Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Michael W Richards]

I didn't ignore the possibility. I just didn't base my analysis on the idea that they were all different killers. I can if you like. Some things would change, most would not. For example there is no way according to the laws of physics that an 8 inch blade cuts the throat of a woman on her back on the ground the way these women had their throats cut. An eight inch blade essentially starts the cut on the same vertical line with the eye. Not the ear. Certainly not behind the ear.

And of course it's ridiculous to suggest that a single killer used multiple knives. Why on earth would they do something like that? Except that I really think that happened. I really think the neck wounds were not made by the same knife as the abdominal wounds. And I know for a fact that sawing through a neck dulls a blade like nobody's business. It's not analogous to field dressing a deer. Which also often results in a hunter having to sharpen his blade midway through. It's the equivalent of rendering a cow. In your average kitchen the chef sharpens his knife once every hour or two. And these are great knives, not low carbon steel that can't keep an edge. So multiple knives makes sense. It seems to me more unlikely that an obsessive serial killer is going to stop and sharpen his knife.

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

[Harry D]

Obviously the Ripper had to have had some kind of anatomical expertise. There's no way an ordinary guy on the street could perform that level of evisceration in the dark, within a matter of minutes.

[RockySullivan]

Yikes!

I addressed the knife question here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6708

And it's still generally what I think. Though in the intervening years I took up carving so my knife usage today is about 1000 times more than it was then.

There is a science to cutting, and I address it in the other thread if you guys are interested. But mainly the place I think Phillips screwed up is how knives work horizontally as opposed to vertically. A person standing up who stabs another person standing up generally does so with enough force to drive the blade in about 2/5 of the way in (simplifying the physics here). So if you have a 2 inch stab wound, the blade is 5 inches long. But stabbing a person lying down drives the knife in about 4/5 of the way in. So a 2 inch stab wound lying down comes from a 2.5 inch blade.

Add to that there are no singular stab wounds with bruising ever mentioned. Bruising or indentation means the killers slammed the hilt guard against the wound. It's the surest sign that the blade was completely sheathed in the body, and simply measuring the depth of that wound gives you the blade length. But as best I can tell, there are no such wounds. But I can tell you that a 6-8 inch blade during certain aspects of these attacks would result in carving up the victim's back from the inside. In other words, exit wounds. None are mentioned.

Thanks I am enjoying reading that link. Perhaps the ripper even had a "lucky knife" or a psychological attachment to one of his knives which could be the reason he didn't leave it behind. What about the torsos? Where they cut up with a knife or what?

[RockySullivan]

So what if he have a few knives in his arsenal? Perhaps the ripper was a knife aficionado. He could have been very very skilled with a knife. Are there any professions where someone might use a different knives? Perhaps the killer had a bag of knives almost like a surgeons kit but full of knives. Not bloody likely since it'd be a big risk. Perhaps the ripper was even a knife collector of sorts?

[Scott Nelson]

I believe the evidence such as it is supports a contention that the variance in blade descriptions and the skill level variance means that differently skilled men used different knives.

Wouldn't a different state of mind for a lone killer account for skill level variance?

[Errata]

Here is what you said in the quote you offered a link for;

".....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."

I wondering how could you ignore the blatantly obvious possibility that Phillips and the others were roughly correct in their estimations and that these were simply different knives used by different men. And I believe you've ignored every penetration angle but 90 and 180 in the above statement.

When the demonstrated skill with a knife suddenly becomes in question, as it is with every Canonical murder after Annies, its only logical to look at alternative uses of knives in the area, usage that doesn't require any finer cutting, cutting stomach flaps off the body in order to access the abdomen.

I believe the evidence such as it is supports a contention that the variance in blade descriptions and the skill level variance means that differently skilled men used different knives.

When you consider that with Annie and Kate there is evidence that the killer had little time with the victim after the murder cuts, changing knives based on the application seems very unlikely. Which would suggest that the men who killed the Canonical victims did so with the single weapon they had chosen for the task, a familiar knife, a knife that they would use for their work or to clean a just bagged deer.

Which means that after Annie we might be seeing butchers, hunters, slaughterhouseman skills....something that is not the case in the Chapman evidence.

