Ripper Victim?

[perrymason]

I believe the term "pen-knife" was used because the thickness and length of the blade were not substantial. And pen-knives fold.....they could not be used safely by the handler to pierce bone. They can be carried in a pocket easily.

The knife that was used on some Jack murders sounds like a fixed position sturdy blade maybe 6-8 inches long....for that you need a sheath, or to wear it in your belt....a fairly long, very sharp knife cannot be carried in a pocket.

I still believe a Bowie style would have been ideal....its sharpened top and bottom near the tip...and its slightly curved.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

Pen-knife... ordinary knife... what does it mean, except that Killeen was a bit lost, and certainly not a forensic specialist ?

And we shouldn't forget that he wasn't flat at all about the 2 weapons theory.

Anyway, if Fisherman is right, saying that his own feeling is that "the "pen knife" (his brackets) would have carried more of a resemblance to the Chapman weapon", then I can't see why such a weapon would not have been strong enough to go through a chestbone.
One day, God willing, I'll take an ORDINARY PENKNIFE and pierce several chestbones. Oxes chestbones, I mean.
You'll see me on youtube.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

Pen-knife... ordinary knife... what does it mean, except that Killeen was a bit lost, and certainly not a forensic specialist ?

And we shouldn't forget that he wasn't flat at all about the 2 weapons theory.

Anyway, if Fisherman is right, saying that his own feeling is that "the "pen knife" (his brackets) would have carried more of a resemblance to the Chapman weapon", then I can't see why such a weapon would not have been strong enough to go through a chestbone.
One day, God willing, I'll take an ORDINARY PENKNIFE and pierce several chestbones. Oxes chestbones, I mean.
You'll see me on youtube.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

Hi David,

That last line got me laughing....thanks for that.

I think his characterization of a "pen knife" indicates his opinion the wounds, 38 of them anyway, were caused by a thin blade, not particularly long. There were knives that leatherworkers used that were fixed position blades that might have worked, in which case they could pierce bone. They could also cause "thin" stab wounds.

I have a bit of a knife and bayonet collection as it happens, and I can tell you the variety of knives available in LVP London, and bayonets, was likely pretty good. Its hard to select just one type that would work well....many types would. They cost money however....unless they are Gov't issued servicemen "tools".

2 things though.....the knife the Ripper used to my eye almost certainly was a fixed position blade, longer than what would be found in a folding knife...perhaps 6-8 inches not including the hilt, and I can see some real advantages to one that was sharpened on both sides of the blade.

Which can you imagine easier...a killer fumbling to open his pocket knife with one hand, or perhaps both, as he chats the women up...or one that slips his hand under the back of his coat to slip out a large knife from his belt?

I think a stabber would more likely use a larger blade, ... perhaps someone who later will use the knife for field surgery, but in the case of Martha, it seems a "pen-knife" better captured the wounds.

That tells me the man wasnt a "Stabber", and he wasnt someone that used his knife for fancy cutting. He likely was, as the evidence suggests, a pissed off man with a pocket knife who lost total control of his anger. And he, or someone with him, had a large bladed weapon on them.

That last bit is the ticket.....if this was a spur of the moment loss of sanity, and the man or men that killed Martha were not murderers per se....who wouldnt carry around a long fixed blade knife normally, just a pocket knife,...so why would there be a larger bladed weapon on one of them?

On Bank Holidays soldiers get to wear short swords, bayonets, or long swords. Demonstrating the the very appearance of a murder with 2 weapons used could well be linked with servicemen, we know that many could have had both a small and large knife on them those nights, legally.

And we also know that some traveled in pairs on that particular night....we know of 2 pair. And we know at least one pair interacted with Martha.

All the best David.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"If I understand you correctly, Fish (post #1678), you think the knife used in George Yard wasn't that much different than "Jack's knife" (as described by Phillips: long and thin, sharp).
So Jack's knife couldn't pierce a chestbone?"

