Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

i agree. he grabs her by the throat and bashes her head against the wall and or floor-continues bashing and or strangling until shes out. starts stabbing her with the small knife and then switches to a larger knife to finish her off.

Thatīs how I tend to see it, yes. And it produces one very interesting question: If the killer of Tabram saw red, would it not suffice to strangle her and knock her unconscious? There would have been a couple of seconds afterwards when the blood had a chance to stop boiling. But he proceeded to get the knife out (it must have been in his pocket throughout the strangulation and the blow on her head) and started stabbing her body as she lay motionless (and possibly dead for all the killer knew) on the landing.

So maybe it wasnīt a frenzy at all? Maybe he incapacitated Tabram in order to get to work on her with the knife? If so, it reminds me of two series of murders in late Victorian London ...

[MrBarnett]

It reminds me of an attack a short distance away from George Yard a month after the Tabram murder:

“...a blind man quarrelling with the woman who served as his guide-wrangling as he walked along and stabbing as he wrangled.”

“The blind man is described as having a most ungovernable temper and he was seen whilst the woman was leading him along to stab her several times in the neck. Blood flowed quickly...”

“After felling her to the ground he began kicking her and pulled out a knife.”

The crowd (the incident took place in broad daylight near Spitalfields Market) attempted to intervene between the blind man and his victim, but he cast them aside.

“He [then] fell upon the woman, knife in hand, and inflicted several stabs on her head, cut her forehead, neck and fingers before he was again pulled off.”

[Fisherman]

It reminds me of an attack a short distance away from George Yard a month after the Tabram murder:

“...a blind man quarrelling with the woman who served as his guide-wrangling as he walked along and stabbing as he wrangled.”

“The blind man is described as having a most ungovernable temper and he was seen whilst the woman was leading him along to stab her several times in the neck. Blood flowed quickly...”

“After felling her to the ground he began kicking her and pulled out a knife.”

The crowd (the incident took place in broad daylight near Spitalfields Market) attempted to intervene between the blind man and his victim, but he cast them aside.

“He [then] fell upon the woman, knife in hand, and inflicted several stabs on her head, cut her forehead, neck and fingers before he was again pulled off.”

Well, yes. To a degree. The differences would mainly be:

- Your attack took place in daylight, and many people were about to witness it.

- The woman in your case was not incapacitated before the stabbing (Tabram probably was, hence the silence of the deed).

- There was no targetting of the breast and stomach region in your case.

- There was no stab delivered to the private parts in your example.

- Your man kicked his victim, presumably causing bruising.

In other words, there is nothing much in your attack that is reminiscent of the traits we normally expect from a Ripper attack, whereas there are numerous such things in the Tabram attack. Much as it must be looked into (the stabbing to the neck, particularly, is interesting), my gut feeling is that this is not the man who did for Tabram.

[MrBarnett]

Well, yes. To a degree. The differences would mainly be:

- Your attack took place in daylight, and many people were about to witness it.

- The woman in your case was not incapacitated before the stabbing.

- There was no targetting of the breast and stomach region in your case.

- There was no stab delivered to the private parts in your example.

- Your man kicked his victim, presumably causing bruising.

In other words, there is nothing much in your attack that is reminiscent of the traits we normally expect from a Ripper attack, whereas there are numerous such things in the Tabram attack. Much as it must be looked into (the stabbing to the neck, particularly, is interesting), my gut feeling is that this is not the man who did for Tabram.

The man’s rage clearly made him impervious to the risk of arrest. He was in a ‘blind’ rage (Sorry!). If the attack had taken place in a secluded spot, with no crowd to separate the attacker from his victim, there would almost certainly have been more injuries. And possibly a corpse.

The woman was felled to the ground, by what means we aren’t told, but a fist or a stick seem most likely. Wherever that blow landed there would almost certainly have been a contused wound, a bruise.

I don’t see much in the way of similarities to any of the Ripper attacks (C5) unless you count location and (possibly) victimology. But I do see the potential at least for a similar outcome to the Tabram attack.

[Fisherman]

The man’s rage clearly made him impervious to the risk of arrest. He was in a ‘blind’ rage (Sorry!). If the attack had taken place in a secluded spot, with no crowd to separate the attacker from his victim, there would almost certainly have been more injuries. And possibly a corpse.

My point is that the attack did NOT take place in a secluded spot - and the reason for it is that Fogarty sems not to have been the kind of bloke who bided his time. This is where I sense that he is made of a different cloth than the killer of Tabram, who may well have been the Ripper. The stealth, the time and the choice of locality qualifies him. An all-important prerequisite for the Ripper seems to have been to be alone with his victim.

The woman was felled to the ground, by what means we aren’t told, but a fist or a stick seem most likely. Wherever that blow landed there would almost certainly have been a contused wound, a bruise.

