What kind of knives were used?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

I believe a Bowie style knife covers most of the bases, including the fact it cuts up or down due to the sharpened spine. Most of the doctors spoke of a knife 5-6 inches in length, thats blade length. Couple that with a large ergonomically shaped Handle, from Bolster to Butt maybe 7-8 inches and you have a weapon with a multitude of uses.

I have an extensive knife and bayonet collection dating back to the 1830's and therefore a broad range of blade sizes and features, but I feel in these cases double sided blades would be impractical, but a Bowie style would allow the kind of cuts upward that we see in some cases. Like Kates clothes....and Kate. Generally a heavy knife, and if sharp, little pressure is needed to cut deeply. I have an example from Col. Bowie's time actually.

To errata,

Mary Kelly's arm was almost severed completely, so was her head, and we know that a killer was indeed making torsos of young women that Fall. Which makes "naaahh" seem a little naive.

The idea that the killer carried different instruments, (although the idea is completely unnecessary based on the wounds), brings 2 additional unpleasant ideas to the table. A man with a black bag....once again....or a fetishist. When they are not required, why introduce them?

I believe all that was needed in Kellys room was a single sharp blade, and the will to do the deeds. If you feel you would like to examine victims that have evidence that 2 blades were used, try Martha.

Cheers,

Mike R

[Hunter]

I agree with you, Errata.

Some type of home utensil, modified maybe to some degree, may have been used. I don't think a fillet knife. per se, was likely, but looking at the medical evidence I think the instrument was was probably somewhat narrow and with a slender point. The apparent 'sawing motion' evidenced with Chapman may have just been the killer's abortive attempt at decapitating her, while the single clean cuts inflicted upon Stride and Eddowes indicated that the killer in these instances was satisfied with just cutting their throats in the most effective manner.

Of course, we don't know the state of mind of the killer in each instance as that would affect the way the wounds were inflicted as much as the type of weapon used.

[Errata]

Interesting discussion and a good thread.

I will just make a few points from my observations and experiences.

As a sportsman, I have owned and used many types of knives. For years I used various common hunting knives, which had short, stout blades. Their rigidity enabled me to cut through skin, meat and even skeletal joints fairly effectively. It is still the type of knife I carry in the field and on the water, but I started using long filleting knives at home for skinning and paring. Their thinness actually allows me to cut with more precision and maintain a sharp edge longer. The length is really not an impediment as the point is narrow and sharper than any thicker bladed knife.

When looking at the injuries to some of the victims, I see some similarities with the use of a reasonably long, thin and narrow pointed instrument. Annie Chapman's uterus was basically gouged out -- with one sweep of the knife as the Lancet article referred to it. The blade had to be reasonably long and narrow to accomplish this in my opinion. Another clue is the apparent unsuccessful attempt at separating Annie's neck vertebra. Due to the need to pry as well as cut, such a knife is impractical, but nevertheless, the murderer made the attempt without success. If the killer had used a shorter, stouter knife, I believe he would have been able to decapitate her. The fact that he wasn't able to is significant.

Both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were dispatched with one clean cut. In Eddowes' case, this single cut started superficially behind the left ear and quickly deepened as it was being swept around the throat; even to the point that the vertebra were marked. I can only envision a very sharp, thin and narrow pointed knife being able to accomplish this effectively. I realize that we now have very high grade steel, but some of the manufacturers in Sheffield made some fine quality steel. A good quality, somewhat thin blade, could flex without breaking, and with less ressistance cut deeper quicker.

Just my two cents worth...

When I first started thinking about this,the first thing I thought of was a shorter Fillet knife. Particularly one with an upward curve to the blade. The only reason I discounted it was the jaggedness of the wound in Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. Quite frankly, if it were a fillet knife, I thought the wounds should have been much cleaner. Also, in my experience fillet knives are flexible enough to not significantly mark bone, and I think in my head I pictured the gouges and cuts on the vertebrae to be pretty severe.

But a kitchen or a hunting blade is far more likely than a weapon blade. The residents of Whitechapel would be unlikely to afford a new blade, and what was prevalent, and therefore much more available to.. acquire would be hunting and kitchen blades. The sticking point for me is that Eddowes' kidney was removed with a double edged blade. And barring alterations to a kitchen knife, that means a dagger. I fully admit I am not nearly as familiar with hunting knives as I am with kitchen or weapon knives. If there are double edged hunting knives out there, that may be the answer.

