The Use of the Knife

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

You know, I've read the descriptions of the victims you're talking about. I haven't read anything about scraped knees and hands.

Nor, indeed, scraped paving stones in the vicinity of the neck. Not that I expect that to have been reported on, necessarily, but the one thing that bugs me about the "cut throat on ground" idea is this:

How can you use a 6-8" knife to make a continuous incision around the (4" deep) neck of someone who's lying on a hard surface, without "spragging" the blade against the stones? How, for that matter, do you avoid dislocating your wrist as you use the "heel" of the blade to cut the near-side of the neck in such a manner?

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcolm,

A point you made that caught me was the suggestion he grabs them by the throat. It appears we do have evidence of choking with a few victims...but we do not have bruises or finger marks that the doctors could detect on more victims than just Polly. She also had what appeared to be a bruise on her face from a punch. But I believe they could tell even with the throat severed and the skin pulled back whether finger bruises were present.

Annie and Liz and Kate all had scarves on I believe, and in Liz's case, Blackwell suggests she was choked with it, but also perhaps cut and dropped in that same single act.

I wonder if a very strong punch into the sternum would be detected later after the mutilations...a punch that "knocks the wind" out of a person?

Best regards

maybe a punch that winds first...could be, you wouldn't be able to scream either, just gasp and suck in air and then he tripped them over, but i think he strangled them first.............not sure.

Hi Malcolm,

A point you made that caught me was the suggestion he grabs them by the throat. It appears we do have evidence of choking with a few victims...but we do not have bruises or finger marks that the doctors could detect on more victims than just Polly. She also had what appeared to be a bruise on her face from a punch. But I believe they could tell even with the throat severed and the skin pulled back whether finger bruises were present.

Annie and Liz and Kate all had scarves on I believe, and in Liz's case, Blackwell suggests she was choked with it, but also perhaps cut and dropped in that same single act.

I wonder if a very strong punch into the sternum would be detected later after the mutilations...a punch that "knocks the wind" out of a person?

Best regards

[Malcolm X]

Just hazarding a guess...that they were down and un-messed is for me one of the most perplexing elements...how the hell does he go about this? And why would he engage them without using a weapon at the same time? Why did he seemingly have to defeat them first?

Best regards all.

why he doesn't use a weapon when he attacks them first could be quite simple to answer.........

1.. they would scream if they saw him lunging at them with a weapon in his other hand..........definitely
2..it's not easy to subdue a victim if he intends to strangle her first, if he has a knife in the other hand
3...he wants then unconscious quickly with no noise, so he has to appear as a friendly punter, then when he has won their trust and nobody else is close by, he suddenly grabs their throats; therefore they dont scream.

Stride?..........exactly the same but he grabbed her scarf instead, that is; if she's a ripper victim....looks doubtful

what went wrong with kelly though?...... aaah yes most odd, not sure, maybe he strangled her first but she woke up again, just at the moment he was about to cut her......

or maybe, he was going to cut her while she was asleep, (no need in his mind to strangle her first), but she woke up due to him climbing on the bed to get close to her.......now this has got me thinking, why the hell if he was in bed with her, didn't he strangle her properly first; like all the others.........then get out of bed, put his clothes on and cut her.

did she wake up due to him climbing on the bed to get close enough to cut her, while he thought that she was still in a deep asleep, if so wouldn't she have woken up when he got of bed, to put his clothes on?......why didn't he strangle her first properly, again i have to repeat this...especially considering this very risky locality

good God, it looks like he broke in and she simply woke up, he then panicked and reached for his trusty knife, why didn't he still try and strangle her first?
too late, he had to shut her up quickly.... but i expect with Kelly if this is true, that he already had his knife out when he walked in.

this has revealed quite a bit to me, she was on the right side of the bed, as if he was once on the left! .......or the previous customer was once on the left side!

she woke up.........``shouted oh murder``, sheet badly cut cut up.........no strangling her first while fast asleep, and no waking up due to him getting out of bed, i think he either broke in, or he strangled her first and she woke up again.