Iīm more interested in the kicking. It is in line with the kind of attacker who is totally oblivious of his surroundings. There is a blind (there we go...) rage, and no effort to hide what is going on whatsoever.

I don’t see much in the way of similarities to any of the Ripper attacks (C5) unless you count location and (possibly) victimology. But I do see the potential at least for a similar outcome to the Tabram attack.

What I think is ripperish in the Tabram attack are the elements of:

- victimology
- stealth
- attack on the sexual organs
- lack of any signs of beating/kicking
- use of a knife
- geography
- timing
- partial suffocation signs
- possibly also an incapacitation of the victim before the knife is taken out

[Abby Normal]

Thatīs how I tend to see it, yes. And it produces one very interesting question: If the killer of Tabram saw red, would it not suffice to strangle her and knock her unconscious? There would have been a couple of seconds afterwards when the blood had a chance to stop boiling. But he proceeded to get the knife out (it must have been in his pocket throughout the strangulation and the blow on her head) and started stabbing her body as she lay motionless (and possibly dead for all the killer knew) on the landing.

So maybe it wasnīt a frenzy at all? Maybe he incapacitated Tabram in order to get to work on her with the knife? If so, it reminds me of two series of murders in late Victorian London ...

yup. i think she was probably a victim of the torsoripper

[MrBarnett]

What I think is ripperish in the Tabram attack are the elements of:

- victimology
- stealth
- attack on the sexual organs
- lack of any signs of beating/kicking
- use of a knife
- geography
- timing
- partial suffocation signs
- possibly also an incapacitation of the victim before the knife is taken out

Your list highlights a number of similarities between Tabram and the C5, but I don’t believe they necessarily point to the same attacker.

For me, victimology/timing/geography/use of a knife all merge. Vulnerable women forced to inhabit the streets of a violent area of a city at night are more likely than most to fall foul of violence, and knives were in common use by the local nasties.

Stealth? How do we know Tabram’s killer was in any way stealthy? No one admitted to hearing the attack, but how often do we sleep through noisy events that happen nearby?

‘Did you hear that thunderstorm last night?’.

‘No, I slept right through it.’

‘I thought WWIII had started’

‘I didn’t hear a thing.’


Tabram did have signs of a blow to the head. Perhaps she was ‘felled’ by a fist or stick before the knife attack began.

The attack on Martha’s sexual organs might be more significant if it wasn’t just one wound out of 39. An attacker with sex on his mind would surely have made more of an effort in that respect. Did her killer lift her skirts just to make a single cut to her genitals? Women wore high waist bands at that time, if the killer wanted to inflict several stabs in her lower torso, above the genital area, he’d have had to lift her skirts in order to do so. I don’t think the position of all 39 wounds is known, is it?

The suffocation aspect is moot, I believe. Killeen isn’t recorded as having spotted any evidence of that.

For me, the similarities are superficial. If Martha’s killer had ripped open her body and taken out a kidney or her uterus, there’d be little doubt he was the killer of Chapman and Eddowes. But he didn’t do anything like that.

[harry]

None of us saw the wounds.I am disqualified by Fisherman and Michael from commenting about it,on the score I didn't see the wounds,but they and others can continue merrily to discuss the wounds all they want.Everyone agree that's right and proper?
A question for Fisherman and Michael.What was the official cause of death,given by Killeen? According to them it should be somewhere along the lines of,'Death by a single stab wound to the heart,delivered by a dagger like weapon'.He should also have added,death was immediate,or words to that effect.Did he? If he did then I declare that I have been wrong in the extreme with my postings.If Killeen didn't put it like that,then how did he word it?
Another question.If the killer intended to stab Tabram in the heart,how did the killer know the 39th wound had penetrated the sternum and gone into the heart? Even Killeen had to open her up before he knew.
I'll continue when I have had answers to these questions.

[Fisherman]

Your list highlights a number of similarities between Tabram and the C5, but I don’t believe they necessarily point to the same attacker.

Nor do I, Gary - as I said before, I can see my way through to the Tabram murder having another originator than the Ripper cases. But on balance, more speaks for it being the same man in my book.

For me, victimology/timing/geography/use of a knife all merge. Vulnerable women forced to inhabit the streets of a violent area of a city at night are more likely than most to fall foul of violence, and knives were in common use by the local nasties.

True. Since we do not have the trademark Ripper damage, she may have been the victim of somebody else. But I would not say "of common violence", becasue there was nothing common about that, as witnessed about by f ex the coroner.

Stealth? How do we know Tabram’s killer was in any way stealthy? No one admitted to hearing the attack, but how often do we sleep through noisy events that happen nearby?

I feel pretty convinced that if she had been screaming away throughout the attack, we would have known it. Reasonably, she was incapacitated before being cut, and if so, therein lies the stealth.

‘Did you hear that thunderstorm last night?’.

