Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

It’s somewhat telling that Swanson didn’t even know how to spell ‘Killeen’.

Touché - a pointe.

[Fisherman]

Nor, I think, should we automatically assume that a very inexperienced doctor who went on to have a seemingly mediocre career can be relied upon to supply us with a sound description of the weapon(s) that caused Martha’s injuries.

Well, then thatīs where we differ somewhat. Personally, I think that the starting point must always be that a professional is very much more likely to know what he is talking about than the other way around. And to me, that is not affected by how it may "seem" that he possibly had a "mediocre career". I would want to have factually based material telling us that Killeen was mediocre in any way, and there is no such material at hand.

It does not mean that I categorically rule out that he - or indeed any doctor, regardless of the level of experience - could have been wrong on many matters. Nor does it mean that I think that Killeens youth and relative inexperience cannot be used to make points. But it does mean that I will not put as much faith in such points as I put faith in Killeen knowing his trade.

At the end of the day, I think Killeens first assumption when he saw that he was dealing with a victim of stabbing must have been that the stabs were likely dealt with the same weapon, all of them. It takes a significant portion of inherent dissimilarities before such a stance is dissolved. Making the call Killeen made goes against logic (which is probably why people tend to disbelieve him in the first place), and to me, that tells a story of Killeen having checked thoroughly before definitively ruling out that a single blade was used. And quite possibly, he may have discussed the matter with colleagues of his if he felt in any way uncertain about it - although such a thing is not in evidence, of course.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary -- Dr. Killen's deposition, given in The Times, is the most important source, of course. But Killen's phrase is ever-so-slightly ambiguous. "The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

This is usually taken to mean that Killen is suggesting that two different weapons were used, but could he simply have been thinking out loud? To me, Killeen might only mean that, in judging between a knife and a dagger (he is uncertain which), the sternum wound suggests the latter, as a pen-knife couldn't have done it. He sounds a little uncertain and is hedging his bet. He hasn't had very much experience in these sorts of things, being a GP out of medical school, so how could it be otherwise?

When Swanson summarizes Killeen in a report filed in September, he doesn't refer to any theory of two knives.

"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Knife OR dagger...not knife AND dagger. This would be have been a very important distinction in an unsolved crime, would it not? Would Swanson have been so loose in his description had he believed the two weapon theory? He doesn't even allude to it. He refers to uncertainty about the ONE weapon.

Well, Killeen makes no bones about it:

"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument." (Times)

"death was due to hemorrhage and loss of blood...except for the wound on the chest bone, all injuries seem to have been inflicted by a right-handed person, using a penknife; the stab wound to the heart might have been made by a dagger or bayonet by a left-handed person". (Manchester Guardian)

What I tend to think is that a pen-knife is typically single-edged whereas a dagger and/or a bayonet will normally be double-edged, and I think this may be (in part, at least) what led Killeen to think of those kinds of blades.

As for Swanson, I donīt think that we should read too much into his choice of "or" over "and". To begin with, as per Killeen, the wounds WERE inflicted by either a pen-knife or a dagger - the 38 lesser ones by pen-knife and the larger one by a dagger, so the wording as such works regardless of which term is used. It also applies that Swanson could be a tad sloppy in his reports. He says on the 19:th of September that Charles Cross found Nicholsī body, whereafter Paul joined him. But a month later, he says that the body was found by Cross AND Paul, which is not true - and he knew it was not true, as proven by his earlier report. Likewise, he says that Phillips proposed a TOD for Chapman of 4.30, but to be fair, Phillips said that it COULD (only just) be 4.30, but it was probably earlier.
In conclusion, there is not enough in it in any way to claim that Swanson entertained an idea of one blade only in the Tabram attack.

[MrBarnett]

It is definitely worth pondering about. But as long as we do not have the answer, we cannot use this knowledge to implicate Killeen as being out of his depth when working on Tabram, thatīs what I am trying to say.

