Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.