Cheers

I didn't ignore the possibility. I just didn't base my analysis on the idea that they were all different killers. I can if you like. Some things would change, most would not. For example there is no way according to the laws of physics that an 8 inch blade cuts the throat of a woman on her back on the ground the way these women had their throats cut. An eight inch blade essentially starts the cut on the same vertical line with the eye. Not the ear. Certainly not behind the ear.

And of course it's ridiculous to suggest that a single killer used multiple knives. Why on earth would they do something like that? Except that I really think that happened. I really think the neck wounds were not made by the same knife as the abdominal wounds. And I know for a fact that sawing through a neck dulls a blade like nobody's business. It's not analogous to field dressing a deer. Which also often results in a hunter having to sharpen his blade midway through. It's the equivalent of rendering a cow. In your average kitchen the chef sharpens his knife once every hour or two. And these are great knives, not low carbon steel that can't keep an edge. So multiple knives makes sense. It seems to me more unlikely that an obsessive serial killer is going to stop and sharpen his knife.

[Michael W Richards]

Yikes!

I addressed the knife question here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6708

And it's still generally what I think. Though in the intervening years I took up carving so my knife usage today is about 1000 times more than it was then.

There is a science to cutting, and I address it in the other thread if you guys are interested. But mainly the place I think Phillips screwed up is how knives work horizontally as opposed to vertically. A person standing up who stabs another person standing up generally does so with enough force to drive the blade in about 2/5 of the way in (simplifying the physics here). So if you have a 2 inch stab wound, the blade is 5 inches long. But stabbing a person lying down drives the knife in about 4/5 of the way in. So a 2 inch stab wound lying down comes from a 2.5 inch blade.

Add to that there are no singular stab wounds with bruising ever mentioned. Bruising or indentation means the killers slammed the hilt guard against the wound. It's the surest sign that the blade was completely sheathed in the body, and simply measuring the depth of that wound gives you the blade length. But as best I can tell, there are no such wounds. But I can tell you that a 6-8 inch blade during certain aspects of these attacks would result in carving up the victim's back from the inside. In other words, exit wounds. None are mentioned.

Here is what you said in the quote you offered a link for;

".....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."

I wondering how could you ignore the blatantly obvious possibility that Phillips and the others were roughly correct in their estimations and that these were simply different knives used by different men. And I believe you've ignored every penetration angle but 90 and 180 in the above statement.

When the demonstrated skill with a knife suddenly becomes in question, as it is with every Canonical murder after Annies, its only logical to look at alternative uses of knives in the area, usage that doesn't require any finer cutting, cutting stomach flaps off the body in order to access the abdomen.

I believe the evidence such as it is supports a contention that the variance in blade descriptions and the skill level variance means that differently skilled men used different knives.

When you consider that with Annie and Kate there is evidence that the killer had little time with the victim after the murder cuts, changing knives based on the application seems very unlikely. Which would suggest that the men who killed the Canonical victims did so with the single weapon they had chosen for the task, a familiar knife, a knife that they would use for their work or to clean a just bagged deer.

Which means that after Annie we might be seeing butchers, hunters, slaughterhouseman skills....something that is not the case in the Chapman evidence.

Cheers

[Errata]

What is that you use a knife hours a day for are you a butcher, a fishmonger, a sushi chef? What size do you estimate the rippers knife was? I was surprised seeing how small the knife was in the Isis decapitation videos, looks real small! Would the ripper use a knife that size? Could the knife used in the rippings be the same size as from the dismemberments? If not what size/type of knife do you think the torso killer used?

Yikes!

I addressed the knife question here http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6708

And it's still generally what I think. Though in the intervening years I took up carving so my knife usage today is about 1000 times more than it was then.

There is a science to cutting, and I address it in the other thread if you guys are interested. But mainly the place I think Phillips screwed up is how knives work horizontally as opposed to vertically. A person standing up who stabs another person standing up generally does so with enough force to drive the blade in about 2/5 of the way in (simplifying the physics here). So if you have a 2 inch stab wound, the blade is 5 inches long. But stabbing a person lying down drives the knife in about 4/5 of the way in. So a 2 inch stab wound lying down comes from a 2.5 inch blade.

