The Knife

[RivkahChaya]

You don't like the idea that he cut the apron before he cut her?

[Chava]

He wipes the knife or knives on something I think. And Lynn's suggestion of a leather apron would work except by this time I doubt any whore in London would go with a man wearing one! It's the preciseness of it that's caught my attention. He has to wipe that knife. He could wipe it on anything but he has to wipe it on something and so far no inquest evidence has suggested that the examiners have found any trace of that on any of the victims. And there's certainly no trace of blood down that tear otherwise I think it would have been mentioned. That apron was white. Even if it was spotted and soiled, it would be hard not to see a trace of blood on it. So either he wipes his knife damned thoroughly before he uses it to cut the apron. Or he doesn't cut the apron but tears it along the mend. Which is possible but might be time-consuming if Eddowes is a decent needlewoman, and he's got at least one knife to hand to do it faster...

[RivkahChaya]

Using the cut apron to wipe the knife doesn't make any sense, because it would be faster to just wipe the knife, than to cut the fabric, and wipe while walking. Maybe he cut it before he started cutting her. If he had two knives, one for cutting her throat, and one for cutting her abdomen, and he used the abdomen knife on the fabric, before he started cutting, the cut would be clean.

Wasn't one of her skirts red? If he wiped the knife on that, and it were examined under lamplight, before the blood had a chance to turn color completely, blade-shaped wipe marks might escape notice.

[lynn cates]

leather apron

Hello Chava. Good question.

How about a leather apron with appurtenances for knives?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Wait, what?

When did he lose the knife?

I was joking, phrasing it that way, but I was postulating that he tried going out with the knife just in his pocket once, and before he'd walked a block, it had cut through the fabric, and fallen down his pants leg.

"That's never happened to me before."

[Chava]

Hi Moonbegger, that's a really good point about the knife. He may well have had two. But I'm still interested in the issue of whether he wiped it off or not and when. If he cuts the linen off the apron with a clean knife, he's wiped it already. Which suggests to me he's done with his knife or knives for the evening. It's possible the trophies were on the ground at that point. The absence of blood on the front of the clothes does not suggest they were lying on the body. But I find it strange he wipes the knife first on something else before cutting the linen when there is that very handy apron lying there just waiting to be used as a knife-wipe. That suggests a level of fastidiousness that I hadn't previously considered. He must wipe his knife on something else--maybe a handkerchief--and then stash the organs in that but then what is the piece of apron for? I thought for a long time that he cut himself and had to wrap the wound. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that either on the apron or on the piece of apron. It's the sequence that bothers me. If, in fact, there was evidence of blood along the tear-line, or blood spotting from a wound on the apron, or evidence of a wiped blade anywhere near the apron or the piece, then there's no real mystery. But it doesn't sound like there is. Don't forget, even a bunched piece of cloth would display breaks in the bloodstain where the material had been bunched up. Admittedly there was a ton of blood around the body but it seemed to have seeped back onto the pavement. I don't think they'd have missed a knife-wipe stain here or on the other victims.

[moonbegger]

Hello chava ,

I have always been under the impression that the killer used more than one knife .. a shorter stronger blade for the cutting of the throat , and a longer more agile blade for the rest of the job .

Would the killer be best served by a singular vessel, in which to keep both his knives and removed organs in ( i.e. A Bag ) ?

moonbegger

[Chava]

I don't think this guy was a meticulous planner, but after the first night, when he lost the knife because it cut through his pocket, he'd have to think of something.

Wait, what?

When did he lose the knife?

[RivkahChaya]

The most common materials for scabbards were leather and wood. Both of those would rot if you got a lot of blood on them, and they'd be hard to clean. Is there such a thing as a hinged wooden scabbard, that was varnished on the inside, and opened for cleaning?

In high school, I used to juggle, and was pretty good. Carving and butchers knives were some of the things my friends and I juggled. We didn't sharpen them, but we didn't dull them on purpose, either, so we could cut things beforehand for show. We stored them on our bags of stuff (our clubs, balls, etc.) in cut strips of bicycle inner tubes.

Is a rubber scabbard possible? I know rubber is natural, but it doesn't rot like wood or leather-- as quickly, anyway, and it could be rinsed and dried with a cloth.

The only other things I can think of are soap and wax. Something to shove onto the blade so it wouldn't cut his pocket, and then rinsed, and after a few uses, disposed of.

He could have an extra pocket sewn into the inside of a coat, narrow, and angled, and maybe made from canvas.

I don't think this guy was a meticulous planner, but after the first night, when he lost the knife because it cut through his pocket, he'd have to think of something.

[Chava]

We've discussed the apron. We've discussed the graffito. But I think we've kind of taken the knife for granted. I'm putting this thread here rather than in the general victim discussion because I think it forms a trinity with the other two.

First of all, how does he carry it? I assume it's concealed until he needs it, but it's not a short blade and it doesn't sound like a clasp-knife. It's also extremely sharp. He could ram it into his belt under his jacket but I think the blade's too long and it might be seen. He could push it under his trousers but he risks doing to himself what he's been doing to his victims. He could hold it by the handle and push it up his sleeve but the same risks of cutting himself apply. He could have a scabbard for it--either nicely-made or jury-rigged--and put it somewhere under his jacket. But that might make it awkward to get at when he wants it because he's likely to want it real fast in in a particular situation where his victim might be struggling. I assume that is why he asphyxiates first but not all the women were asphyxiated.

Secondly--and this to me is really important--does he wipe it? Is there any evidence to show that he wipes it? A knife wiped free of blood will leave an unmistakeable mark on a piece of cloth if he simply folds the cloth and wipes both sides simultaneously. He might grab a piece of material and wipe one side and then the other but I think that would show up as a wipe-mark as well. I am assuming he wipes it because, if he doesn't, wherever he keeps it is going to commence to stink really soon and will not be easy to clean. This might attract attention to him that he really doesn't want. I also assume he wipes it because if he doesn't, the blade will start to deteriorate and dull. He prefers his knife sharp according to the medical evidence of the time. It certainly does not look like he wiped it on the piece of apron and if I read the evidence right, he didn't use it to cut the piece off until after he wiped the knife, because if he had there would be blood-trace evidence on the apron left behind. So he removes the organs, conceals them, wipes the knife, and then takes a piece of the apron. According to the inquest there was no blood on the front of the clothes but he must have wiped the knife somehow. If in fact he did do this, then he cannot have used the linen piece he took to carry the organs in. So he uses it for a different reason.