Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

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.

Why do I get this eerie feeling of déja vu...? Yes, Gary, Killeen will most certainly have been the doctor involved in the Whitechapel murders who had the least experience.

Then again, then again...:

- He may have had the easiest task of them all, deciding whether the sternum wound to Tabram was deliver by the same blade as the other 38 wounds, and...

- ...he may have been the doctor most up top date on these things, seeing as his education was the freshest one.

There are many factors to weigh in, and we do not know the specific weight in one case: the appearance of the wounds.

[MrBarnett]

Why do I get this eerie feeling of déja vu...? Yes, Gary, Killeen will most certainly have been the doctor involved in the Whitechapel murders who had the least experience.

Then again, then again...:

- He may have had the easiest task of them all, deciding whether the sternum wound to Tabram was deliver by the same blade as the other 38 wounds, and...

- ...he may have been the doctor most up top date on these things, seeing as his education was the freshest one.

There are many factors to weigh in, and we do not know the specific weight in one case: the appearance of the wounds.

Ah, I hadn’t realised that repetition was frowned upon. I‘ll keep an eye open for it in future.

The freshest part of Killeen’s education was his training at the Coombe maternity hospital, the one that was accused of giving out diplomas with the tea and biscuits. ;-) His other qualifications were gained in Dublin at a time when it was said that practical training in pathology was very poor there. It seems he’d only been in Whitechapel a few months when he performed the PM on Tabram. But perhaps he was more up to date on practical pathology than his far more experienced colleagues. Anything’s possible.

[Fisherman]

Ah, I hadn’t realised that repetition was frowned upon. I‘ll keep an eye open for it in future.

Yes, do. Yes, do. Yes, do. Really do.

The freshest part of Killeen’s education was his training at the Coombe maternity hospital, the one that was accused of giving out diplomas with the tea and biscuits. ;-) His other qualifications were gained in Dublin at a time when it was said that practical training in pathology was very poor there. It seems he’d only been in Whitechapel a few months when he performed the PM on Tabram. But perhaps he was more up to date on practical pathology than his far more experienced colleagues. Anything’s possible.

On these boards, yes!

[Michael W Richards]

I don't see lack of field expertise as an obstacle to determining the size of a weapon used on a victim though Mr Barnett. Im sure that lack of specific experience may have caused him to be unsure whether a single wound was caused by a double edged blade...for example 2 stabs in the same spot from alternate angles could look like double edges made one stab....that kind of thing. But again, we are talking about determining wounds made by a pen knife, an innocuous folding pocket knife that should have been fairly consistent in wound depths, to one that was substantially larger than that and had penetrated much deeper that the average pocket knife could...

This isn't a litmus test on his abilities in general, its discussion about whether he could tell the difference between a small folding knife wound and one he felt compelled to describe as a "dagger" or bayonet. I have zero experience with this, and I feel I could differentiate between small and large pretty easily. As to assigning specific types or names to the blades, maybe his lack of experience might factor in there. Dagger or Bayonet covers a pretty broad spectrum of blades...I think he just knew that it was larger.

[harry]

The difference between the smallest dagger and the largest penknife is what?

[MrBarnett]

The difference between the smallest dagger and the largest penknife is what?

The length and the profile of the blade?

[MrBarnett]

There were certainly some issues with the teaching of pathology in Dublin while Killeen was studying there. Here’s an attempt to deny the accusation that the teaching of pathology was “totally and confessedly non-existent” in Dublin in the late 1880s. King and Queens College, where Killeen trained, doesn’t even get a mention.


From The Lancet 18th February, 1888:

[MrBarnett]

I don't see lack of field expertise as an obstacle to determining the size of a weapon used on a victim though Mr Barnett. Im sure that lack of specific experience may have caused him to be unsure whether a single wound was caused by a double edged blade...for example 2 stabs in the same spot from alternate angles could look like double edges made one stab....that kind of thing. But again, we are talking about determining wounds made by a pen knife, an innocuous folding pocket knife that should have been fairly consistent in wound depths, to one that was substantially larger than that and had penetrated much deeper that the average pocket knife could...