Add to that there are no singular stab wounds with bruising ever mentioned. Bruising or indentation means the killers slammed the hilt guard against the wound. It's the surest sign that the blade was completely sheathed in the body, and simply measuring the depth of that wound gives you the blade length. But as best I can tell, there are no such wounds. But I can tell you that a 6-8 inch blade during certain aspects of these attacks would result in carving up the victim's back from the inside. In other words, exit wounds. None are mentioned.

[RockySullivan]

Sure, but where a person becomes proficient with knives and what knives they use are two separate issues.

I have extremely sharp knife skills (sorry. couldn't help it) because I use them for hours every day. But I almost never work with an edge longer than two inches. I can, and have on many occasions used ridiculously long knives to do something in a pinch. I can carve with the tip of a chef's knife if I have to. But you will know it's a knife I'm not used to by the fact that I only use the tip of the knife. And there might be some marring on the surface because I don't have as much control as I'm used to. Which I think these bodies show signs of. But one thing there apparently is not are signs that the weight of the knife used was unfamiliar.

And I think Phillips was WAY off on the knife size. I think he applied the rule of thumb used when both parties are standing and applied it to a horizontal crime. Which doesn't really work.

What is that you use a knife hours a day for are you a butcher, a fishmonger, a sushi chef? What size do you estimate the rippers knife was? I was surprised seeing how small the knife was in the Isis decapitation videos, looks real small! Would the ripper use a knife that size? Could the knife used in the rippings be the same size as from the dismemberments? If not what size/type of knife do you think the torso killer used?

[Rosella]

In your opinion what did the knife Jack use look like and what would have been the actual purpose for such a blade at the time?

Yes, Errata, as a person who uses knives a lot please give us your opinion.

I agree that a person's job wouldn't necessarily correlate to the sort of knife carried around away from work, either to harm others or for personal protection. Nevertheless, the speed at which Jack worked does suggest he followed a trade in which knives were used daily.

[lynn cates]

pointed remark

Hello Errata. Thanks.

OK, I get the point. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[gnote]

Sure, but where a person becomes proficient with knives and what knives they use are two separate issues.

I have extremely sharp knife skills (sorry. couldn't help it) because I use them for hours every day. But I almost never work with an edge longer than two inches. I can, and have on many occasions used ridiculously long knives to do something in a pinch. I can carve with the tip of a chef's knife if I have to. But you will know it's a knife I'm not used to by the fact that I only use the tip of the knife. And there might be some marring on the surface because I don't have as much control as I'm used to. Which I think these bodies show signs of. But one thing there apparently is not are signs that the weight of the knife used was unfamiliar.

And I think Phillips was WAY off on the knife size. I think he applied the rule of thumb used when both parties are standing and applied it to a horizontal crime. Which doesn't really work.

In your opinion what did the knife Jack use look like and what would have been the actual purpose for such a blade at the time?

[Errata]

Hello Rosella. That's true, but Dr. Phillips pronounced knives used in that trade too short.

Cheers.
LC

Sure, but where a person becomes proficient with knives and what knives they use are two separate issues.

I have extremely sharp knife skills (sorry. couldn't help it) because I use them for hours every day. But I almost never work with an edge longer than two inches. I can, and have on many occasions used ridiculously long knives to do something in a pinch. I can carve with the tip of a chef's knife if I have to. But you will know it's a knife I'm not used to by the fact that I only use the tip of the knife. And there might be some marring on the surface because I don't have as much control as I'm used to. Which I think these bodies show signs of. But one thing there apparently is not are signs that the weight of the knife used was unfamiliar.

And I think Phillips was WAY off on the knife size. I think he applied the rule of thumb used when both parties are standing and applied it to a horizontal crime. Which doesn't really work.

[lynn cates]

The name's Bond, Thomas Bond.

Hello Rosella. Thanks.

Presumably, Dr. Bond would have referred to "MJK." He did not see the other women.

Personally, if the knives are described as "different," it is simply grist for my mill.

Cheers.
LC

[Rosella]

Yes, Pizer is no suspect. On the other hand, Dr Bond believed JTR's knife to be about six inches long, pointed at the top, very sharp, and about an inch in width. Would a slaughterman, for instance, have had that sort of knife or use a longer stronger one?