What kind of knives were used?

[Michael W Richards]

2 knives

Hi all,

Since the evidence regarding the instruments used ranged from a bayonet (Tabram) to a well ground shoemakers blade (I believe Eddowes if memory serves), it needs to be said that whomever did these killings likely used one single knife. Changing knives isnt really a viable idea....nor is something like the killer changing clothes before heading to Mitre Square. So if you have different knives being used throughout these murders, you either had different men doing the killings or you have more than one man.

Since Mary Kelly is almost certainly killed and mutilated by someone left handed I would lean toward the first explanation myself, since truly ambidextrous people make up approx 1% of any given population.

Best regards all,

Mike R

[Errata]

If I've got you right you suggest the killer may have used a short stout-backed knife to slice the throat, then swiched to a double-sided dagger-type knife for the abdominal mutilations?
This sound a bit OCD-ish, carrying and switching knives for specific tasks when any ordinary knife-wealding killer would just use one knife for everything.

On the other hand, anyone who has spent hours (a butcher?) deboning a carcass knows how soon a knife can go dull. In the case of the Kelly murder yes, he could have used two or more knives.
This I think is preferable, when compared with the vision of him crouched over her body with a steel in one hand and the knife in the other, sharpening away, clickety-clack, clickety-clack....
Thats a little too Sweeney Todd-ish

Regards, Jon S.

Yeah I know it makes less sense. And maybe it was fetishistic behavior, or if he knew he was going to be cutting necks to the bone he knew he would need another knife. Maybe the larger knife was significant, but too big to cut a throat without risk to the blade. Maybe he had to use a second knife in his first murder because the first one went dull, and he was trying to recreate that first experience. There are any number of reasons why he might use two knives, despite the fact that most of us would really only think of using one.

What it really boils down to is that I don't think a long knife made those throat cuts. But long knives made the mutilation cuts. Ergo two knives. Really the only way for those cuts to be made with a long knife is if he lifted their heads. But that didn't happen. Neither Nichols Nor Chapman had any blood on their chest. So the math says two knives. Unless of course the coroners somehow failed to mention that the commencement of the cut was in fact a very deep and vicious stab wound. Which is the only other way I can think of negating the fulcrum effect.

[Wickerman]

As for concealing them, I think the larger knife would require more care, but I do think they could both be concealed, especially if Jack were wearing a coat. The small one likely fit in a pocket, and may very well have been a clasp knife. I think the other blade would have to be sheathed, and possibly strapped to a belt. But it could have been shoved in the waistband, again, as long as it was sheathed.

If I've got you right you suggest the killer may have used a short stout-backed knife to slice the throat, then swiched to a double-sided dagger-type knife for the abdominal mutilations?
This sound a bit OCD-ish, carrying and switching knives for specific tasks when any ordinary knife-wealding killer would just use one knife for everything.

On the other hand, anyone who has spent hours (a butcher?) deboning a carcass knows how soon a knife can go dull. In the case of the Kelly murder yes, he could have used two or more knives.
This I think is preferable, when compared with the vision of him crouched over her body with a steel in one hand and the knife in the other, sharpening away, clickety-clack, clickety-clack....
Thats a little too Sweeney Todd-ish

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Also wasn't Eddows ear cut slightly at the bottom [in regards to the size of blade] ?

cheers all

moonbegger

I forgot this bit. Eddowes' ear was cut at an oblique angle, which certainly would be consistent with a botched attempt at the throat. But it cuts through the auricle of the ear, and that's kind of a problem. Ears aren't terribly stable platforms for cutting, and cartilage is hard to cut through. Any cut across the ear of sufficient force to cut through the cartilage should have completely flattened the ear to the head and cut the skin above and behind the ear, and with the use of a longer knife there should be a corresponding cut along the jawline. If it was just a slip of the knife or a product of the tip of the knife being long enough to rest on the ear, the cut would have been shallow. Without corresponding cuts, the best I can think is that he grabbed the ear high on the lobe to stabilize it, and sawed through it. So it would seem to me to be a purposeful cut.

