Was it really two blades?

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:

"When does lack of premeditation wear off, Fish? After the ninth stab? After the thirty-eighth?"

You are asking the wrong question here, Sam, since the man I referred to as perhaps arriving at the Tabram murder scene with no premeditation of murder did not inflict any of the first thirty-seven stabs! You pointed out that there was no cut neck and that there was no extensive cutting to the abdomen, and I suggested lack of premeditation as a possible cause. If we do have a scenario with two knifemen - and yes, I think we have exactly that - then the thirtyseven wounds (or thirty-eight) would belong to the first man and just one or two to the second man. If that was Jack, he may have wanted to take advatage of what he felt was a dead woman, Sam - why cut her neck in the first place. And, in the second place, if she was his first deed , then how do we know that he had already realized that it may prove necessary to cut the neck first in order to ensure silence and death?

"...or, in this case, cut (singular)."

Absolutely, Sam. But you know full well that I was speaking in general terms since I also spoke of cuts to the abomens of WOMEN in the East end NIGHTS - plural. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie etc did not sustain one single collective cut to their abdomens, did they...?

"I'd say that deep cuts to the throat, accompanied by extensive lower abdominal cuts, are more significant still."

We both say that, Sam. But if we have to make a choice about where the Rippers genuine interest was focused, I would suggest that a fair case can be made for the neck-cutting being something he did out of necessity, whereas he eviscerated out of urge. If this holds true, then I think Tabram makes an infinitely better suggestion for an interrupted Ripper job than Stride does. Once again, if Tabram was the first strike and if she was a non-premeditated deed, there may be very good reason to expect a differing picture.

"It's perhaps the number of cuts versus stabs that ought to help determine the boundary of significance - that, allied to the length and depth of the cut concerned, and the "big picture" of the wounds inflicted elsewhere on the body."

That, Sam, makes eminent sense - as long as we agree on just the one knifeman. The moment we disagree, though, it becomes unsensible. We cannot try and asess a rational man who inflicted two focused wounds on the body of Tabram by looking at thirtyseven crazed and frenzied stabs dealt by somebody else. And if I am correct, that is what we are dealing with.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"... and the only knife wound in an area where the splendidly irregular and angular pelvis might throw the blade off-track, as Don Souden has observed."

Only just saw this post of yours, Sam - missed it yesterday, I´m afraid. And yes, Don makes an excellent point - the knife may have skidded off the bone structure. No doubt about it. But like I have already stated, I would be happier about things if it had skidded off bone structure placed somewhere in the area where he distributed all the rest of the stabs!
Try and think along these lines, Sam (and I am working from suppositions here, but suppositions that are firmly rooted in facts and statistics):
We know that a man stabbed Tabram repeatedly. We agree, I believe, that it seems a deed of frenzy. This would in all probability mean that the stabs were delivered in quick succession. He would not have stabbed her once, then sat down and had a rest, only to inflict stab number two a minute later and so on. The stabs would have rained down over Tabram, all of them, in a short time. Another thing that supports such a suggestion is that the stabs are all collected in a limited part of Tabrams body - the neck and the upper and mid torso. It can be argued that the stabber did not change position - he would have been able to reach all them areas from the same position, be that one at Tabrams side or one at her head or, perhaps, straddling her. The point I am trying to make is that there would have been a comfort zone that he could reach and stab. And nothing seems to have caused him to abandon that zone - but for the cut!

Now, why would that be? What suddenly caused him to have a go at the lower abdomen? The rest seems to speak to me of a red haze and a I-could-not-care-less-where-the-stabs-end-up attitude, so why suddenly retract the knife and shift focus in such a distinctive manner?
Finally, if the only wound that was impossible to group with the others geographically had no sexual intent - then is it not a VERY strange coincidence that it just happened to end up on the very part that our boy took such an active interest in?

Which brings us to the next passage:

" there are some out there who want Tabram's killer to be the Ripper, dont'cha know"

Equally, Sam, there are those who need her not to be. And then there´s me, who do not "want" it either way, but who feels that the evidence urges us to realize that she may very well have been one of Jacks!

All the best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury,

We have for some time now heard allegations of conduct and actions by my client Mr J.T. Ripper as relates to the deceased in this case and the terrible murder wrought upon her, some too horrid to repeat, and yet to this point in our proceedings we have seen or heard no evidence that satisfactorily makes those points beyond doubt. Reasonable doubt. It is clear from the records that my client has some very serious issues with women and their being alive and unmutilated when he finds them out on the streets, and we readily accept that indeed some indiscretions committed in this year of our Lord, 1888, were caused by my client. We ask the courts indulgence for my clients laughter, he has a rare condition.