[Archaic]

Hi Hunter.

You made some interesting points and gave us lots to think about.

You and Errata sure are knowledgeable about knives- whereas I'm known for accidentally slicing myself while trying to dice vegetables!

Best regards,
Archaic

[Hunter]

Interesting discussion and a good thread.

I will just make a few points from my observations and experiences.

As a sportsman, I have owned and used many types of knives. For years I used various common hunting knives, which had short, stout blades. Their rigidity enabled me to cut through skin, meat and even skeletal joints fairly effectively. It is still the type of knife I carry in the field and on the water, but I started using long filleting knives at home for skinning and paring. Their thinness actually allows me to cut with more precision and maintain a sharp edge longer. The length is really not an impediment as the point is narrow and sharper than any thicker bladed knife.

When looking at the injuries to some of the victims, I see some similarities with the use of a reasonably long, thin and narrow pointed instrument. Annie Chapman's uterus was basically gouged out -- with one sweep of the knife as the Lancet article referred to it. The blade had to be reasonably long and narrow to accomplish this in my opinion. Another clue is the apparent unsuccessful attempt at separating Annie's neck vertebra. Due to the need to pry as well as cut, such a knife is impractical, but nevertheless, the murderer made the attempt without success. If the killer had used a shorter, stouter knife, I believe he would have been able to decapitate her. The fact that he wasn't able to is significant.

Both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were dispatched with one clean cut. In Eddowes' case, this single cut started superficially behind the left ear and quickly deepened as it was being swept around the throat; even to the point that the vertebra were marked. I can only envision a very sharp, thin and narrow pointed knife being able to accomplish this effectively. I realize that we now have very high grade steel, but some of the manufacturers in Sheffield made some fine quality steel. A good quality, somewhat thin blade, could flex without breaking, and with less ressistance cut deeper quicker.

Just my two cents worth...

[Errata]

Hi errata,

Ive doubted 2 deaths among the Canonicals for some time now, Kelly being the second, and lately Ive been wondering about a third more.

I agree knives dull when cartilages are cut but I do not see a need for a multitude of instruments. Had there been I believe you would have seen something closer to a Torso murder. I believe he had a sharp knife, just not sturdy enough for bone.

Cheers,

Mike R

Naah. Killing isn't really an entropic state. Someone who removes body parts isn't constantly devolving into desire for total dismemberment. Now we have some of the most idealized tools for the complete eradication of the human form, and we still have a lot of killers who just take eyes. Or only dismember for disposal. Or famously just choose to keep heads, hands, and genitals. A killer who takes a uterus is unlikely to take a lung, is unlikely to disjoint limbs, and probably has no interest in the hundred or so other body parts other than the ones they have taken. They are there for the taking. And there is no reason not to, except that they just don't want them. I think even with modern surgical equipment the nature of these women's injuries would be unchanged. He had every opportunity to take more. He didn't. I don't think it had to do with a lack of supplies.

Anyway, I still maintain that a long knife could not have cut the throat, but a short one could not have excised the uteruses or the kidney. And the face wounds on Eddowes were done by a longer blade.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I'm intrigued. You don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim, but you do think her killer brought with him a multitude of different but sharp knives. If not the Ripper, who would have all these knives and be so inclined to butcher a girl in this way? And given the butcher job in Mitre Square, why does a second party make a better suspect in your mind than Eddowes' killer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well, to be honest, whoever killed Mary Kelly could have brought a trunk full of weapons. Portability would be less of an issue, as would concealment. It's not terribly likely, but certainly a kit would have been easy. Also her killer made a lot of bone contact, so multiple knives would be even more necessary for her killer.
As for why a second suspect for Mary Kelly, the least logical reason of all. It just feels different. It feels like Kelly's murder was very personal. Very destructive. Ones of those murders you see and say "yeah her boyfriend totally did that." Areas were targeted on her that were not touched on other victims. Her murder isn't necessarily unrelated. I think someone who was focused on absolutely destroying someone who hurt them would read the newspapers stories and expand on that. It sort of reminds me of those guys who douse their girlfriends in gasoline and light them on fire. Just an extreme amount of hatred that you just don't get without a relationship. This will sound strange, but compared to Mary Kelly, the murders of the other victims seems, almost perfunctory.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi errata,

Ive doubted 2 deaths among the Canonicals for some time now, Kelly being the second, and lately Ive been wondering about a third more.

