A contender for the knife?

[lynn cates]

handle

Hello Carol. Yes. Should have been more clear. Sorry.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Carol, sounds like a very interesting book you've got there. However, the blade(s) used by the Ripper had to have been at least six inches in length, so the 4 in. blade you described wouldn't have cut it (pun not intended).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gordon]

What immediately struck me about a folding knife of this description is that it functions as a knife with two different blade lengths. Unfolded, it has a 7½-inch blade. Folded, it has a 4-inch blade exposed.

Assuming that JtR killed Tabram, the shorter portion of the blade might do very well for the injuries found on her. This would also fit with the assumption that the killer attacked Tabram on impulse, unpremeditated, simply pulling the knife out of its sheath and stabbing frenziedly with the short piece of exposed blade. For subsequent, planned killings he could have unfolded such a knife to inflict the injuries found later in his career.

[The Grave Maurice]

The knife you describe, Carol, sounds like a reasonable implement for JtR to use. I like the fact that it has "a best solid leather sheath" which could, no doubt, be hung from a belt and therefore hidden by the jacket that virtually all men, regardless of economic circumstance, wore in the LVP.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for clarifying Trevor. I see your point although I don't necessarily agree with it. I would expect she would be shrieking if such a battle ensued alerting Watkins or someone................



Greg

Not if he had his hand over her mouth !

[niko]

pocket knife

Hi everyone, just a quick question. I know that the law today in England states, that a pocket knife if the cutting edge of it's blade exceeds three inches it is illigal.
Does any body know the length of the pocket knives permitted in 1888 ? Was it longer than three inches ? Thank's in advanced, all the best, agur.

niko

[GregBaron]

Struggle and cut...

Not if he had his hand over her mouth !

Another good point Trevor but (and I should go back and read the inquest and autopsy) if the killer has her by the throat and is slashing and missing with a knife and taking off earlobes etc. as he tries to open the throat - I would expect her hands to show evidence of fighting for her life - at least grabbing at the hands that held her throat and breaking nails or getting gouged by the knife or something - her hands had to go somewhere. The upper part of her garments might also reflect such a struggle. I don't believe any of this was evident but again I will go back and read and perhaps the officials overlooked something? But at least I can kind of get a visual of the scenario you are suggesting now.

It does seem perhaps the choke-hold was not if effect that appeared to be so in C1 and 2.....................?

Good stuff...


Greg

[Adam Went]

Hi Trevor,

I'm sorry but I just can't buy into the idea that the marks to Eddowes' face were inflicted whilst she was attempting to defend herself.

For a start, if it was just one or two nicks in odd places, then it's possible that they could have occurred somewhere in the struggle, but not the kinds of injuries that she sustained to her face. They were done purposefully.

Second, the first instinct of somebody trying to defend themselves is to thrust out their hands, not their face. Think of the physical impossibility of Jack managing to clip her several times with the edge of the knife in that manner while struggling with her.

Third, other victims showed possible signs of defending themselves - think of the Schwartz witness account. With witnesses just metres away from where Kate's body was found, nobody heard a thing, indicating that either they weren't paying attention or there was a minimal struggle, if any at all.

Fourth and finally, it's my own contention as recently highlighted that Kate was still reasonably drunk at the time of her death, despite her release from the police station. Alcohol slows the reflexes and blurs the thinking, and that combined with the actions of an experienced killer in an almost totally blackened corner of a square unfortunately left Kate with little hope.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Carol]

Hello Carol. Yes. Should have been more clear. Sorry.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Thanks.

The width of the blade at its widest point would have been three-quarters of an inch (0.73"). Nearly 2 cm (18.4mm). This took me a while to work out yesterday evening and when I asked my husband to check it independently he came up with the same answer in a matter of minutes! (He studied maths at university many moons ago so I think you can rely on him at least, if not myself!).

The knife has a really pointed tip. I guess all hunting knives are like that.

Carol

[Carol]

Hi Carol, sounds like a very interesting book you've got there. However, the blade(s) used by the Ripper had to have been at least six inches in length, so the 4 in. blade you described wouldn't have cut it (pun not intended).

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,
The blade was 7½ in. long when unfolded from the handle. 4 in. was showing when folded back into the handle.
Carol

[Carol]

What immediately struck me about a folding knife of this description is that it functions as a knife with two different blade lengths. Unfolded, it has a 7½-inch blade. Folded, it has a 4-inch blade exposed.

Assuming that JtR killed Tabram, the shorter portion of the blade might do very well for the injuries found on her. This would also fit with the assumption that the killer attacked Tabram on impulse, unpremeditated, simply pulling the knife out of its sheath and stabbing frenziedly with the short piece of exposed blade. For subsequent, planned killings he could have unfolded such a knife to inflict the injuries found later in his career.

Hello Gordon,

First of all: Welcome to Casebook! I hope you really enjoy your stay!

Very interesting post of yours. Thanks!

Carol

[lynn cates]

narrow

Hello Carol. Thanks. Mine is close--.724, rounded to 3 decimal places.

The easiest way is to take the conversion factor (2.54), use the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal), then multiply by 1.84.

Well, that sounds about right. It was supposed to be quite narrow in the blade.

Cheers.
LC

[Carol]

Hello Carol. Thanks. Mine is close--.724, rounded to 3 decimal places.

The easiest way is to take the conversion factor (2.54), use the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal), then multiply by 1.84.

Well, that sounds about right. It was supposed to be quite narrow in the blade.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

That was quick!

I don't know - first I have my husband showing off to me and now I've got you! My method might be more painstaking but I get there in the end!

Carol

[lynn cates]

dimensions

Hello carol. Actually, I learned a shortcut given that I must constantly convert dimensions of famous paintings in my professorial tasks.

At any rate, the dimensions seem in order.

Cheers.
LC

[Gordon]

Thanks for the welcome, Carol!

As it happens, this isn't my first time here on Casebook. I've been here before, but it was quite a few years ago. They've redone the registration database a couple of times since then, and I dropped out into limbo. So I can't expect anyone to remember me. A Happy New Year to you!