Nor, I think, should we automatically assume that a very inexperienced doctor who went on to have a seemingly mediocre career can be relied upon to supply us with a sound description of the weapon(s) that caused Martha’s injuries.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary -- Dr. Killen's deposition, given in The Times, is the most important source, of course. But Killen's phrase is ever-so-slightly ambiguous. "The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

This is usually taken to mean that Killen is suggesting that two different weapons were used, but could he simply have been thinking out loud? To me, Killeen might only mean that, in judging between a knife and a dagger (he is uncertain which), the sternum wound suggests the latter, as a pen-knife couldn't have done it. He sounds a little uncertain and is hedging his bet. He hasn't had very much experience in these sorts of things, being a GP out of medical school, so how could it be otherwise?

When Swanson summarizes Killeen in a report filed in September, he doesn't refer to any theory of two knives.

"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Knife OR dagger...not knife AND dagger. This would be have been a very important distinction in an unsolved crime, would it not? Would Swanson have been so loose in his description had he believed the two weapon theory? He doesn't even allude to it. He refers to uncertainty about the ONE weapon.

It’s somewhat telling that Swanson didn’t even know how to spell ‘Killeen’.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Reading your post, one might get the impression that I have an agenda to convince people of Killeen’s incompetence.

Then I will quickly add that I had no such intention whatsoever, Gary - I think you have been your own discerning self throughout. But on a general level, I think that the medicos involved in the case are too often attacked on unsound grounds.

I’m sure that wasn’t your intention and of course it’s not the case.

Indeed!

I’m just struck by how inexperienced Killeen was when he conducted the PM on Tabram and how unremarkable his subsequent career seems to have been. When he died in 1912 he left a paltry Ģ302, and the executor of his will was a local farmer in the area of rural Clare where he came from. The fact that after studying in Dublin and spending a very short time in London he then returned to Ireland to live with his mother and minister to the needs of a remote farming community must tell us something. But what?

Did he lack ambition?

Did he have such strong emotional ties to his own people in rural Clare that he rejected the possibilities for financial and professional advancement that were on offer in London?

Or was he just not up to making a success of things in the Metropolis?

I imagine we’ll never know, but it’s something we should consider, I feel.

Gary

It is definitely worth pondering about. But as long as we do not have the answer, we cannot use this knowledge to implicate Killeen as being out of his depth when working on Tabram, thatīs what I am trying to say.

[MrBarnett]

---

This is somewhat topical.

One one occasion in 1898, Killeen was convicted of allowing his dogs to ‘lie at large on the public road... without being efficiently muzzled.’

Presumably the muzzling regulations were in place to prevent the spread of rabies.

[Fisherman]

"Shallow cuts" is somewhat understating it, isn't it, Fish? The lungs were penetrated 7 times, the spleen, liver, etc. were all pierced. Had I received any of these cuts to my own body, I think I might hunt for a different description than 'shallow' while shouting at the ambulance driver to step on the gas

Yes, of course "shallow" is a poor choice of words. If the word should have been used at all, I should have written "shallower". Then again, "smaller" wounds would have been preferable.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Gary -- Dr. Killen's deposition, given in The Times, is the most important source, of course. But Killen's phrase is ever-so-slightly ambiguous. "The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone."

This is usually taken to mean that Killen is suggesting that two different weapons were used, but could he simply have been thinking out loud? To me, Killeen might only mean that, in judging between a knife and a dagger (he is uncertain which), the sternum wound suggests the latter, as a pen-knife couldn't have done it. He sounds a little uncertain and is hedging his bet. He hasn't had very much experience in these sorts of things, being a GP out of medical school, so how could it be otherwise?

When Swanson summarizes Killeen in a report filed in September, he doesn't refer to any theory of two knives.

"Dr. Keeling [sic] of 68 Brick Lane was called, and examined the body and found thirty nine wounds on the body, and neck, and private part with a knife or dagger."

Knife OR dagger...not knife AND dagger. This would be have been a very important distinction in an unsolved crime, would it not? Would Swanson have been so loose in his description had he believed the two weapon theory? He doesn't even allude to it. He refers to uncertainty about the ONE weapon.