I agree knives dull when cartilages are cut but I do not see a need for a multitude of instruments. Had there been I believe you would have seen something closer to a Torso murder. I believe he had a sharp knife, just not sturdy enough for bone.

Cheers,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Errata,

I'm intrigued. You don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim, but you do think her killer brought with him a multitude of different but sharp knives. If not the Ripper, who would have all these knives and be so inclined to butcher a girl in this way? And given the butcher job in Mitre Square, why does a second party make a better suspect in your mind than Eddowes' killer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

The blade dulls when bone or cartilage is cut repeatedly, not when soft tissues are being cut. Aside from his almost severing her right arm, and her head, it would appear that few bones were contacted aggressively. What happened to Mary Kelly required a sick mind, not a knife as sharp as it could be. Also, people accustomed to carrying knives would likely carry sharpening stones or leather to sharpen the knife, not replacement knives.

Now you can also factor in cost in LVP terms and the ability to conceal, and you are coming closer to what is probably an accurate reflection of a LVP knife bearing man. And there were lots of them, Im sure.

Best regards,

Mike R

I have to confess, I almost never consider Mary Kelly a Ripper victim in my assessments of behavior or commonality. Firstly, because I just don't think she was a Ripper victim, and secondly because it would have been such a drastic change of behavior on all levels that the murder can only serve as some kind of wacky outlier that skews everything. Sort of like how you cannot include the effects of a brief psychotic break in the assessment of someone's personality.

Also, knives absolutely dull when cutting cartilage. Sawing through a windpipe in no small feat, and the major arteries and veins of the throat are tough as well. Remember, we aren't talking about modern carbon steel blades here. We are talking about low carbon steel. Plentiful, cheap, sturdy enough, but cannot be tempered for hardness. Easy enough to put an edge on a blade, but it won't hold it. It's essentially pig iron.

[Michael W Richards]

I disagree. Changing knives I think is not only viable, in the end it's practical since blades dull so quickly under such circumstances. Without a change of blade, he would have had to essentially rip the uterus out instead of cutting it out. After cutting through neck tissue, skin, major veins and arteries, cartilage, nicking bone, and the cutting through clothing skin and mesentaries in the abdomen.... Well theres a sort of fine line between cutting and sharp force trauma. Jack certainly skirted the edge between the two, but without actually resorting to all out sharp force trauma. It's not that you can't do damage with a butter knife, it's that it isn't sharp enough to cut someone. You can essentially burst the skin with a butter knife if you use enough force. It's like a wee little axe wound. While Jack's cut were forceful, and caused sharp force trauma, there was never a time on any of his victims in which he was not actually cutting. And a dull blade doesn't cut.

It's also viable because knives are pretty portable. If you have a clasp knife in your pocket and a boot knife, theres no reason not to use both, except that it wouldn't occur to most of us. It certainly isn't inconvenient. Just odd.

Changing clothes on the other hand is damned inconvenient. Especially if you don't have a bolt hole and your bringing a change of clothes to the scene, and then it's just a farce waiting to happen. It may be worth the inconvenience, but it still takes either quite a bit of planning or quite a bit of luck to pull off, where switching knives is easy.

Both ideas are viable, it just comes down to how likely they are.

Hi Errata,

The blade dulls when bone or cartilage is cut repeatedly, not when soft tissues are being cut. Aside from his almost severing her right arm, and her head, it would appear that few bones were contacted aggressively. What happened to Mary Kelly required a sick mind, not a knife as sharp as it could be. Also, people accustomed to carrying knives would likely carry sharpening stones or leather to sharpen the knife, not replacement knives.

Now you can also factor in cost in LVP terms and the ability to conceal, and you are coming closer to what is probably an accurate reflection of a LVP knife bearing man. And there were lots of them, Im sure.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Errata]

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.