Basically the physics applicable to throat cutting in order to find the length of the knife used is the simple fulcrum. The neck is a ball, the knife is a board placed on the ball. Most of these cuts originated under the ear. Ears are just behind the center line of the average head. So it the center line is 0 degrees to 180 degrees, the ears would be at say, 350 degrees and 190 degrees. So you have to find a length of board where (pardon this) "the sweet spot" can rest at those points. The sweet spot being the middle third of the blade. I don't know if you've ever tried to slice something with the tip of a long blade, but it ain't happening.

So lets say the average woman's neck is the size of a cantaloupe. So we take a cantaloupe and put in the ground, and mark where the ears should be as stated above. There is no way you can physically manipulate the neck without breaking it where you can put the middle third of an 8 inch blade on the ear. Placing the tip of the blade against the ground and leaning it against our cantaloupe places the origin of the cut several inches more towards center than the ear. No good. We have to shrink the blade so that the middle third of the blade rests against the ear. That drops us down to at most five inches, but if we don't want to snap the blade by repeatedly banging it into the ground, we should go with a four inch blade. But a four inch blade has just enough weight and length to be able to slice cleanly, even with rage behind it. These weren't clean cuts. They were ragged, which implies a lot of sawing and a lot of jerking. So the blade should now be shorter than 4 inches, and lighter. An inch long blade is like a scalpel, and you get quite a bit of precision from that. Any two inch blade would cause that kind of mess, and a thin (less than an inch wide) 3 inch blade will do that. So given all these conditions, this is what makes sense to me.

So it's not like I ran around holding knives to throats and measuring, if that makes anyone feel better.

[Bridewell]

I have no real skill with a blade, just years of experience screwing up with them. So really I learned through doing, and also through a nasty habit of inviting knife salesmen in, listening to their spiel, and then scaring the crap out of them by insinuating that I'm a serial killing cannibal. Which I used to do with Jehovah's Witnesses, but it turns out they have no sense of humor that modern science can detect. Now I just invite them in for a bath, so I can can watch the wheels churn on whether a bath in front of a stranger is worth a potential convert.

You're getting scarier by the minute. Remind me never to disagree, even to the slightest degree, with anything you post ever again.

Regards, Bridewell

[Errata]

But I'm not sure I'd want to meet Errata in a dark alley... ... I picture her as a mysterious female Ninja now.

Hahahha. I wish. No, I worked at a Renaissance festival for 15 years, collected knives, I've spent a fair amount of time in a kitchen, and I was a set decorator for an outdoor festival forever. I've used knives on anything from wiring to human flesh (because it's really the only way to get thorns out). I just know how they work. Carving, slicing, sawing, tracing, and puncturing, I've done it all. Usually with Flutterby the Destroyer, a leaf blade my uncle gave forever ago. I'm even SAFD trained in 9 types of swords and 3 types of daggers.

I've broken more than a hundred blades not counting exacto blades. Some of those were swords, and when that happens I guarantee you that you get a unique appreciation for the weak points of any given blade. I once got hit in the back of the head by the top 24 inches of a broadsword that broke about 50 yards from me. Unfortunately my nickname is "Duck" which in hindsight was a terrible thing to allow, so needless to say I got beaned A LOT.

I have no real skill with a blade, just years of experience screwing up with them. So really I learned through doing, and also through a nasty habit of inviting knife salesmen in, listening to their spiel, and then scaring the crap out of them by insinuating that I'm a serial killing cannibal. Which I used to do with Jehovah's Witnesses, but it turns out they have no sense of humor that modern science can detect. Now I just invite them in for a bath, so I can can watch the wheels churn on whether a bath in front of a stranger is worth a potential convert.

[Errata]

I'm taking it that what Errata calls a clasp-knife is what we Brits term a penknife? What about what we call a lock-knife - a folding knife whose blade locks into place when open? Just while I have the thought in mind, JtR, whoever he was, must have run the risk of being stopped, and possibly searched. Who could have carried the sort of 2-knife combination which you suggest without arousing suspicion?