Since he did not give it a try in the canonical cases, we shall never know, shall we?
And I am not saying that the smaller George Yard blade and the one that cut Chapman resemble each other - what I am saying is that Killeens and Phillips´respective TESTIMONY resemble each other when it comes to the blades involved.
Much as that is intriguing, it need not mean all that much.
The blade Killeen described as thin and narrow may have been a millimetre thick and six millimetres broad, whereas Phillips may have spoken of a blade that was two millimetres thick and 12 millimetres wide. That would speak of narrow and thin blades in both cases, but they would resemble each other only in type and not in size.
So if I was to say that these two blades were just like each other, I would be the one who was narrow - and thick! And we can´t have that, can we?

Oh, and Killeen never spoke of "perhaps two weapons" the way you describe it - he was certain about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is the wording on the issue of the two blades from the inquest:

“The wounds generally might have been inflicted by a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger”

And this is from the fuller report in the East London Observer:

“I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger.”

These are not the words of a hesitating man. The type of knife that caused the 37 stabs COULD NOT have caused the wound to the sternum. And it won´t matter how many times any of us hack loose at an oxe´s sternum with a pen-knife, since we do not know the measures of the blade that left it´s traces at 37 places in Tabrams body. We only know that it was so thing and so apparently frail that Killeen could not envisage it going through th breast plate of Tabram – it would fail and break if tried.

We may also ponder the difference in size inbetween a bayonet – which was something Killeen was obviously prompted to add to the list of possible instruments that caused the sternum wound – and a pen-knife. We are not exactly speaking of very similar sizes, are we. Admittedly, we cannot today establish the exact difference involved – but we can deduct that it was a very major difference.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

On Bank Holidays soldiers get to wear short swords, bayonets, or long swords. Demonstrating the the very appearance of a murder with 2 weapons used could well be linked with servicemen, we know that many could have had both a small and large knife on them those nights, legally.

Hi Michael

Pearly Poll could only confirm that her Corporal wasn`t wearing sidearms.
Don`t know whether that helps or not.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael

Pearly Poll could only confirm that her Corporal wasn`t wearing sidearms.
Don`t know whether that helps or not.

Hi Jon,

I dont that its really important that we see evidence that soldiers we hear of were wearing large bladed weapons with respect to Martha or a witness....just that we are cognizant that soldiers were known to be in pairs that night....and that many soldiers did, and were entitled to, wear military bladed weaponry on Bank Holidays.

Certainly relevant in a case where the last man seen with her was a soldier, there is a soldier waiting for a chum near where she is killed perhaps near the time she is killed later that morning...and there were 2 types of blades used to kill her...one a substantial one, dagger or "bayonet" like.

I dont think a "killer" sets out to kill with a "pen-knife", which makes me believe this wasnt a killer per se...he was someone that committed murder in a rage using a weapon he had in his pocket. And thats where the large blade enters....is that one man using both, or another man using the large blade?

I believe a soldier on that night might well have had both type of weapons on him. But that they were seen that night in pairs is significant.

Best regards Jon.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"that they were seen that night in pairs is significant."

It may or may not be, Michael - besides, people paring up would not have been all that unusual on the civilian side either. When people get together, it would be the commonest form.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Since he did not give it a try in the canonical cases, we shall never know, shall we?
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
seriously, what is a chestbone ? The Great Wall of China ?
Is it the strongest bone of a human body ?
Is it that much thick ?
Certainly not.
It may even be somehow cartilaginous, I'm afraid.
As I've already said, frankly and friendly, the scavenger theory is interesting and thought-provoking, but it's not the most likely scenario - far from it.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

just that we are cognizant that soldiers were known to be in pairs that night....and that many soldiers did, and were entitled to, wear military bladed weaponry on Bank Holidays.

Hence Killeen's (forgivable) mistake, Mike.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[perrymason]

Hence Killeen's (forgivable) mistake, Mike.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

I know I would lose a "chicken or egg first" debate David...clearly he could have been aware she was last seen with someone in the military and his "dagger or bayonet" remarks might have been influenced by that fact. But not necessarily.

