appearance of one inflicted during life.

The more I think of this, the more I warm to the idea that the larger weapon was perhaps not even there as the first 38 stabs were dealt.

If the reason that Killeen felt that all the stabs were inflicted while Tabram was still alive, then the logical thing to expect is perhaps that he was able to see that the 38 smaller wounds had bled for some considerable time before the sternum stab was dealt. And if so, the reason that there were two weapons employed could perhaps lie in how the killer only had access to the small knife from the outset. When he realized that it was not a weapon that ensured death, he got up and fetched the larger weapon and used it to finish his victim.

That would explain how Killeen could tell that Tabram was alive throughout the stabbing, it would fix the sternum stab as the last one, and it would explain why there were two weapons involved.

The question that arises is of course where he got the larger weapon from. Did the killer live in the house, and got the larger blade from his lodgings? Did he have it in a cart outside George Yard? Was it a weapon at all, or something else that he used as a weapon? What - if any - implements could there be in the surroundings that could possibly be used as a weapon?

Any ideas?

[Joshua Rogan]

Killeen stated that Martha's lungs were pierced a total of seven times. Surely, if she had been alive for any appreciable time after this, then almost certainly she would have been coughing up blood. Yet according to the ELO account, Reeves stated that there was no blood coming from Tabram's mouth.
Curious.

[MrBarnett]

The more I think of this, the more I warm to the idea that the larger weapon was perhaps not even there as the first 38 stabs were dealt.

If the reason that Killeen felt that all the stabs were inflicted while Tabram was still alive, then the logical thing to expect is perhaps that he was able to see that the 38 smaller wounds had bled for some considerable time before the sternum stab was dealt. And if so, the reason that there were two weapons employed could perhaps lie in how the killer only had access to the small knife from the outset. When he realized that it was not a weapon that ensured death, he got up and fetched the larger weapon and used it to finish his victim.

That would explain how Killeen could tell that Tabram was alive throughout the stabbing, it would fix the sternum stab as the last one, and it would explain why there were two weapons involved.

The question that arises is of course where he got the larger weapon from. Did the killer live in the house, and got the larger blade from his lodgings? Did he have it in a cart outside George Yard? Was it a weapon at all, or something else that he used as a weapon? What - if any - implements could there be in the surroundings that could possibly be used as a weapon?

Any ideas?

Well, I still lean towards one man in possession of more than one weapon.

But to answer your question, I believe Tabram’s body was found next to an area where there were toilets. Might there have also been coppers for clothes washing nearby? If so, there could have been something, an old poker perhaps, hanging around. But that would mean Killeen mistaking a wound made by a blunt, cylindrical implement for one caused by a dagger.

Or perhaps, as you mention, he was a resident and was able to pop back to his flat to obtain a second weapon.

Or...perhaps he had a cart outside and he was able to retrieve a second weapon from that, eh, Fish?

;-)