Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Rosella]

Serial killers have been known to torture and mutilate animals in their childhood and youth. Hearts, kidneys could be removed. Plus, taxidermists, for example, remove inner organs. Butchers certainly do.

[Errata]

Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I don't know honestly. My last surgery was far less extensive, involved more potential bone contact, and about half a dozen scalpels were used. Surgical teams don't let scalpels get even a little dull.

I know an exacto blade dulls beyond use cutting a two inch stack of paper in half. I have no idea how that translates to human bits.

It's possible. I don't think terribly likely, and never mind I know from experience that running around with a scalpel is fraught with its own perils. Like stabbing yourself in the thigh a ton. And I had an exacto once cut through my pocket to escape.

[RockySullivan]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

Right and a job that would give him practice removing abdominal organs? Does that job exist or did he practice on his own? How could he practice on his own? A riddle indeed

[Rosella]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

[RockySullivan]

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I understand it's not a popular theory, and while I know nothing about knives the deep throat cuts do logically sound like they would dull the blade too much for the mutilations.

[Wickerman]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

[RockySullivan]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?

[Errata]

Errata you have me thoroughly convinced you are serial killer! Lol that being said I like the two knives theory. If the throat cutting would dull the blade too much to do the abdominal mutilations, two would make sense. What if the woman were strangled/knocked out, then the ripper proceeded with the eviscerations, finally afterwards he cut the throat. Would the knife be sharp enough to cut the throats after the abdominal mutilations? Is this is possible alternative scenario to the two knives theory?

I could never be a serial killer. I'm half Jewish half Catholic. The guilt is extraordinary. I get embarrassingly apologetic if I just startle someone.

But I also try stuff out. I don't know if it's a product of living in the South where mayhem is just always a little closer to home, but if I wonder how hard it is to cut through a human windpipe, I get a pig head and try. Or I call my fiance in to play victim while I see if I can draw a line on his neck while he is lying facing away from me (he hates that). I think everyone should try things out. Some things sound great in theory, but then when you actually try it you realize that in order for it to work you would need to phase through a solid object. And since I don't think we have a Marvel SuperVillain roaming Victorian England, we can probably say with a reasonable amount of certainty that it had to happen a different way.

I think, though I cannot swear, that the neck wounds had to come first. What blood evidence we know about does indicate the heart still beating when the throats were cut.

I also think that cutting the throat was just as or more important to the killer than getting in the abdomen, despite the trophy taking. The throat cuts are major overkill. Like cutting off a hand to cure a hangnail. It's more than making sure they were dead, or dead enough. In every case (barring Stride, and maybe even with her I just can't tell) he made damn sure he cut through the voice box. Which a: is super hard to do, and I have a lovely scar on my hip from trying to do just that on my fetal pig in 9th grade biology and b: really is unnecessary. But not only did he open the windpipes of these women, he completely severed them. And with a dull blade, he doesn't sever the windpipe at all. He just pokes at it for awhile.

And even without windpipes, necks are not easy things to cut. And you know this because people use cleavers to cut the heads off chickens. And a chicken's neck is maybe an inch in diameter. They had to invent guillotines in order for the condemned to actually have their heads taken off in one strike, as opposed to the usual three to a dozen strikes needed by headsmen. And serial killer movies always show people being dismembered with power saws, because it really takes a power saw unless you are willing to spend 5 hours taking off a head with a hack saw. Not easy. You don't do that to someone who is technically already dead, unless you HAVE to. He clearly had to. And it wasn't to dispose of the body.

That said, knives totally dull when cutting the abdomen. Mesenteries are tough. Really tough. It's like a web keeping your innards upright. And every organ has connective tissue not only to the mesentaries, but also to other organs. They bear a ton of weight without sagging. The uterus has I think 7 major connections, tissue that is roughly the texture and tensile strength of raw silk. Now ask any fabric seller, and they will tell you that silk is the scissor killer. Some of the connections are actually ligaments, which is like web strapping. I don't think a person can even break skin on the neck after going in an abdomen. Much less sever the windpipe. I'm not even sure that he could get through all of the mutilations of the abdomen on a single knife. He hit bone. He cut through mesentaries, which surgeons back then and today use surgical scissors to get through. He cut muscle crosswise. That knife should have been wrecked even with the switch from the blade used on the neck. There may have been a third knife. My guess is that he used a dagger in the abdomen because it allowed him to simply turn the knife to get a fresher edge. And we know he used one on Eddowes at least.

[RockySullivan]

Errata you have me thoroughly convinced you are serial killer! Lol that being said I like the two knives theory. If the throat cutting would dull the blade too much to do the abdominal mutilations, two would make sense. What if the woman were strangled/knocked out, then the ripper proceeded with the eviscerations, finally afterwards he cut the throat. Would the knife be sharp enough to cut the throats after the abdominal mutilations? Is this is possible alternative scenario to the two knives theory?

[Errata]

My first three years out of school were spent as a butchers apprentice, I never did cut a finger off, but I still carry the 'nearly' scars.

It looks like I tried to cut all the fingers of my left hand off due to an unfortunate period of having to cut avocados in half for a living (treacherous little bastards). So I know that even near misses are crippling and one cannot simply continue cutting after yanking a knife out of a finger bone, or separating your thumb pad from the rest of your palm, or other common knife related injuries. You can't ignore the injuries caused by unfamiliarity with a knife. They are too bad. You have to stop and at least bind them, and that's assuming that you didn't just cause massive nerve or tendon damage which it turns out is surprisingly easy to do. A pro might still nick themselves. But a knitter or a milkman cannot commit these murders and not sustain at least one catastrophic injury. An abrupt murder ending injury.

