Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[MrBarnett]

It is. I try to free myself from a suspicion that it all could boil down to Tabram belonging to a class of people who may not have been looked upon as worthy of too much work on behalf of the authorities. In that vein, maybe it can be argued that Killeen was also a cheapskate solution to a costly problem, I donīt know. It does not automatically mean, though, that Killeen was not quaified to do the job.

I’m pretty sure the absence of any medical information on the death certificate had nothing to do with Martha’s position in society. I’ve seen a good many death certs of the poorest of the poor in the East End and I can’t recall one than provided no medical cause of death. I’ll have a check through my files later to see if I’ve forgotten any.

So we’re left with three possibilities, I think:

An oversight on the part of Baxter or his office.

An uncertainty as to what the cause of death actually was.

A mistake by the registrar.

[Fisherman]

It’s curious that when the coroner’s office issued Martha’s death certificate, it contained no medical information whatsoever. It merely stated that her cause of death was:

Violent Wilful
Murder against
some person or
persons unknown

Compare that to the death certs of the C5. It’s odd, right?

It is. I try to free myself from a suspicion that it all could boil down to Tabram belonging to a class of people who may not have been looked upon as worthy of too much work on behalf of the authorities. In that vein, maybe it can be argued that Killeen was also a cheapskate solution to a costly problem, I donīt know. It does not automatically mean, though, that Killeen was not quaified to do the job.

[Fisherman]

To support her comment, Cornwell cites a case from Germany where a table knife was said to have penetrated a woman’s sternum ‘...as if it were butter. The edges of the wound indicated that the table knife cleanly penetrated the bone once and went through the right lung, the pericardium, and the aorta.’ Are table knives significantly stronger than penknives/‘ordinary’ knives?

I think I’m right in saying that currently in the UK it takes five and a half years for someone with an existing medical background to qualify as a consultant forensic pathologist. Clearly the opinions of a newly qualified GP would not be as informed as those who had trained in the field for several years. They would be more likely to get things wrong than a fully qualified and more experienced pathologist. Or else why bother with the 5 1/2 years of training?

It’s not just the question of whether one or two weapons was used on Tabram that is important, perhaps even more so is whether the type of weapon/s narrows the suspect field in some way.

Every year, I visit the beautiful city of Copenhagen. This year, it seems like it may be difficult to cross the border, and so the Danes will perhaps need to find out a way to extract my my money without getting myself at the same time. Danes are clever, so I suppose they will find a way.
However, what I wanted to say was that on my yearly visit to Copenhagen, I always visit a restaurant called "LīEducation Nationale" on Larsbjörnsstraede, to eat their sumptuous entrecote. If you ever go there, donīt miss it! Now, when I sit down at the table, the dish arrives with cutlery involving a formidable knife. The staff even takes care to warn me that it is extremely sharp. It is also sturdy and wide - and it is a table knife. The blade is at least five inches, sturdy and rock hard.

I formerly asked what an "ordinary knife" is. Now, what is a "table knife"? They come in all sorts of shapes and strengths, Gary! The one thing that binds them together, though, is that they are all made out of stainless steel. Which was invented in 1913! And which will normally not break. It may bend, but it will not break. And the knife from Līeducation Nationale is not likely to bend unless thrust by a grizzly against a tank. So in answer to your question whether a table knife is stronger than ordinary knives, Iīd say that it may very well be. AND less susceptible to breaking!

The blades back in 1888 were made out of carbon steel. Which will normally not bend, but it certainly will break! Normal knives, for normal people were normally not made out of the best steel available either. Thus they often broke. Comparing them to todays cutlery in terms of durability of the steel is comparing widely different matters.

I note that you tell me that it is not just about the question of one or two blades (which is no question at all, to my mind), but also about the type of blade/s used, since it may help us to make a better call if we obtain knowledge about it.
I agree about that - but I donīt think Killeen is much help. He was not adamant about the type in either case, one was "an ordinary knife" or "pen knife", seemingly of small dimensions, and that is a very wide description. The same goes for the larger blade, some sort of "dagger or bayonet", long and strong. That too is a wide description. How on earth can we narrow that down?

[MrBarnett]

It’s curious that when the coroner’s office issued Martha’s death certificate, it contained no medical information whatsoever. It merely stated that her cause of death was:

Violent Wilful
Murder against
some person or
persons unknown

Compare that to the death certs of the C5. It’s odd, right?

[MrBarnett]

For what it’s worth, Patricia Cornwell did not agree with Killeen’s assessment.

‘A penetration of the sternum does not merit the emphasis Dr Killeen gave it. A sharp-pointed knife can penetrate bone, including the skull.’

So if part of his reasoning was that an ‘ordinary knife’ was insufficient to the task, he was perhaps mistaken in that respect.

