What kind of knives were used?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi folks... can anyone point me to a list or description of the knives JtR used, please?

Cheers

Helena

[sentinel65]

Murder Knife

"The murder weapon must have been a very sharp knife with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches long, probably longer. They could not be from a sword-bayonet or bayonet. They could have been done with a post mortem knife but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those knives, used by slaughter-men, which were well ground down, were possible alternatives but those used in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade." - The Complete Jack The Ripper coroner's report for Annie Chapman.

[Bridewell]

Dr Llewellyn at the Nichols Inquest:

"...the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence".

Dr Brown at the Eddowes Inquest:

"All these injuries were caused by a sharp instrument like a knife and pointed."

Regards, Bridewell.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thank you both so much! Very helpful.

So it seems that the only coroner who said what that knife might be used for in normal life thought it would be for a butcher?

Helena

[Errata]

I'm not sure they really had any idea what kinds of knives were used and what length they were. A majority of the throat cuts could not have been done by an eight inch blade, simply due to the mechanics of cutting a throat while a person is on the ground. A long thin blade would snap when driven into the ground. Any weapon ground down to that degree is just structurally unsound no matter where you use it. An 8 inch kitchen knife would work, what with the wider blade, but the torso injuries don't bear that out, and had to have been a different weapon. Plus the wounds in the throat were more ragged than one would expect from a blade specifically made for slicing. Plus any altered blade takes on a triangular or diamond form, and that didn't happen. The best tools for the job would have been a short, thin, flexible blade for the throat and a stouter, longer, full tang blade for the abdomen. So, something like a skinning knife for the throat, and a dual edged dagger for the abdomen. Neither of which would have been easily available for someone living in the slums. Although a sharpened file or a broken sword could both be ground to a dual edged blade of the appropriate length. The thing is, if you compile a list of all the weapons description in all the attacks, the guy had to have access to an arsenal in order to use that many different blades. So either he was terribly resourceful when it came to getting knives, or the forensic identification of blades available at the time was not quite up to snuff. Although it is a science we have a good handle on now. It would be interesting if they ever had to move one of the graves to have a forensic anthropologist take a look.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thanks also to Errata.

Seems to me that the knives used are an enormous clue to Jack, who otherwise left no forensic evidence other than his signature and MO.

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.

[Bridewell]

Re-Use?

Thanks also to Errata.

Seems to me that the knives used are an enormous clue to Jack, who otherwise left no forensic evidence other than his signature and MO.

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 Helena,

If you subscribe to the "local unknown" school of thought he probably wouldn't be able to afford the financial hit. If you go with the mythical "top-hatted toff" there wouldn't be anything like the same pressing need. I think you've hit upon a good point here. Anyone found with a blood-stained knife in a "stop search" would have a hard job talking himself out of trouble so, unless he was a poor man who had to take that risk, why not leave the knife with the body? In an era before fingerprint analysis leaving the knife would (unlike today) be the less risky option.

Regards, Bridewell.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Good points also, Bridewell. I like your point about taking the risk of being caught with the knife. But then, Jack took huge risks killing outdoors, anyway, particularly after the first murder, and increasing with every subsequent one, when the whole East End was on the look out for him.

According to Errata, two knives must have been used (would that be in all attacks?) so the financial hit would indeed have been large.

Now I am wondering how much effort the police put into searching for the knife/knives? Nowadays as we know the whole area is cordoned off and a hundred bobbies do a fingertip search. But then?

[sentinel65]

I'm not sure they really had any idea what kinds of knives were used and what length they were. A majority of the throat cuts could not have been done by an eight inch blade, simply due to the mechanics of cutting a throat while a person is on the ground. A long thin blade would snap when driven into the ground. Any weapon ground down to that degree is just structurally unsound no matter where you use it. An 8 inch kitchen knife would work, what with the wider blade, but the torso injuries don't bear that out, and had to have been a different weapon. Plus the wounds in the throat were more ragged than one would expect from a blade specifically made for slicing. Plus any altered blade takes on a triangular or diamond form, and that didn't happen. The best tools for the job would have been a short, thin, flexible blade for the throat and a stouter, longer, full tang blade for the abdomen. So, something like a skinning knife for the throat, and a dual edged dagger for the abdomen. Neither of which would have been easily available for someone living in the slums. Although a sharpened file or a broken sword could both be ground to a dual edged blade of the appropriate length. The thing is, if you compile a list of all the weapons description in all the attacks, the guy had to have access to an arsenal in order to use that many different blades. So either he was terribly resourceful when it came to getting knives, or the forensic identification of blades available at the time was not quite up to snuff. Although it is a science we have a good handle on now. It would be interesting if they ever had to move one of the graves to have a forensic anthropologist take a look.

If this were true however would it not go against the coroners' opinions of each murder?

[Bridewell]

Good points also, Bridewell. I like your point about taking the risk of being caught with the knife. But then, Jack took huge risks killing outdoors, anyway, particularly after the first murder, and increasing with every subsequent one, when the whole East End was on the look out for him.

According to Errata, two knives must have been used (would that be in all attacks?) so the financial hit would indeed have been large.

Now I am wondering how much effort the police put into searching for the knife/knives? Nowadays as we know the whole area is cordoned off and a hundred bobbies do a fingertip search. But then?