I think the Ripper used the art of surprise as a main tool,being nice and friendly one minute and then for no reason - Boom !!

I agree with that Barry....the beginning was probably some form of blitzkreig, as they turned away for a moment, or turned their back to him, or hows this for an idea....he distracts them by tossing a payment for services on the ground in front of them, and when they bend to pick it up...

They dont call out, even before they are down on the ground....so he does something quickly to cut off air...but he doesnt always choke, and ligature marks arent present.

I still think its possible it was some form of anesthetic..but not a commonly known one in LVP England.

Best regards Barry

[halomanuk]

I think the Ripper used the art of surprise as a main tool,being nice and friendly one minute and then for no reason - Boom !!

In the case of Mary Jane, ...if she was attacked while in bed sleeping or semi-so..... we should have seen... if killed by Jack... some evidence he choked or smothers her first before pulling a knife on her. There is no such evidence...and in fact some evidence that even refutes that posturing.

I stand by the thread premise....we only see the knife being used by murders we can safely attribute to one man when the victims are unable to resist.

I dont think its impossible Jack had some way to knock them out that was beyond the detection capabilities of LVP medicos. Something like an ether wrapped hanky...but with a substance that was largely unknown at that time. Since every corner of the world could then be reached by boat through London, lots of exotic people and tribal practices had been revealed. Maybe one culture, like the Rainforest Pygmies and their poisons, came upon some plant or flower that had sleep inducing agents.....one that few people would have ever heard of outside the location where its used. Maybe that knowledge made its way to England.

Just hazarding a guess...that they were down and un-messed is for me one of the most perplexing elements...how the hell does he go about this? And why would he engage them without using a weapon at the same time? Why did he seemingly have to defeat them first?

Best regards all.

Hello all,

Seems we have some issues as to whether the 3 victims I mentioned were on the ground when cut....and whether the other 2 were lying down as well.

So lets look at the Inquests, and the relevant Medical testimony...

Polly Nichols:

"There were no marks of any struggle or of blood......On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers.....No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes....There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground, whilst the state of her clothing and the absence of any blood about her legs suggested that the abdominal injuries were inflicted whilst she was still in the same position."

The conclusion was that she was cut after being placed on the ground.

Annie Chapman:

"The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen.....I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck..between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted....There are various other mutilations of the body, but I am of opinion that they occurred subsequently to the death of the woman and to the large escape of blood from the neck....From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat.....Was there any evidence of any struggle? - No; not about the body of the woman. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings....You were shown some staining on the wall of No. 25, Hanbury-street? - Yes; that was yesterday morning. To the eye of a novice I have no doubt it looks like blood. I have not been able to trace any signs of it. I have not been able to finish my investigation. I am almost convinced I shall not find any blood...My impression is that she was partially strangled. Witness added that the handkerchief produced was, when found amongst the clothing, saturated with blood. A similar article was round the throat of the deceased when he saw her early in the morning at Hanbury-street....He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle.....The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back...Her throat was then cut in two places.

The conclusion is that she was likely strangled first, and then cut while on the ground.

Liz Stride:

"The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight. In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife.....Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? - I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up....I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that (the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground), and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut...The appearance of the injury to her throat was not in itself inconsistent with that of a self-inflicted wound...There were no signs of any struggle; the clothes were neither torn nor disturbed. It was true that there were marks over both shoulders, produced by pressure of two hands, (but the position of the body suggested either that she was willingly placed or placed herself where she was found.)

The conclusion was that she may have been cut while falling and being choked with her scarf...or that she lay down willingly, at which point he cuts her throat. I believe the second method suggested defies logic. Regardless, she was not subdued before a knife was used...the acts may have been simultaneous.

Kate Eddowes :

"There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket..... Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about."

The conclusion was that her throat was cut after she had been placed on the ground.

Mary Kelly:

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner.....Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds..."

