What kind of knives were used?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[lynn cates]

Annie

Hello Mike. Perhaps you are thinking of Annie and the butcher's knife well ground down?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Mary Kelly is almost certainly killed and mutilated by someone left handed

Or by a right-handed person who had to improvise on this occasion owing to the victim's position on the bed?

Regards, Bridewell

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

I believe you are correct, the knife used in the Eddowes slaying may well have been shorter than the knife used on Annie Chapman though Phillips at the Chapman Inquest addressed the issue this way..

"[Coroner] Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations? - The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.
[Coroner] Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries? - Yes; well ground down.
[Coroner] Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done? - I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade."

I suppose I was thinking of the question regarding a cobblers knife. Thanks for the correction.

Bridewell, stand on the left side of a bed and imagine being right handed and cutting her throat as she lay on her right side facing the wall on the right side of the bed. Now imagine almost severing her right arm completely, right handed. Now imagine cutting free then placing items behind you on a table, right handed. Now repeat those questions using a left handed person.

He could cut and place something on the night table without having to move much at all. Cut with left, place with right. Her body was moved from the right side of the bed to the middle before the mutilations began, and there was not enough room between the bed and the partition wall to use that side. So he was by the night table when he worked. He pulled her closer to where he was. I believe a right handed man would find that position awkward or impossible to accomplish what was done.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

Bridewell, stand on the right side of a bed and imagine being right handed and cutting her throat as she lay on her right side facing the wall on the right side of the bed. Now imagine almost severing her right arm completely, right handed. Now imagine cutting free then placing items behind you on a table, right handed. Now repeat those questions using a left handed person.

Hi Michael,

I've done that. Obviously, as I'm right-handed, the left-handed method 'doesn't feel right', but I take your point, which is well argued. I think that, using the method you suggest, a right-handed or left-handed person would be able to manage it, although the technique would be different in each case. The right-hander, if using his left hand to place the detached body parts, would need to lift the various body parts over his right arm.

I actually envisage the need for both hands to be used to do the lifting though, as I don't think that task could be performed one-handed.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

I actually envisage the need for both hands to be used to do the lifting though, as I don't think that task could be performed one-handed.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

In some instances that night I would agree with you that 2 hands must have been used. Perhaps 1 to lift her head while another placed a breast under it is another example.

All the best,

Mike R

[Qlder]

Double-edged blade could be a "Catlin"

From Errata's #12:
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.

Just wanted to throw something into the mix, particularly for Errata who considers a double-edged blade most likely for the abdominal mutilations. I recently had a quick google around surgical knives and found the "catling" or "catlin" which is a relatively long double-edged knife often used in amputations as an interosseous knife (ie a knife for cutting all the bits except the bone). The owner of the picture in the Wikipedia article has granted unrestricted use of the image to one and all, so I have attached it below here (uploaded from my machine as I couldn't get the URL upload to work). It does look a bit long and unwieldy, but check out the catlin knife at label B in the image at this link associated with an article on 19th-Century (Napoleonic era) naval surgery. This catlin looks a little more like my imaginings of what may have been used. It also looks remarkably, perhaps eerily like Jack the Ripper's knife of popular imagination.
Just for jolly, and to help us all get a better idea of what these catlins could be like, here's another image (associated with info on surgical kit during the US Civil War) with a "catling" second from the top.

Just my AUD 0.02.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Wow. I am rather pleased to have started such a lively and useful discussion!

[Errata]

Just wanted to throw something into the mix, particularly for Errata who considers a double-edged blade most likely for the abdominal mutilations. I recently had a quick google around surgical knives and found the "catling" or "catlin" which is a relatively long double-edged knife often used in amputations as an interosseous knife (ie a knife for cutting all the bits except the bone).

Just my AUD 0.02.