To support her comment, Cornwell cites a case from Germany where a table knife was said to have penetrated a woman’s sternum ‘...as if it were butter. The edges of the wound indicated that the table knife cleanly penetrated the bone once and went through the right lung, the pericardium, and the aorta.’ Are table knives significantly stronger than penknives/‘ordinary’ knives?

I think I’m right in saying that currently in the UK it takes five and a half years for someone with an existing medical background to qualify as a consultant forensic pathologist. Clearly the opinions of a newly qualified GP would not be as informed as those who had trained in the field for several years. They would be more likely to get things wrong than a fully qualified and more experienced pathologist. Or else why bother with the 5 1/2 years of training?

It’s not just the question of whether one or two weapons was used on Tabram that is important, perhaps even more so is whether the type of weapon/s narrows the suspect field in some way.

[Fisherman]

For what it’s worth, Patricia Cornwell did not agree with Killeen’s assessment.

‘A penetration of the sternum does not merit the emphasis Dr Killeen gave it. A sharp-pointed knife can penetrate bone, including the skull.’

So if part of his reasoning was that an ‘ordinary knife’ was insufficient to the task, he was perhaps mistaken in that respect.

The first question this poses is this one: What is "an ordinary knife"?

I have little doubt that a sharp-pointed knife CAN penetrate the sternum if enough force is applied, and if the blade is tough and sturdy enough. It goes without saying, more or less.

However, I am equally certain that a frail and smallish blade will not penetrate the sternum.

So what I feel Killeen is saying is that the blade used for the 38 wounds was so small as to make him believe that it could not have penetrated the sternum. It was spoken of a pen-knife, and pen-knifes are typically not the strongest of knives.

At the end of the day, what is of importance here is not whether "an ordinary knife" (whatever that is ...?) can penetrate the sternum, but instead whether or not Killeen was able to establish that two blades were used when stabbing Tabram. And as I have said a few times by now, if the appearance of the wounds had been the same throughout, then Killeen would of course not have reasoned that the sternum stab was inflicted by another weapon. What he instead says is that no knife would have produced the kind of hole he saw in the sternum. That puts the matter to rest, the way I see things.

[MrBarnett]

For what it’s worth, Patricia Cornwell did not agree with Killeen’s assessment.

‘A penetration of the sternum does not merit the emphasis Dr Killeen gave it. A sharp-pointed knife can penetrate bone, including the skull.’

So if part of his reasoning was that an ‘ordinary knife’ was insufficient to the task, he was perhaps mistaken in that respect.

[Fisherman]

It just reinforces how inexperienced he was. The first time we hear of him is in connection with the Tabram case, and one of the most prominent East London papers, which regularly covers local inquests, gets his name wrong. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a post mortem on someone killed with a knife. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a PM full stop.

In most fields of endeavour people become more adept at what they do through experience.

When I consider Killeen’s ‘thoughts’ on the nature of the weapons used to attack Martha, I bear that in mind.

Yes, he was inexperienced. But I donīt think anybody has disagreed on that point? Nor would anybody suggest that Killeen could not have been wrong on matters, generally speaking. I know I wouldnīt, at least.

But that does not mean that he would have been more likely than not to get things wrong, and THAT is my whole point. If we speak of inexperience, we should also consider things like how the younger members of a profession often are at the forefront of knowledge, since their training has taken advantage of the latest information, for example.

Basically, establishing the character of a blade that has passed through flesh is a question of employing your eyesight and a measuring tool. In the case at hand, there were 38 wounds where Killeen considered them so alike in character that he believed that they had been inflicted by the same blade. That means that they were at the very least of the same general width, and quite possibly, most or all of them extended to roughly the same depth too, although one must take the "compressability" of the part that has been stabbed into account - but I think Killeen would have been quite aware of that too. Overall, these 38 wounds would have made a cluster with large inherent similarities.

Then we have the unlucky fact that Killeen did not say "the wound to the sternum looks totally different than the 38 others" but instead "a pen-knife type of weapon like the one I believe was responsible for the other 38 wounds, could not have travelled through the sternum". He gives us information that he thinks further reinforces his view of two weapons, and forgets to mention the real clincher - the visible differences.
As I said before, if the sternum hole looked the same as the other 38 holes, then why would he not think that they were inflicted with the same weapon??? It makes no sense whatsoever. Therefore, much as we do not know the exact measurements or the exact character of the wounds, we CAN conclude that they MUST have looked dissimilar. And if they did, then the only logical conclusion must be that they were made by different blades. Killeen spoke of a "long, strong" blade for the sternum wound, and that means that it must have had significantly more mass than the smaller blade. It probably also penetrated the body to a greater depth than the smaller blade, otherwise why would he say that it was long?

Actually, in the ELO, Killeen does say that the wound on the sternum DID look dissmilar to the other 38 ones:

"The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound, I should think, would have been inflicted with some form of a dagger."