[MrBarnett]

"Shallow cuts" is somewhat understating it, isn't it, Fish? The lungs were penetrated 7 times, the spleen, liver, etc. were all pierced. Had I received any of these cuts to my own body, I think I might hunt for a different description than 'shallow' while shouting at the ambulance driver to step on the gas

Hi RJ,

Yes, I’m not sure it was the depth of the wounds per se that was significant. It was the fact that the weapon that caused the fatal heart wound had punched through the breast bone. Killeen thought the other 38 wounds had been (or could have been) caused by a knife, but something more substantial had caused the fatal wound. In his wording ‘I think’ ‘some kind of’ he seems uncertain as to exactly what kind of weapon had caused that wound.

Gary

[rjpalmer]

he is subjected to seems to rest on personal takes on things, like for example how many people reason that only one blade was used, shallowly on 38 occasions and deeply on the 39:th. Personally, I believe that Kileen will have traced the apparition of the deep wound and simply excluded that this blade could have been responsible for the 38 shallow cuts.

"Shallow cuts" is somewhat understating it, isn't it, Fish? The lungs were penetrated 7 times, the spleen, liver, etc. were all pierced. Had I received any of these cuts to my own body, I think I might hunt for a different description than 'shallow' while shouting at the ambulance driver to step on the gas

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

Reading your post, one might get the impression that I have an agenda to convince people of Killeen’s incompetence. I’m sure that wasn’t your intention and of course it’s not the case. I’m just struck by how inexperienced Killeen was when he conducted the PM on Tabram and how unremarkable his subsequent career seems to have been. When he died in 1912 he left a paltry Ģ302, and the executor of his will was a local farmer in the area of rural Clare where he came from. The fact that after studying in Dublin and spending a very short time in London he then returned to Ireland to live with his mother and minister to the needs of a remote farming community must tell us something. But what?

Did he lack ambition?

Did he have such strong emotional ties to his own people in rural Clare that he rejected the possibilities for financial and professional advancement that were on offer in London?

Or was he just not up to making a success of things in the Metropolis?

I imagine we’ll never know, but it’s something we should consider, I feel.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Killeen was a professional. Professionals are the best sources we have. Of course, just like Mr Barnett says, inexperienced professionals will be more at risk to get things wrong than experienced ones, generally speaking. But overall, unless we have clear pointers to Killeen having gotten things wrong, the wiser thing is to trust him. Generally speaking (once again), he is much more likely to be right than wrong.

Do we have any clear pointers to Killeen having gotten things wrong? Apart from the pregnancy matter, that is, where it was always going to be hard to determine matters, generally speaking (yes, again!). It may well be that the difficulty to make that call differs much from woman to woman. Since Killeen said that he could find no trace of childbirth instead of categorically stating that no childbirth had taken place, I find it kind of puts him in the clear.

Are there any other matters where we can claim that Kileen will probably have been wrong, based on what he said and how he put it? I find that many times, the critique he is subjected to seems to rest on personal takes on things, like for example how many people reason that only one blade was used, shallowly on 38 occasions and deeply on the 39:th. Personally, I believe that Kileen will have traced the apparition of the deep wound and simply excluded that this blade could have been responsible for the 38 shallow cuts.

Of course, anybody making a case against the bid of two blades will jump on Killeens youth and relative inexperience, but in my world, the better guess must always be that he was right.

[MrBarnett]

I’ve only been able to find three cases involving Killeen in the British press: the Tabram case, the case of the ‘dusty’ new-born posted by David O (Orsam?) on here, and an even more disturbing case of the death of a small child where it was suggested that her mother may have starved her to death to collect on her life insurance. Killeen had examined the child shortly before her death but refused to issue a death certificate. All three of these cases occurred in 1888, that of Tabram being the earliest.

Bearing in mind that Killeen obtained his LM qualification in Dublin in 1887, and that his address in the 1890 medical directory was his family home in County Clare, it’s possible that his sojourn in Whitechapel was very short indeed, possibly a matter of months. And it’s also possible that the Tabram PM was the first he had ever carried out.

Of course, even if it had been, it doesn’t automatically follow that he made a bad job of it. But his obvious lack of experience is something to bear in mind.