I have said any number of times that I could pull off these murders, and I stand by that. But to this day I have no idea how this killer did not lay open his palm during the initial abdominal cuts. There's a common mistake involving wet hands and trying to push down or pull up the knife and accidentally sliding your palm or inside finger joints along the blade... My hand hurts just thinking about it.

[Wickerman]

My thing is that there is at least one instance where the killer lost control of the blade. I think there are actually three, but one that is obvious.

I'm not sure just what instance you are alluding to, nevertheless, I'm sure you are correct, this killer was not a butcher.
Some people have a complete misunderstanding of what this profession entails. A butcher essentially deconstructs the anatomy of a beast, be it a cow or pig. A butcher is not a slasher, there is an art in identifying & separating bone joints, then removing the muscles intact.
The profit is in the muscles, a butcher who is a slasher will not be employed for long.

There is no connection between the butchers knowledge of animal anatomy, which is primarily concerned with the skeleton, and the ability of another person to remove a female uterus, kidney, etc.

It's why they don't cut off their own fingers all the time.

My first three years out of school were spent as a butchers apprentice, I never did cut a finger off, but I still carry the 'nearly' scars.

[Errata]

Well, he could have been, but it would have been a bit unusual for a local in the East End of London to have hunting experience. Having said that, I remember Frank Spiering's work of fiction, 'Prince Jack', in which he stated that because Prince Eddy was used to stalking deer in the Scottish Highlands, he would have been used to dressing the venison.

Still think Jack was more likely to have been a butcher than any other trade or profession. I'm even more convinced after this interesting discussion on knives!

My thing is that there is at least one instance where the killer lost control of the blade. I think there are actually three, but one that is obvious. It's the kind of thing that happens when you expect more resistance than you actually get, or you are not used to changes in consistency. A cow has the same consistency as human flesh, and butcher's hit bone all the time. They are used to essentially throwing on the breaks quickly. They don't leave the odd slash when the knife hits something like the Ripper did. And it's instinctual. It's why they don't cut off their own fingers all the time. So that's not a mistake a butcher would make. Or a surgeon for that matter.

It's like you can always tell what kind of jeweler someone is by whether or not they try to catch something that falls. People who work with razor sharp or molten metal don't even try. People who work with wire or foil will.

[Rosella]

Well, he could have been, but it would have been a bit unusual for a local in the East End of London to have hunting experience. Having said that, I remember Frank Spiering's work of fiction, 'Prince Jack', in which he stated that because Prince Eddy was used to stalking deer in the Scottish Highlands, he would have been used to dressing the venison.

Still think Jack was more likely to have been a butcher than any other trade or profession. I'm even more convinced after this interesting discussion on knives!

[RockySullivan]

Jolly good stuff! Do hunters cut the throat and slice open the animal? dressing? forgive my ignorance. Could the ripper have been a hunter?

[Errata]

As you know errata Im going to point out that the premise when starting out of multiple killers is contradicted within the known physical evidence, despite what Bond states after his look at the only Canonical and the previous notes on the murdered women. It appears that different knives were likely used, but also with differing levels of skill.

I don't hunt, nor do I dissect, but I do use a variety of knives to carve with. And Ive found that depending on the angle with which the blade is held, the pressure applied and the sharpness of the tool, I can use "ill suited" instruments to achieve what I actually have specialized tools for.

Sometimes its just easier to use what is already in your hand instead of changing tools for every occasion. My experience anyway.

I think some of the cuts indicate that the tool used was not well suited for its purpose, maybe he just used what he had at the ready as well.

Cheers

And I agree that the knives used were not perfect fits. I don't think the knives used on the neck were the best tools for the job, and I don't think he was 100% comfortable with the tools he used. Like he was accustomed to working with knives, just not those particular knives. For example, someone who uses utility or kitchen blades can certainly use a hilted dagger, but there will be some mistakes. The difference in weight, balance, and size to what a person is used to will show up. And I think it does.

And I don't think he switched knives because he had two different needs, although he did. I think he switched them because the neck cutting knife was useless after everything he did. His choice was to sharpen the knife or use another one. And I think sharpening a knife took time away from the murder he didn't have to spare.

And frankly, the wounds in the neck and the wound in the abdomen are different, characteristic of different blades. Not unlike a 9mm bullet in the forehead and a shotgun blast to the chest. As unlikely as it may be for a person to be killed by two separate guns, if you find a body with two kinds of bullets in it, they were in fact shot by two separate guns no matter how unlikely.

And there is nothing to say that the same two knives were used on every victim. The killer could have grabbed two random knives from a pile before every murder, and the farther away the knives got from his area of expertise,the more clumsy he would become. You give a butcher a dagger, he does all right. Give him a pen knife, and it becomes a comedy of errors. I start falling apart once a blade is longer than 4 inches, but get back into a comfort zone at about 8-10 inches because I have familiarity from two completely different sources.

Jack was an expert with a knife because it was ridiculously easy for him to give himself a crippling injury and he didn't. That's his basic knife skill at work. The general knowledge of where his hands and body are in relation to the blade. Familiarity with a specific knife would make his work look tidy. And we don't have tidy. A champion fencer can carve a smiley face in your face mask without grazing skin. He knows his body that well, and his sword. Give him a different sword, or god forbid a dagger and eyes will be lost. He still knows his body and his skill, but he doesn't know his blade. That's what I think we see. The right reflexes, the right awareness, the wrong knife. He shows expertise, no doubt. But not mastery.