These are fairly basic matters to my mind, and I consider any idea that the blade was the same in all 39 stabs more or less poorly grounded, Iīm afraid. I would not want to prioritize the idea that Killeens inexperience probably made him get it wrong over the suggestion that he was in all probability right, quite simply. And I am not saying that you propose it either. You may well be pointing to a possibility, not a probability, and thatīs fine by me, although until such a possibility becomes a probability, I personally donīt think it makes much difference.

I think that covers what I have to say on the matter quite well.

[MrBarnett]

Probably, yes. So the impression we get is that Killeen had not made an impression in the area at that point in time. But he was new, he was young and he may not have stayed on for more than months, was that not what you said?
So why would he have made an impression? And in what way would it reflect on his ability to tell one wound from another if he had not?

Thereīs just not enough in it to make that kind of a call the way I see things, Gary.

It just reinforces how inexperienced he was. The first time we hear of him is in connection with the Tabram case, and one of the most prominent East London papers, which regularly covers local inquests, gets his name wrong. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a post mortem on someone killed with a knife. It’s quite possible that this was the first time he had ever carried out a PM full stop.

In most fields of endeavour people become more adept at what they do through experience.

When I consider Killeen’s ‘thoughts’ on the nature of the weapons used to attack Martha, I bear that in mind.

[Fisherman]

But we’re talking about the ELO here, a local newspaper that covered local events in great detail. If Killeen had made an impression in the area, the ELO would probably have got his name right.

Probably, yes. So the impression we get is that Killeen had not made an impression in the area at that point in time. But he was new, he was young and he may not have stayed on for more than months, was that not what you said?
So why would he have made an impression? And in what way would it reflect on his ability to tell one wound from another if he had not?

Thereīs just not enough in it to make that kind of a call the way I see things, Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Others made that spelling mistake - and numerous others - too. But I find it somewhat more understandable when a paper does it than when Swanson does. We all accept that the paper reports were written under stress and with no demand to get every letter correct; they are supposed to give as good an account as possible of what went down. The police reports, however, are supposed to be an exact narrative of the proceedings.

Not that I make the mistake of taking the police reports as gospel, mind you ...,

But we’re talking about the ELO here, a local newspaper that covered local events in great detail. If Killeen had made an impression in the area, the ELO would probably have got his name right.

[Fisherman]

Makes sense to me, Fish, but I would add that the shape of the weapon may also have played a part in its effectiveness. A thin, pointed weapon would have worked best, I would have thought.

Yes, the thinner, the better - as long as it has the sturdiness to do the job. But apparently, the 38-stab-blade did not have that sturdiness, whereas the single stab blade did. And equally apparently, the shapes of the holes produced by these blades were different. Therefore, there must have been two blades at work.

If the holes made by the blades had NOT differed in apparition, then Killeen must have drawn the VERY odd conclusion that the chest hole must have been produced by as thin a knife as the others, but with a better quality blade. And even if he was that dumb, then why woud not the 38 stabs also have been made with the high quality blade if they all were the same size...?

[Fisherman]

We can perhaps excuse Swanson for not knowing how to spell the surname of an East End GP, but the East London Observer made the same mistake.

Others made that spelling mistake - and numerous others - too. But I find it somewhat more understandable when a paper does it than when Swanson does. We all accept that the paper reports were written under stress and with no demand to get every letter correct; they are supposed to give as good an account as possible of what went down. The police reports, however, are supposed to be an exact narrative of the proceedings.

Not that I make the mistake of taking the police reports as gospel, mind you ...,

[MrBarnett]

Touché - a pointe.

We can perhaps excuse Swanson for not knowing how to spell the surname of an East End GP, but the East London Observer made the same mistake.

[MrBarnett]

There were 38 wounds that were caused by the "pen-knife". That was a lot of material to use for Killeen to establish the width and the thickness of the blade. Killeen will reaasonably have known these measurements quite well.

If the wound through the sternum had had the same type of width and thickness, then of course Killeen could not have said that the kind of blade that caused the other 38 wounds could not possibly penetrate the sternum, for the simple reason that he would have had clear evidence that it not only COULD do so, but actually HAD done it!

Ergo, the hole through the sternum gave away a very different width and thickness of the blade - enough to make the penetration, as it were.

In the end, what decides if a blade can pass through the sternum are three matters (provided that the thrust is always the same).

1. The thickness of the material in the blade.
2. The toughness of the material in the blade.
3. The toughness of the sternum.

If the measurements of the lesser blade allowed for passing through the sternum, provided the material of the blade was tough enough, then Killeen would not have said that it could not do so. Therefore, the measurements of that blade gave away that REGARDLESS of the quality of the steel, it was simply too thin to pass through the sternum.

That is how I see the matter.

Makes sense to me, Fish, but I would add that the shape of the weapon may also have played a part in its effectiveness. A thin, pointed weapon would have worked best, I would have thought.