It is also true however, that he committed these acts with a single instrument, and that he chose to stab the deceased minimally. His preference is well documented in the murders following Ms Tabrams. Single weapon, cutting not stabbing.

We have in our possession a document from the attending physician in the case of Ms Tabram, and in that document he clearly specifies that he discovered a single wound that was made with a larger instrument than the remaining 38 stabs were made with. Thats 2 weapons Ladies and Gentlemen, clear and concise.

My poor client is but one humble killer, and despite the press suggesting his other worldy skills, alas he can only use one knife at a time.

Some suggestion has been made that my client came upon this poor woman, and it was my client that made some of those stabs. Is that so. Then which ones? Did he find her with the single large wound and make 38 smaller ones? Did she have 20 smaller stab wounds, and he used a small knife and a big knife to make the rest? Did he stab her 3 times, 13 times, 23 times?

You see the problem here Ladies and Gentlemen. My client cannot be proven to have made any stabs into the deceased. And the deceased's body certainly exhibited none of my clients trademark signatures....ones we will of course discuss in depth in the upcoming trials for the 5 women the authorities opinions and the public has charged him with.

There has been no evidence to suggest the good Doctors opinions should be discarded, there has been no evidence that eliminates 2 men from this crime, in fact there is some that insinuates it quite clearly.

It is for these reasons and the pursuit of justice that we ask for an acquittal of all charges related to the death of Martha Chapman against my client, J.T. Ripper Esq.

My client would also like to speak with the middle aged woman in the back row later tonight at her place of work.

My sincere regards,

Perry Mason

[John Wheat]

Ambidextrous

Of course if the Ripper was ambidextrous and I'm not saying he was although some have speculated about this it would mean he would be able to use a knife in each hand. Also is it really beyond the realms of possibility that a killer could carry two kinves.

[perrymason]

Of course if the Ripper was ambidextrous and I'm not saying he was although some have speculated about this it would mean he would be able to use a knife in each hand. Also is it really beyond the realms of possibility that a killer could carry two kinves.

And use one hand 38 times and the other once? Yeah, its beyond the realm John.

Cheers.

[John Wheat]

Knives

I take your point I did say that I wasn't suggesting the Ripper was ambidextrous I was merely being deliberatly pedantic. As someone who is ambidextrous I would however like to point out that I could if I wished chose to stab someone a number of times with one hand and then once with the other. Also from your posts you seem to put alot of faith into medical info and the medical info does suggest that two knives may have been used.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, I must agree. Why is there always an out cry every time someone suggests that JtR might have carried more than one knife (or even purhaps an axe) I cant see any reason to dismiss this out of hand.

We are after all dealing with a unique killer.

Pirate

[John Wheat]

An Axe

The fact you mention an axe is an interesting one especially considering that the medical evidence does suggest an axe was used in the mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly

[Sam Flynn]

And use one hand 38 times and the other once?

And therein lies the crux of the problem with the "two knives/two men" scenarios. Why just the ONE different wound? The "second" knife was a bayonet... the "second" man was - what? - a bullfighter? It just doesn't add up.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"therein lies the crux of the problem with the "two knives/two men" scenarios. Why just the ONE different wound? The "second" knife was a bayonet... the "second" man was - what? - a bullfighter? It just doesn't add up."

...at least it does not do so until we allow for the possibility that the knives were used by two different men at two different occasions. THEN it adds up all of a sudden...!

I nag, I know, but there you are, Sam ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam writes:

"therein lies the crux of the problem with the "two knives/two men" scenarios. Why just the ONE different wound? The "second" knife was a bayonet... the "second" man was - what? - a bullfighter? It just doesn't add up."

...at least it does not do so until we allow for the possibility that the knives were used by two different men at two different occasions. THEN it adds up all of a sudden...!

But that'd be another one of those awful deus ex machina arguments to which someone as perceptive as yourself would never resort, Fish

[Fisherman]

"that'd be another one of those awful deus ex machina arguments to which someone as perceptive as yourself would never resort, Fish"

Flattering, Sam, will get you a long way when it comes to me!

What I keep saying - and have always said - is that I am fully aware that my suggestion of the Tabram slaying as a scavenger deed may not be easy to take on board. It is only fair to admit that much.

Speaking of a "deus ex machina" argument is thus something that anybody who wants to do also may do. But in this case, Sam, I think we are in some respects on an equal footing when it comes to such things. The reason for this is that you yourself are trying to introduce a scenario that does not tally with the evidence. You see it all as the deed of one man with one knife, and in all honesty, there is nothing that bolsters such a claim.

