Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[MrBarnett]

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

The length and the profile of the blade?

[harry]

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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

That´s it, you´re out. I´ve 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. Le´s hope somebody has sprayed the site with vermin poison by the time I return.

[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]

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 can´t tell how deep they were, we can´t tell how wide they were, we can´t 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 don´t 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, I´m on vacation next week.

[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 Foggy´s 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 Fogarty´s 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 didn´t 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 ...

[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.

[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.