This isn't a litmus test on his abilities in general, its discussion about whether he could tell the difference between a small folding knife wound and one he felt compelled to describe as a "dagger" or bayonet. I have zero experience with this, and I feel I could differentiate between small and large pretty easily. As to assigning specific types or names to the blades, maybe his lack of experience might factor in there. Dagger or Bayonet covers a pretty broad spectrum of blades...I think he just knew that it was larger.

Both Killeen and Hewitt perceived a difference in the size of the heart wound. But perhaps neither of them was aware that wounds from the same knife might appear different depending on where they were inflicted and with how much force.

A doctor with little or no pathological training or experience might have been as clueless as a layman in that respect.

A Dr doesn’t gain pathological insight when he receives his diploma, he gains it through training and subsequent experience. There is a question mark over whether, in August, 1888, Killeen would have had much of either.

But I fear I may be repeating myself...

[rjpalmer]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

[MrBarnett]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

Hi RJ,

Both Killeen and Francis Hewitt singled the heart wound out for special mention. Hewitt reportedly described it as ‘great’. If you are speaking about a body exhibiting 39 wounds and you describe just of them as ‘great’, there’s a fair chance that the other 38 were not so ‘great’, I’d have thought.

Gary

[Michael W Richards]

The difference between the smallest dagger and the largest penknife is what?

If you have to ask that I can see why you might assume either of them would make the same wound. Categorically, they would not. I dont care who says its difficult to tell the difference between those 2 kinds of wounds, it isnt.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Gary - Understood, but I think we are treading water. A 'great' wound and a series of smaller "frightful" wounds can be inflicted with the same weapon.

Further, the article quoting Hewitt also states the other wounds (plural) were inflicted with 'great force'...and even suggests a bayonet.

"Frightful"..."great force"... a "bayonet"...wounds that we know penetrated the rib cage...

I'm not seeing anything that indicates that the difference between the wounds was obvious and beyond dispute.

And it's not me suggesting caution and skepticism..it's Dr. Biggs, Dr. Rivello, etc.

Perhaps there was more...we have no actual medical report...but a strict reading of Killeen's inquest statement indicates that the blade's ability to break through the sternum was what differentiated that wound from the others.

Is that enough?

[harry]

19 August 1898,Joseph Bryan was killed by a single thrust to the abdomen.The weapon,produced in court,was referred to as both a penknfe and knife.He was killed in view of witnesses.
One internet site states a distance of only 2 inches between the outer layer of skin and the heart.Not implying that was the case with Tabram,but I believe,as the article states,most people imagine a much greater distance.

[harry]

I made an error.I should have checked first.The wound I described was of another person involved in the same incident.He recovered.
Joseph Bryan received a wound across the chest which penetrated to the heart.Both however had been attacked by the accused.Only the one weapon was used,and it was as described in the above post.

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone can argue that "the difference between the wounds was obvious!"--so obvious that even a complete novice could tell the difference--but there is nothing in the record to show that the differences WERE obvious; only that Killeen thought the one wound to the sternum was different than the others.

Meanwhile, we have modern forensic experts stating that such assumptions are commonplace and often turn out to be erroneous.

Im not sure these modern "experts" are qualified to comment on wounds that they very little specific description of...depth of each wound, width, girth, length, angle of puncture, ...all those measurable attributes. Secondly, they have no visuals. Thirdly, most of these medical experts would not be familiar with knives available to all in the area at that time.

In 2008 there was a stabbing murder in Calgary. The police thought that all the stabs, 37 of them, were made by a butcher knife from the block in the kitchen that the killer had by him when they arrived. It was later discovered that in fact 3 different knives were used. So much for modern experts there.