Best regards all,

Mike R

I disagree. Changing knives I think is not only viable, in the end it's practical since blades dull so quickly under such circumstances. Without a change of blade, he would have had to essentially rip the uterus out instead of cutting it out. After cutting through neck tissue, skin, major veins and arteries, cartilage, nicking bone, and the cutting through clothing skin and mesentaries in the abdomen.... Well theres a sort of fine line between cutting and sharp force trauma. Jack certainly skirted the edge between the two, but without actually resorting to all out sharp force trauma. It's not that you can't do damage with a butter knife, it's that it isn't sharp enough to cut someone. You can essentially burst the skin with a butter knife if you use enough force. It's like a wee little axe wound. While Jack's cut were forceful, and caused sharp force trauma, there was never a time on any of his victims in which he was not actually cutting. And a dull blade doesn't cut.

It's also viable because knives are pretty portable. If you have a clasp knife in your pocket and a boot knife, theres no reason not to use both, except that it wouldn't occur to most of us. It certainly isn't inconvenient. Just odd.

Changing clothes on the other hand is damned inconvenient. Especially if you don't have a bolt hole and your bringing a change of clothes to the scene, and then it's just a farce waiting to happen. It may be worth the inconvenience, but it still takes either quite a bit of planning or quite a bit of luck to pull off, where switching knives is easy.

Both ideas are viable, it just comes down to how likely they are.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike.

I don't think it's possible for us to know the exact sequence of his posing the remains.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic,

I had no intention of suggesting a sequence of events, I was only citing specific actions taken that night to illustrate my point.

I am pleased you used the word "posing" though, I agree.

My best regards,

Mike R

[Archaic]

Hi Scorpio,

I think a few things can be said without controversy, but I must add that the descriptions may be unpleasant. 1, The right foot of Marys bed was slightly out from the wall owing to sheets or a pillow being wedged there.

He was working on the corpse at an angle roughly of 90 degrees. To place something on the table behind himself, a left handed man would need to withdraw his right foot slightly to allow the pivot. A right handed man would need to turn almost completely around to face the table, whether he turns right or left. Using a left hand the killer could easily slice off a breast, heft it in his right hand and then lift her head with his left and place the breast under her head from the left of her head, able to see the placement, even while holding the knife. A right handed man would need to lift her head with his right hand, based on the above, then slip the breast under her head from her right side, as she lay. In effect, blindly.

Hi Mike.

Couldn't the killer have been the one who wedged the sheet & pillow between the bed & the wall? He might have shoved the bedclothes to the far side to get them out of the way.

I think it's also possible that he performed the mutilations, piling up the pieces as he went, then "arranged" them on bed, table, etc. afterward, posing them for the greatest shock value when others would come through the door later.

I don't think it's possible for us to know the exact sequence of his posing the remains.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Scorpio]

Hi Scorpio,

I think a few things can be said without controversy, but I must add that the descriptions may be unpleasant. 1, The right foot of Marys bed was slightly out from the wall owing to sheets or a pillow being wedged there. There was no room for a killer to work from there, (facing Mary from the side of the foot of the bed), the left hand side. 2, that means we have 3 alternatives. Either he did it from above her head, (exterior wall), from on the bed between her splayed legs, (guaranteeing he would be covered in blood and making placement of items on the night table very awkward), or from the right side by the night table. 3, There are no obvious objections to the last scenario.

He was working on the corpse at an angle roughly of 90 degrees. To place something on the table behind himself, a left handed man would need to withdraw his right foot slightly to allow the pivot. A right handed man would need to turn almost completely around to face the table, whether he turns right or left. Using a left hand the killer could easily slice off a breast, heft it in his right hand and then lift her head with his left and place the breast under her head from the left of her head, able to see the placement, even while holding the knife. A right handed man would need to lift her head with his right hand, based on the above, then slip the breast under her head from her right side, as she lay. In effect, blindly.

I think its a matter of ease of access. I would readily agree that a right handed man could have done everything in that room, but I believe that the physical evidence suggests that the actions were performed by someone left handed.

Best regards,

Mike R

Mike, scenario 3 seems reasonable. I think the killer would have avoided holding the knife and grasping human tissue in the same hand; the amount of blood on knife handle would become impratical. Still, various pieces of clothing were known to have been burned; he used them for cleaning purposes perhaps.