Regards, Bridewell.

A clasp knife is what I would call a utility blade. A two to thee inch blade that folds into the handle. Today, they have belt clips attached. A lock knife is unlikely, though not impossible. They did exist, but didn't gain any popularity until the turn of the century, and weren't mass produced until the 60s I think. As far as being searched, I don't think he could have gotten around suspicion for having a couple of knives on him. I always thought that the perfect job for Jack the Ripper would be a knife sharpener. He would have any number of tools at his disposal before his customers picked them up again, and he would have a reason to have knives on him, he could say he was delivering them to their owners.

On the other hand, he could just say he was going to use them to scare the crap out of a gambler who owed him money, and even if they popped him for it he would be out in a couple of days.

But they would have to search him, and pat him down to find both knives. Likely he shoved the larger knife in his waistband at his back. so if he empties his pockets, all the cops will find is a small knife any number of people own. They would have to actually lay hands on him to discover the other blade. And that seems unlikely unless they actually arrest him.

[moonbegger]

Hello,Hello,Hello,

"Who could have carried the sort of 2-knife combination which you suggest without arousing suspicion?"

I'm so glad you asked that question bridewell .. i wanted to ask it but i didn't fancy the weight of the Ripper world crashing down on me again

Also wasn't Eddows ear cut slightly at the bottom [in regards to the size of blade] ?

cheers all

moonbegger

[Cogidubnus]

A clasp knife is exactly what it says Colin...and far more meaty than a modern day pen knife (which actually is anything but...)...Go to google images and enter clasp knife....It's probably what you or I would have referred to as a box knife...

A modern pen knife isn't like a victorian pen knife either - the latter was a knife with a short almost triangular blade literally intended to sharpen the quill end of a wing feather so as to write with it after dipping in ink...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

It had to be a fixed blade knife.

I'm taking it that what Errata calls a clasp-knife is what we Brits term a penknife? What about what we call a lock-knife - a folding knife whose blade locks into place when open? Just while I have the thought in mind, JtR, whoever he was, must have run the risk of being stopped, and possibly searched. Who could have carried the sort of 2-knife combination which you suggest without arousing suspicion?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Archaic]

Thanks very much Dave, glad to help.

But I'm not sure I'd want to meet Errata in a dark alley... ... I picture her as a mysterious female Ninja now.

Personally, what I'm most interested in is trying to get inside the mind of the killer, trying to understand what the murders were from his perspective.

That's difficult to do and frequently disturbing, seeing as I'm a (fairly) normal and well-adjusted individual, but I try.

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Cogidubnus]

Errata and Archaic exchanges

Wow, now that last coupled with the previous ones on this thread, are about the most comprehensive examination of blade/knife characteristics I've seen so far on Casebook...Lots to think about there...

Thanks to both of you

Dave

[Errata]

Okay, maybe naming weapons is an American thing. But I had a utility knife named Flutterby the Destroyer. I loved that knife...

As for concealing them, I think the larger knife would require more care, but I do think they could both be concealed, especially if Jack were wearing a coat. The small one likely fit in a pocket, and may very well have been a clasp knife. I think the other blade would have to be sheathed, and possibly strapped to a belt. But it could have been shoved in the waistband, again, as long as it was sheathed.

As for the wounds, well, I'm working from memory here and may not get everything exactly right, so pardon that. With the exception of Stride, the throat cuts of the C5 were a mess. And very very deep. The coroner (at least in Nichols' case) seemed to be of the opinion that this was done with a single incision. Which is impossible. No knife in the history of ever has ever been able to get to the bone in a single slice. That requires a sword. And not just any sword. It would have to be a high tensile sword with an extremely sharp edge, like a katana. And she would have to be upright with nothing blocking the swords progress on any side. But we know she wasn't upright, because there was no blood on her chest. But that would probably narrow down the suspect list, since there can't have been more that a dozen katanas in all of England.