‘No, I slept right through it.’

‘I thought WWIII had started’

‘I didn’t hear a thing.’

But there was nobody commenting about how they thought WWIII had started, was there? Of course, since not even WWI had started, why would they...? Instead, it was commented on how odd it was that the deed had NOT been overheard = stealth.


Tabram did have signs of a blow to the head. Perhaps she was ‘felled’ by a fist or stick before the knife attack began.

And perhaps it was part of the plan (if there was one), to incapacitate her in order to allow for the silent stabbing afterwards. My feeling is that if it was Fogarty, he would kick and yell and curse while he attacked Tabram, and she would scream at the top of her voice. The difference in character between Foggyīs daylight attack in the street and the silent nightly murder of Tabram is what tell them apart for me.

The attack on Martha’s sexual organs might be more significant if it wasn’t just one wound out of 39.

And it might be absent if that wound was not there. But it was. and in Fogartyīs attack, there seemed to be no sexual motivation whatsoever.

An attacker with sex on his mind would surely have made more of an effort in that respect.

Reasonably, yes. And each and every stab he directed to the breast area can have been about sex. Even the stabs towards the abdomen could have. I am less inclined to accept a kick to the body as potentially sexually motivated.
There is also the fact that the clothing was thrown up over Tabrams body, exposing her. That too reeks of sex.

Did her killer lift her skirts just to make a single cut to her genitals? Women wore high waist bands at that time, if the killer wanted to inflict several stabs in her lower torso, above the genital area, he’d have had to lift her skirts in order to do so. I don’t think the position of all 39 wounds is known, is it?

It is not. The stabs recorded are those that hit inner organs. But it nevertheless remains that there is evidence of a sexual motivation in Tabrams case.

The suffocation aspect is moot, I believe. Killeen isn’t recorded as having spotted any evidence of that.

The fingers were clenched and Tabrams face seems swollen on the picture of her. That is consistent with a strangulation effort. There are Ripper victims where the same applies; it was not said by the medico that there was probably strangulation or partial strangulation, but the signs are there anyway. And that seemingly tells these deeds apart from Fogarty in this respect.

For me, the similarities are superficial. If Martha’s killer had ripped open her body and taken out a kidney or her uterus, there’d be little doubt he was the killer of Chapman and Eddowes. But he didn’t do anything like that.

He didnīt even bring a knife suited to the job, no. Which means that the Tabram murder is something different thn the Ripper murders. But it was not necessarily perpetrated by someone else, as my list tells us. A case can be made for both sides, just as we are doing right now, though! In a sensible and productive and enlightening way, I should say. Which reminds me that I also have a post from Harry to answer ...

[Fisherman]

None of us saw the wounds.I am disqualified by Fisherman and Michael from commenting about it,on the score I didn't see the wounds,but they and others can continue merrily to discuss the wounds all they want.Everyone agree that's right and proper?

Have you seen me discussing the wounds from an angle of having seen them? No? Then can you please stop sulking and being such a child? NONE out here can say ANYTHING at all about the appearance of the wounds but for what was said in the inquest material. We canīt tell how deep they were, we canīt tell how wide they were, we canīt tell how clean they were and we have to live with that. Consequently, we also have to live with how we can NOT say that the larger wound was similar enough to the smaller ones to allow for us to conclude they were all made by the same blade.

This is - or should be - the easiest thing in the world to understand. By all means, whine about it, lament it, cry to the moon about it but accept it!


A question for Fisherman and Michael.What was the official cause of death,given by Killeen? According to them it should be somewhere along the lines of,'Death by a single stab wound to the heart,delivered by a dagger like weapon'.He should also have added,death was immediate,or words to that effect.Did he? If he did then I declare that I have been wrong in the extreme with my postings.If Killeen didn't put it like that,then how did he word it?

As we all (hopefully) know, he said the she bled to death. He also said that all the stabs were dealt while Tabram was still alive. And he said that the sternum wound would have sufficed to kill her. That is what was said, and there is only one way to do the math when we know that: The 38 smaller wounds came first, the large wound came last and once it was dealt, she died. Does that answer your question, Harry, or are you going to go on about how he should have said that the sternum wound killed her? If so, it seems he thought that the bleeding caused by that wound was what sealed the deal.

Another question.If the killer intended to stab Tabram in the heart,how did the killer know the 39th wound had penetrated the sternum and gone into the heart? Even Killeen had to open her up before he knew.

It was called a "great gaping wound" and "certainly the largest and deepest of them all" before Killeens post mortem, Harry. Maybe that had something to do with the enigma. Or maybe it was a simple matter of the killer seeing and feeling that the blade passed a good ten inches or so into the body?
Then again, Harry, we actually do not know that the killer even wanted to pierce the heart. It is only a (very likely) assumption that the sternum wound was a coup de grace, it is something we accept as the probable truth.
Does that answer this question of yours? And why do you ask me questions if your aim was never to accept my answers? Of course, I donīt KNOW that this is so - it is just another occasion of me making a very likely assumption.