It was the contrast that is the main principle I think..one wound was made by a decidely larger bladed weapon.

My conjecture is that it may have been accurately described as a "dagger or bayonet" based on the type of wound made and the known facts regarding military men on that night....and in particular as relates to Martha or her murder site.

Best regards mon ami.

[perrymason]

The London Times piece on August 10th seems quite good on details, and added this bit at the end of the story...

"The witness did not think all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument. The wounds generally might have been inflicted with a knife, but such an instrument could not have inflicted one of the wounds, which went through the chest-bone. His opinion was that one of the wounds was inflicted by some kind of dagger, and that all of them had been caused during life."

Can that last bit, if accurate, tell us about when the larger knife was likely used?

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"seriously, what is a chestbone ?"

It is a bone that is strong enough to break the blade of too frail a knife, such as a pen-knife. It is also made up of a material that will produce a very exact hole if a weapon is pushed through it, giving away the size and shape of that weapon.

Incidentally, which scenario is the most likely is something that we can not establish, since we do not know what factors were involved. And I have dozens of times stated that I am quite aware that I am not bolstered by statistics in my thinking. But if we were to go only by statistics at every occasion, we would be dining on horse-****, considering the vast amount of flies that make that choice...
What my scenario does is answer to all the small details that are so inexplicable in other scenarios, and I´m quite contended with that. I don´t have to leisurely rule Killeens assertion of two blades out, I can explain the silence, I can explain the cut to the lower body, I can explain the stab to the heart, I can explain why the Ripper became a throat-cutter using this scenario - to all of these things I can offer functioning explanations.

Things could be worse, you know!

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[DVV]

"seriously, what is a chestbone ?"
It is a bone that is strong enough to break the blade of too frail a knife, such as a pen-knife. It is also made up of a material that will produce a very exact hole if a weapon is pushed through it, giving away the size and shape of that weapon.
Fisherman

Hey, Fish,
that's the definition of the chestbone by T.R. Killeen, the famous lexicographer!

But he could have done better:

Chestbone: bone that can be pierced only by a bayonet or some kind of dagger on a bank holiday.

If this infamous bone "produces a exact hole if a weapon is pushed through it", why did Killeen hesitate between a dagger and a bayonet ?
This said, that's a better argument, Fish. Far better than "no ordinary knife could pierce Martha's chestbone", which is rather naive.

Amitiés, comme toujours,
David

[Shelley]

David asks:

"seriously, what is a chestbone ?"

It is a bone that is strong enough to break the blade of too frail a knife, such as a pen-knife. It is also made up of a material that will produce a very exact hole if a weapon is pushed through it, giving away the size and shape of that weapon.

Incidentally, which scenario is the most likely is something that we can not establish, since we do not know what factors were involved. And I have dozens of times stated that I am quite aware that I am not bolstered by statistics in my thinking. But if we were to go only by statistics at every occasion, we would be dining on horse-****, considering the vast amount of flies that make that choice...
What my scenario does is answer to all the small details that are so inexplicable in other scenarios, and I´m quite contended with that. I don´t have to leisurely rule Killeens assertion of two blades out, I can explain the silence, I can explain the cut to the lower body, I can explain the stab to the heart, I can explain why the Ripper became a throat-cutter using this scenario - to all of these things I can offer functioning explanations.

Things could be worse, you know!

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I thought that you may have at first only attributed two of the wounds on Tabram to the killer JTR with your theory, so are you saying in your ' above post in this quote ' that you may think that JTR went to throat-cutting as with the canocial 5 after his scavenge on Tabram from causing the 9 stab wounds on Tabram's neck as well as the two you have in your theory, or just that he saw the stabs on Tabram's neck from another attacker so he went to throat-cutting on Polly Nicholls?
Just asking for a clarification here as your post did interest me with what you are saying.

All the Best
Shelley