We KNOW that Killeen spoke of two weapons. That was his conviction. We also KNOW that the reports that deal with the sternum wound speak of it as being markedly larger than the others, something that is very much in agreement with Killeens stance. There is the Star report that tells us that "The wounds on the body are frightful. There are about eight on the chest, inflicted in almost circular form, while the probably fatal one - certainly much the largest and deepest of any - is under the heart" and there is the Eastern Argus: "Mr. Francis Hewitt, has made the following statement:- When I was called this morning, shortly before five o'clock, I saw the poor woman lying on the stone staircase, with blood flowing from a great wound over her heart."

So, in spite of the fact that one should be careful with newspaper reports, we in fact have unanimous voices all speaking FOR a picture where we have one smaller blade and one large, sturdy one - and Killeens voice is the one carrying by far the largest weight here! - whereas we have not a single shred of evidence - no press reports, no medical evaluation, no hint, no nothing - as much as breathing about ANY possibility at all of the two blades having been of the same general type and appearance, allowing for a mistake on behalf of Killeen, Hewitt, the Star and the Eastern Argus.

So, Sam, even if I would not go as far as to suggest that you are trying to pull a God out of your hat, I would say that you are trying to produce a rabbit from that same source.

The suggestion of a single blade in the Tabram murder remains totally and utterly unsubstantiated, and to me, it has all the traits of wishful thinking about it.
Me, I move with the evidence, and that evidence very clearly speks of two blades. After that, I move with logic, and that logic tells me that frenzied killers stabbing away 37 times, are not very likely to turn into rational, focused killers, swopping weapons and delivering very exact coups-de-grace. Therefore, we are in all probability dealing with two men, not one. Finally, I ask myself "If there WERE two men at the scene, why was it a totally quiet deed, as evidence will have it?", and I take a look at Killeens assertion that blood had been running profusely from the smaller wounds (which is what he phrases "all wounds were inflicted during life", if I am not very much mistaken), meaning that we may have to allow for some time passing inbetween the initial stabbing and the killing blow to the sternum, and I come up with a suggestion that the two knife-wielders may not have appeared at the stage simultaneously.

After that, I give myself a pat on the back, and tell myself "Well, you cannot be sure that this is exactly how it all went down, but at least you have used the evidence at hand in a manner that allows for an explanation that covers all the details!"
...and if that represent a "deus ex machina" argument to you, well...!

Admittedly, the cut to the lower abdomen may or may not be an intended cut. It could have been a stabbing gone wrong, as has been suggested. And if it was a skidding stab, then there is very little reason to believe that Jack was ever on the scene at all.
But before we clear him from any role in the Tabram killing, I will once again point to the terminology we are using when discussing the matter, Sam, for we are actually discussing "a cut to the lower abdomen". Size, depth and eviscerability unregarded, this remains something that must always urge us to consider the very real possibility of that wound being nothing less than a grim calling card.

The very best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Flattering, Sam, will get you a long way when it comes to me!

Woot-woot! This could be my lucky day

I think we are in some respects on an equal footing when it comes to such things. The reason for this is that you yourself are trying to introduce a scenario that does not tally with the evidence. You see it all as the deed of one man with one knife, and in all honesty, there is nothing that bolsters such a claim.

If one is prepared to be swayed by Dr Killeen's opinion, Fish, that might appear to be the case - however, I'm not convinced by it. In other words, just because a wound looked like it might have been caused by a different weapon does not mean that it was. No disrespect to Killeen at all but, as I've already observed, his opinion on such matters rather depends on how many sternum-penetrating stabs he had dealt with in the past, if he'd seen any at all, and such wounds must be comparatively rare.

[perrymason]

Sam I believe thats where you are dead wrong....you have no grounds or basis for assuming he was incapable of recognizing the differences in the wound types, and he does as his declaration of the facts as he knew them, do so. He singles a wound out. He doesnt say that looked bigger, or that was some kind of weapon or tool,......he says that it was like a dagger or bayonet wound.

Considering we have servicemen handy in the area and training regimens that usually often require firearms and bayonets....he may have been far more experienced at that type of wound than we can imagine, just by treating some accidents. People carried bayonets on Bank Holidays....it was allowed. I dont think they were foreign to him or anyone else.

This guy deserves his creds unless provably unreliable...and Ive seen no literature that says thats the case here.

My best to you Gareth

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"just because a wound looked like it might have been caused by a different weapon does not mean that it was."