I'll continue when I have had answers to these questions.

No doubt you will. Get it overwith quickly, please, Iīm on vacation next week.

[harry]

Fisherman.No,I haven't seen you claim you saw the wounds,and I have not seen any contempory reports that it was a 'Great gaping wound',and I have seen nothing that suggests it was a 'Great gaping wound'.It is these kind of lies and distortions that you keep resorting to ,that I despise.I asked for official reports.You instead trot out the same useless hearsay.So yes i've made it quick.
A lot of maybe's now I see,where before it was forcefull assertions,and it's bled to death,instead of the effects due to the Sternum wound.How quickly you change tact when you are shown to be wrong.Yes, the Sternum wound would have killed her,but when?How long after it was delivered?Taking into account Tabram had 38 other wounds,those may have killed her too,but the most probable cause was that she bled to death by a combination of all wounds.So the question of when the sternum wound was delivered is as unanswerable now as it always has been,and the fact that it could have been anyone of the blows delivered,makes nonsense of a two weapon attack.
So you can go holidaying whenever you like,or stay and be made more of a fool.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.No,I haven't seen you claim you saw the wounds,and I have not seen any contempory reports that it was a 'Great gaping wound',and I have seen nothing that suggests it was a 'Great gaping wound'.

Then you should read the temporary reports again. All of them this time.

It is these kind of lies and distortions that you keep resorting to ,that I despise.

Thatīs it, youīre out. Iīve had it with you and your moronic accusations. Believing, as you seemingly do, that you can make me look like a fool is arguably the most laughable matter you have posted so far - and God knows you have provided extremely hard competition for the title!

And I will go holidaying, alright. Leīs hope somebody has sprayed the site with vermin poison by the time I return.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

But was Philips pressed in any way to defend his conclusions?

c.d.

Some opinions would not be from the man directly involved in the post mortems, Phillips wasnt the man of record on Marys or Kates. He was consulted though, due to his experience with these recent atrocities.

In Killeens case I believe its only fair to challenge what appears to be a fairly straightforward opinion about how many weapons were likely used and their rough comparative sizes based on what rj alluded to. Does there exist some reason why we need to look sideways at Killeens comments, based upon some errors in the past, or a less than competent record? I am not aware of such material myself, if it exists, it would factor into this discussion.

As it stands I believe its most probable that Killeen correctly identified wounds made by differently sized weapons.

And back to that nagging question...the real one...does 2 weapons mean 2 men?

[MrBarnett]

Good points all, Fish.

It was a particularly vicious attack. As was that on Emma Smith, and some point to the location/victimology/sexual aspect/viciousness/timing to include her in the Ripper’s tally. No knife, people counter. His MO/signature was developing is the response.

But then we see there was an almost identical attack - a stick used in the same revolting way - a few years before and not far away and the comparisons to that case are stronger than those between Smith and Tabram. A group of men were responsible for the earlier attack, the girl was held down by some of them while another assaulted her with the stick. And that is very similar to how Smith describe the attack on her.

I think there was room in LVP Whitechapel for more than one vicious, knife-wielding killer. It’s when we see examples of bodies being ripped open and innards being removed that I draw the line and opt for them being committed by the same person.

BTW, the blind attacker hasn’t yet been ID’d as Fogarty. They were both vicious blind laces sellers who operated in Spitalfields. Fogarty clearly had mental issues (he married Pearly Poll!) and occasionally invited arrest. On one occasion he asked whether there was a policeman nearby and when he was told there was, he put his fist through a plate glass window. On another occasion he lashed out at a young girl with his stick and when he was arrested he threatened to do the same to the arresting PC.

[MrBarnett]

Some opinions would not be from the man directly involved in the post mortems, Phillips wasnt the man of record on Marys or Kates. He was consulted though, due to his experience with these recent atrocities.

In Killeens case I believe its only fair to challenge what appears to be a fairly straightforward opinion about how many weapons were likely used and their rough comparative sizes based on what rj alluded to. Does there exist some reason why we need to look sideways at Killeens comments, based upon some errors in the past, or a less than competent record? I am not aware of such material myself, if it exists, it would factor into this discussion.

As it stands I believe its most probable that Killeen correctly identified wounds made by differently sized weapons.

And back to that nagging question...the real one...does 2 weapons mean 2 men?

The one thing we can point to is that Killeen possibly had no record at all as far as PMs, particularly ones on knife victims, were concerned. He had his medical training, but there are certain question marks about how strong a grounding in pathology he would have received in Dublin.

I think we can safely say that he was by far the least experienced and very likely the least well trained of all the medical men who cast their eyes over the bodies of the WM victims.