So barring a Katana, there are only two other ways to get to bone. Sharp force trauma, say an axe, but that likely would have simply severed the head, or several slices. Within reasonable parameters, the longer the blade, the cleaner the cut. This theory dissolves once you get a blade longer than your forearm at which point you can't control the blade, or smaller than you end thumb joint, like a scalpel. Then you have perfect control of the blade, and can make a clean cut. These cuts were a mess, which makes me think of a blade on the shorter end of the spectrum, maybe two inches. What causes a clean slicing motion is control, long strokes, and the weight of the blade providing the downward pressure. A small knife cannot use long strokes, and theres no weight to them, so you have to push down on them. When you do that, the flesh is as likely to sort of burst as to slice open. And it makes a mess. Cutting a throat is not terribly unlike carving a turkey. Once you start sawing away at something you know you aren't using the proper tool. But the end of the blade could not have extended much past the ear, or it would have changed where the cut was. So it had to be small.

As for the abdominal injuries, that's a little more complicated. A clasp knife was not used to enter the abdomens of anyone. They aren't strong enough. You could stab with one, but a lot of the wounds were sort of a stab and pull, and putting force on the clasp like that would snap the blade from the handle. Theres also no weight behind the blade, and a strong stab would be as likely to snap the blade shut on your fingers as actually penetrate. It had to be a fixed blade knife. But because of the lacerations to Eddowes kidney, it had to be dual edged. A dual edged blade would also make the extraction on Chapman's uterus much easier. The doctor ascribed it to a single sweep of the knife, which would require detailed anatomical knowledge. I don't think he had that. However, being able to use both edges of the blades in a back and forth motion would look like a single cut, as far as there being no other obvious entrance wounds in that area. In other words, he wouldn't have to cut, pull the knife out, and cut again.

Also the wounds on Nichols have a sort of muddy directionality. They are listed as left to right. But the downwards cuts were on the right side. It makes sense that he was on her right side, which meant that he stabbed on the left and pulled towards himself. It's an off balance position. First of all, it's actually not easy to hold a knife backward. You are just as likely to lose your hold on the blade. That because both knives and handles have directionality. A dual edged blade does not have a directional handle. The other thing is such an off balance position requires some sort of stability. That argues for both hands being on the hilt, and there being a hilt guard of some kind. Dirks are beautiful instruments, but stab hard enough and you'll put the whole weapon in someone. The argument against a hilt guard of course is that to the best of my knowledge, no hilt marks were found on the bodies. That could be because he was cutting through clothes, he was pretty controlled, or event that the hilt and guard were wrapped. But I don't know.

Basically, I think I know that the weapon used to cut the throats was a short blade. And I know the abdominal cuts were made with a longer one. There is evidence on one person that blade was dual edged. I can't come to any definite conclusion as to what that second blade was, just that it was not the same as the first. For that I would need to know the wound tracks, and that information just isn't available.

[lynn cates]

different knives

Hello Errata.

"Personally, I think there were two knives. I have a hard time reconciling the various kinds of wounds with only one blade."

Hmm, keep going.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

Knife As Sexual Fetish

If I am remembering correctly, no knife was every found at any of the eleven (?) Whitechapel murder scenes. This also tells us that he was a man/men who always made sure he/they took the weapon away with them, even though fingerprinting was unknown. I wonder why.

Hi everyone.

In my opinion the killer would have hung onto his knife even if he could afford to buy a new one for each murder.

The murders weren't simple killings, they were highly deviant sexual homicides incorporating numerous paraphilias- sexual mutilations, taking body parts as trophies, etc.

If the killer is so depraved as to want to take a bloody uterus for a trophy, why would he live his knife behind? It has highly personal sexual meaning for him; it's symbolic of his power, his dominance, his deadly cunning, his ability to utterly ravage and destroy his victim and to terrorize the public... his knife made all his sick fantasies come true.

I'd be amazed if he didn't keep it and treasure it.

I believe he made a fetish of his knife or knives.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Interesting post Errata!