The evidence suggests that Mary was in bed, on the right upper side when she is attacked, and the arm wounds are consistent with efforts to defend herself. There is no evidence that suggests she was unconscious and compliant before a knife was used.

In the 3 cases I mentioned, Polly, Annie and Kate, majority medical opinion favoured a man with some anatomical and knife use knowledge. In Liz Strides case, and in Marys case, those traits were evidently not as noteworthy, or absent.

Although not carved in stone, it would appear that for 3 of the 5 Canonicals a knife was not used until they were on the ground, compliant....there was no struggle evident.

I believe this reveals something about their likely killer....that he did not feel he had to use a knife to overpower them. He used it only to kill them with throat cuts, and to cut into the womens midsection's.

Liz Strides attacker likely started the attack by grabbing her scarf from behind, and he may have cut her while she fell...indicating he had his knife out before she was "controlled". In Marys case, its likely he began the attack with the knife....while she lay in bed on her side.

Best regards all

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, as I'm not sure as to when the knife would've been whipped out precisely, but these are my thoughts on the three dead cert canonicals:

With Polly, I think it's a safe bet to assume that he cut her throat from behind, the evidence that makes me tend to believe this is the bruising of her jaw, presumably, in my eyes, a by-product of her having had her chin lifted forcibly in order to get at her throat with the blade.

I think Annie was the only victim, again going by the evidence we have, that was actually strangled beforehand, and the reason I think Jack used this method in particular in this case is because of the venue; it was a way of keeping her quiet in case she woke those sleeping in the rooms that overlooked the murder scene. At a guess, I'd assume he lowered her to the ground whilst strangling her, where he then cut her throat.

Kate's case is the most enigmatic for me out of the C3, as (I don't think anyway) there's no evidence of her having been strangled at any point during her murder, but the way in which the blood flowed after the severance of her carotid artery seems to indicate that she was also lowered to the ground at some point during the slashing of her throat.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike,

You know, I've read the descriptions of the victims you're talking about. I haven't read anything about scraped knees and hands. These are things I should expect to see from someone who was forced down to the ground with a struggle. Even Stride could have been cut as she was being brought down. This indicates the knife as the primary instrument of death to me. I have yet to see a clear argument for a woman being murdered after being places in the supine position. Even Kelly could have been grabbed and cut while she was being brougt to the bed. I don't think it's possible to say one way or another. But I do say it's probable that the throats were cut first and then they were put on the ground. Kelly I give a 50/50 on because there is no way to tell.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Mike,
excellent thread...
Just two quick remarks (I'm on duty and have to work, ):

1: the fact that there was no blood on Stride's shirt/chest does indicate that she was already lying on the ground when she was cut.

2: if Kelly was attacked while asleep, it was an almost "already won struggle", don't you think ? In any case, she wasn't standing and couldn't resist efficiently.

I'll read you tomorrow, my friend,
Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Hello all,

There is a great deal of resistance to the notion that Jack the Ripper had fixed facets within his MO, things that are integral to his "style" if you will and are found in most of the murders he is accused of committing. Most is a key word here I believe.

The resistance is due in part to a Canonical Group that by its creation demands flexibility in how he meets victims, how he engages them physically, what he does with them, where he leaves them and even the age preference of his victims. Its almost impossible to find a single telling characteristic or trait that is present in all the 5 murders....other than a knife.

When the knife appears is what this thread is about.

From the evidence that is available in the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes, there is a strong indicator that they had their throats cut when they were already overpowered and on the ground. How this happens is a mystery, and may be different in each case, but with those 3 murders, they were already defeated physically first. He did not use a knife until he had won the struggle....at least figuratively.

I believe that is likely a fixed element with the killer we call Jack the Ripper, and murders that show knife use as the initial means of defeating the women or integral in the actual Subduing phase...in that they are not overpowered first...is an indicator that different men were involved in those crimes.

I welcome all thoughts and ideas, best regards.