That is absolutely correct, of course! But in the case at hand, I see no reason at all to question Killeens finds. We must keep in mind that Killeen not only established what that wound looked like; he also performed the autopsy. As he got his tools out and prepared to do that, one of his top priorities would have been to confirm the suspicion that two blades had been at work. And up to the moment when he set about it, I think you make a good point, Sam - he would - up to that very point - have been dealing with "appearances", forming an initial meaning about what he saw using only his eyes.

But once he set about things at the slab, he went from looking at appearances to establishing facts! And since the suggestion of a second blade would have been statistically controversial, Killeen reasonably must have made sure that what appeared to be a hole inflicted by a large weapon, in fact also was exactly that. And he would have had all the material he needed to do so right in front of him!

One thing to keep in mind here is that if there had been what appeared to be a hole inflicted by a larger weapon in the soft tissues only, then we would have been faced with a little bit more of a problem, since soft tissues and knives in combination make for messy scenarios that will not facilitate establishing the shape of the blade once there is wiggling of some sort involved. Not so with the sternum, though! When we are dealing with that kind of material, a clean, single stab will set of a print that enables you to report a very clear picture of the type of blade used. And that is what I think we have in the Tabram case, which is why Killeen spoke of a long, strong daggerlike instrument.

What you may be suggesting, Sam, and what others have suggested before, is that there was wiggling involved, a wiggling that changed the small entrance hole that would have been caused by the blade that inflicted the 37 stabs, into resembling a hole caused by a long, strong dagger. Myself, I think this is a suggestion that is easily dispelled by at least three factors:

1. The difference in scale; we know that Killeen judged the smaller blade to be pen-knife like and we also know that he suggested that it would have broken at the sternum if tried there. That means that he believed it to be a comparatively frail blade. We also know that he believed the hole through the sternum gave away a long, strong, daggerlike instrument. That means that we must add LOTS of size in both width and thickness before we reach the intended goal of the "wiggle-thinkers".

2. ...and why would wiggling of the smaller blade have been carried out to such an extent? If the blade was jammed in Tabram, then what would have been required would primarily have been wiggling that worked counterwise to the pressure from the sides of the wound. That pressure would not have slackened by wiggling so as to portray a wider blade.
Then again, maybe our stabber did not realize this, and so perhaps he could have produced a wound that seemed to speak of a wider blade. But no matter how he wiggled, the impression of a THICKER blade would not have come about! And IF he wiggled sideways, using the surface of the blade to push against the sides, and IF he had before that created the impression of a wider blade, he would still not apply that pressure along the whole width of the wound!

These two points are enough for me to completely dispell the notion of wiggling creating the impression of a long, strong dagger having been used at the sternum. But there is an even better point to make, if we need to show why a wiggling blade is not viable:

3. Killeen saw what lay underneath the sternum! And a wiggled blade would have been given away immediately by the mess it would have caused in the underlying tissues!

Let´s admit that Killeen would have made very sure that he was on the safe side before he offered his wiew. Let´s also admit that he was the one who had all opportunities to establish the exact shape and size of the sternum wound, millimeter by millimeter. Finally, let´s admit that of all the tissue types of the human body, no other type will be as revealing when it comes to establishing knife blade shape as bone structure.

Anybody who thinks they have plenty of room to manouvre when it comes to offering radically differing suggestions relating to the differences on record inbetween the sternum wound and the smaller stabs, are of course free to do so. But if we allow ourselves a minimum demand of at least some sort of case-related evidence speaking for dismissing Killeens adamant pointing out of two blades, then these theorists will find themselves at a complete loss. For there is nothing nowhere in the case evidence recorded that speaks for just the one blade. Nothing, Sam!
Therefore, we can firmly establish that your reason for suggesting just the one blade and just the one killer has no covering at all in the specifically case-related details. Instead, ALL the material that offers any sort of comment on the internal relationship inbetween the sternum wound and the stabs, actually speaks loudly and clearly of two blades - the Star, the Eastern Argus, Francis Hewitt and last, but in no way least, the man that knew EXACTLY how those wounds looked, and who reasonably would have made every effort to establish how the sternum wound would have come about and what kind of weapon could possibly have inflicted it; Killeen!
And much as he did not say - and, of course COULD not say - what exact type of instrument it was that pierced Tabrams sternum, he DID actually say what blade could NOT have done so - the stabbers smallish, frail, pen-knife-like weapon.

And if your suggestion is not bolstered by a shred of specifically case-related evidence and the reports we have on the matter, Sam - then what else do you lean against? And why?

The best,
Fisherman