Hi Helena,

Perhaps the safest option would have been to hide the knife and come back for it later, if and when it was safe to do so. That would minimise the risk and give him a chance of re-using the knife. I suspect that, even in the 19th century, searches were carried out on some level (hence the Eddowes apron), but with nothing like the intensity deployed today, when so much forensice evidence can be gleaned from the smallest artifact.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Abby Normal]

Hi folks... can anyone point me to a list or description of the knives JtR used, please?

Cheers

Helena

Hi Helena
not sure if this is the type of response you are looking for but it is my beleif that the ripper probably started out before killing anyone by always carrying a smaller type knife like a "clasp" knife and that perhaps this is what he used on Ada Wilson and/or Annie Millwood if they were indeed Ripper victims. As his desire grew to truly fulfill his fantasy, i beleive he may have ventured out on the night of Tabrams murder with both the clasp knife and a new larger knife (one that could really do the trick) and attacked her, out of habit, with the smaller knife first but then finished her off with the larger. This may help explain the 2 knife scenario. Thenceforth he only used a larger knife on subsequent vitims.

[Errata]

If this were true however would it not go against the coroners' opinions of each murder?

It would, and I can't swear I'm right on this. I can tell you what the best knives for the job were, not if they were used. However, I am basing this on known mechanics, so I don't think it's an unreasonable hypothesis. This sounds odd, but next time you have to carve up something, put it on the floor, kneel by it, and try a standard throat cut with an 8 inch blade. And not an 8 inch blade you are attached to, because this carries the risk of snapping the tip off. It has to do with how we use knives. The slicing action on any given knife comes from the middle of the blade. And there are two ways of getting the slice. One is momentum, which you use with a long knife, long strokes part the flesh of whatever you are cutting. The other is pressure, which you use with a short knife. You press hard against the surface, and short strokes will start the slicing action. You can't use momentum with a short blade, or pressure with a long one.

When a person is lying on the ground, their ear is maybe an inch or so off the pavement. That's not enough room to use momentum. You can't make long strokes and have the cut start there. It would start a few inches further up the neck. The slice comes from the middle of the blade no matter what length it is. On an eight inch blade, that leaves 3 inches from middle to tip that is doing nothing more than slamming into the ground. That will break the blade. A short blade solves this issue, but then doesn't account for the abdominal wounds.

When Eddowes' kidney was taken, her liver was lacerated. That means a dual edged blade. It also means a long one. Not necessarily 8 inches long, but probably at least 5. Given how tortured any number of these cuts were, where the blade would be hitting bone, it has to be a strong blade. Double edged blades are weaker, so it had to be full tang. That's a dagger. Even if the blade didn't start it's life as a dagger.

This wasn't a science then. And without a reliable fingerprinting procedure, it didn't need to be one. These coroners also had never seen anything like this before. They could only judge the blades by what they knew, and what they were familiar with, and what they assumed about the killer. An 8 inch blade by the way is huge. It's a foot long knife. And an 8 inch blade would in no way even remotely leave the intestines intact, or the pelvic organs. I think (I don't know) that the coroners assumed that Jack would work outside of the wound. Meaning he wouldn't put his hands in there. I think that's a false assumption. The larger the knife, the farther away from the body Jack would be. But since we know that he had no problem lifting the intestines out and throwing them to the side that Jack didn't have a problem with getting in close. Thus given the lack of a total obliteration of the organs, I think that we can in fact discount an 8 inch blade. I wouldn't think it was longer than 5 inches.

I suppose it could have been one 4 inch double edged blade, but I tend to think there were two knives. First of all, they would go dull quickly. The second is that for precision people tend to put their finger along the back of the blade, which is an extremely foolish thing to do on a double edged blade. Doesn't keep them from doing it though... The third reason is that the throat cuts for the most part were ragged. That argues for a short blade. Maybe even penknife short. That short a blade did not make the abdominal wounds. Anyway, that's my argument. For good or for ill.

[Bridewell]

Hi Errata,

That's a most thought-provoking post and, without the specialist knowledge which you appear to have, I can only say that I think it very persuasive. Thanks.

Regards, Bridewell.

[The Good Michael]

I I think that we can in fact discount an 8 inch blade. I wouldn't think it was longer than 5 inches.

I agree with the statement that it wasn't an eight-inch blade. I say that because the ability to wield one would be somewhat anachronistic. A hunting knife makes a lot more sense. I have a collection of replica swords (back in America) and along with it is a Highland-style dirk. It is super sharp, but there's no way I could do anything delicate with it, though I am super handy in the kitchen having been a cook (at times) and always the main cook in the household. With a nice, thin knife I can do wonders.

This being said, a person who practiced could do just about anything with any sized blade he or she chose to work with for whatever reason. If the murderer thought he was some sort of Highland warrior with dirk and targe and worked at it because he was raving mad, I'm sure he could perform surgery.

Mike

[moonbegger]

Hi Errata ,

Great job , very interesting post ,

"When a person is lying on the ground, their ear is maybe an inch or so off the pavement. That's not enough room to use momentum. You can't make long strokes and have the cut start there. It would start a few inches further up the neck. The slice comes from the middle of the blade no matter what length it is. On an eight inch blade, that leaves 3 inches from middle to tip that is doing nothing more than slamming into the ground. That will break the blade. A short blade solves this issue, but then doesn't account for the abdominal wounds"

Are you hinting at the suggestion that more than one knife was used in each murder ?

moonbegger .