I happen to have a catlin. My dad got an antique surgical set when he graduated from medical school, and I purloined it when I moved out. I thought about it. But while it certainly is a satisfying mental image, there are a few problems. It is mostly a ridiculously long blade. I hear they come smaller, but the ones I've seen are 8 inch blades. It's construction is similar to a stiletto. Essentially in an amputation you use the catlin to remove flesh from between bones, say in a radius/ulna amputation or fib/tib. And also to strip the membrane from the bone. It's not a strong blade. Really at all. The abdominal wounds were created by stabbing the knife into the flesh and then pulling. An 8 inch blade would have decimated the intestines. Given that at least sometimes he did this through clothing, it also would have snapped the blade of a catlin. Or yanked it from the handle. It also usually has a pretty unique profile. Most catlins have a diamond shaped blade, well, actually it's a flat oval called a schlager, but whatever. It would make a very unique puncture, and a very identifiable one.

It's not out of the question. It's certainly sharp enough, and it has the necessary flexibility. If he was careful, he could have overcome the knife's shortcomings. The question then becomes, how careful do we think he was when ripping people open?

Although I have to admit, I don't know what I think he used. Boot daggers were common enough, so that's an option. Military dress daggers also, though I don't know how available those would be. Dirks are way too long. Most other knives of the era are either single edged, freaking huge, or have ridiculously large hilt guards. Given the amount of pressure the knife would be under, it had to be either full tang or solid metal. It's also possible that he made or adapted it. Which means it could be anything from file blanks to a modified hunting knife, to a carefully sharpened cake knife.

There a Victorian folding knife out there that when extended becomes a pole arm. It's like 6 feet tall. Though you gotta think that would be hard to conceal.

[Scorpio]

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

I am guessing that you consider the walls on Kelly's right side and to the right of the door of no13 would have made a right handed persons task nary impossible; but i am not convinced of that.

[Bridewell]

Skean dhu

Jock the Ripper?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=skean+dhu&hl=en&rlz=1C1AVSC_enGB436GB436&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=0dTMT-ibC866hAepm_29Dw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CKYBEPwFKAE&biw=1366&bih=667

Regards, Bridewell.

[Qlder]

Oh. And another thing...

Dr Llewellyn at the Nichols Inquest:

These cuts [to the neck] must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

From the Coroner's questioning of Dr Phillips at the inquest on the body of Annie Chapman:

[Coroner] Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.
[Coroner] Is it possible that any instrument used by a military man, such as a bayonet, would have done it? - No; it would not be a bayonet.
[Coroner] Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations? - The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.
[Coroner] Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries? - Yes; well ground down.
[Coroner] Would the knife of a cobbler or of any person in the leather trades have done? - I think the knife used in those trades would not be long enough in the blade.
[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

I find it interesting how Dr Phillips deftly skipped past the Coroner's question as to whether a medical post-mortem instrument was used. Phillips said that a soldier's bayonet couldn't have done it; a slaughterman's knife could have, if much ground down; but a cobbler's knife was not long enough. He described a long thin blade, very sharp and 6 to 8 inches long (15 to 20 centimetres). That description sounds very like some type of surgical knife.
Perhaps the Coroner erred in asking Phillips whether it might have been a "post-mortem" instrument, rather than asking directly if it could have been a surgical knife.
Phillips went on to say that he thought the mutilations showed anatomical knowledge, given the haste involved.

Compare that with his response to the Coroner at the inquest for Catherine Eddows.

[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Dr Phillips does seem consistent on the idea of the knife being fairly long bladed and sharp pointed (like a surgical knife) and he was also consistent is his assertion that the murderer had anatomical knowledge.

Now, why did I start this post by including the quote from Dr Llewellyn? In the case of Polly Nichols, the police surgeon noted that the knife used was only moderately sharp and great force was used. Professional users of blades always insist that sharp tools are safer because they require less force from the user to make their cuts, and so the user keeps better control of the blade. Then, when we get to Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, the medical evidence is that the blade(s) used were very sharp.

Did Jack learn something about keeping his blade(s) sharp from his attack on Polly Nichols?
If the answer to that is, "Yes", then perhaps we can deduce that JtR was not in a "blade trade" after all, as if he were he would have had very sharp tools from the very beginning.
So, the lack of fine edge on the knife used in the attack on Polly Nichols might be a clue that allows us to exclude mad surgeons, butchers and slaughtermen.


That's an extra AUD 0.02.