Ripper Victim?

[DVV]

Hello Fish,
...
Your reply reminds me that we've already talked about this.
I simply can't buy the dagger, nor the baroque bayonet, because Killeen did suggest so.
Give me a pen knife, Fish, and I'm sure I'll pierce a chestbone (not yours, my friend, of course!).
It isn't a full-metal-jacket, as far as I know.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Dvv writes:

"Give me a pen knife, Fish, and I'm sure I'll pierce a chestbone (not yours, my friend, of course!)."

Easy to say - but harder to do if the blade lets you down. And if you should accomplish it, you will be left with a hole through the sternum that would lead no doctor to speak of a "long, strong instument".
It´s a no-go, David, and has been so for 121 years.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Belief that 1 weapon was used contradicts directly the opinion of the man who observed all the wounds first hand.

There can be little if any doubt of that, one was indeed larger. To make this more reasonable to suggest that one man killed Martha,....(therefore making him a possible lone knife killer like the later iteration of Jack the Ripper)...by suggesting the attending physician was less qualified that we are to determine if different weapons were used is not a great position to defend.

This was either 2 men, or one man who uses 2 weapons. And they stabbed, they didnt cut as far as we can tell. Nothing was described as a slice or cut per se, and multiple stab wounds that overlap could cause larger wounds.

2 weapons....2 soldiers seen with her and Pearly Poll, 2 soldiers out together near the time of the murder, one waiting for the other with a "woman" off somewhere, many military men that night who could legally carry large blades or bayonets due to the Holiday, perhaps in addition to a regular pocket knife, giving them 2 or more weapons on their person,...there is no specific evidence that backs 1 man 1 weapon....and evidence that suggests there were at least 2 weapons used.

Best regards all.

P.S......Not a particularly Jack like scenario.

[Jeff Leahy]

Dvv asks:

"he knife, as we know, was strong enough to inflict 38 stabs. So why not 39 ?"

Because of the simple fact that stab number 39 was required to travel through the breastplate, and Killeen tells us that the blade that was used at the 38 other stabs would have been to frail to do this.
It is not as if the 39 stabs all travelled through tissues with the same density, David!
And Killeen spoke of a pen-knife resemblance of the blade that made the smaller punctures. Why would he do that, if he could not establish it from the appearance of the wounds? It was not a guess, David - it was a conclusion grounded on the looks of nigh on 40 stabs, and that represents one helluva lot of material to work with.
He KNEW that this blade was smallish, and after the autopsy he also knew that though it was a narrow, thin blade (leading the thoughts to a pen-knife), it was also a long one. And the blade that pierced the sternum was a strong, dagger-like one. The two blades would have been totally uncomparable for Killeen to make this assertion. And those who think that the stab to the sternum was made by the smaller blade, that was afterwards wiggled to create a large hole in the sternum, need to think of two things:
1. It does not take very much wiggling to free a blade from bone; bone is hard material, and once a fraction of a millimetre spearates the blade from the bone, it will travel out with no effort.
2. Killeen performed the autopsy; if the blade that pierced the heart had been wiggled, he would have recognized this from the shape of the hole in the heart. But no such mention was made. Instead he remained firmly at his stance that the sternum blade belonged to a long, strong instrument - and the other blade belonged to a weak, frail, thin pen-knife-like blade.

It is all very convenient to diss a medico that presents evidence that does not tally with our own picture of what went down in George Yard. Two blades make the whole thing so much more mysterious. But that is what we are dealing with!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

I hope you don't mind asking you a question.

I was just wondering if there is any evidence that the knife used to make the final blow was similar in anyway to the knife used on the C5?

Are we talking about totally different blades? or are there similarities?

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"To make this more reasonable to suggest that one man killed Martha,....(therefore making him a possible lone knife killer like the later iteration of Jack the Ripper)...by suggesting the attending physician was less qualified that we are to determine if different weapons were used is not a great position to defend."

You can say that again!

"This was either 2 men, or one man who uses 2 weapons. And they stabbed, they didnt cut as far as we can tell. Nothing was described as a slice or cut per se, and multiple stab wounds that overlap could cause larger wounds."

They can, Michael - but since when have they started creating three-inch wide and one-inch deep wounds? That amounts to a cut whichever way you look upon it, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"I was just wondering if there is any evidence that the knife used to make the final blow was similar in anyway to the knife used on the C5?

Are we talking about totally different blades? or are there similarities?"

Well, we don´t know that the same knife was used on the C5, do we?

One thing that is interesting is to make a comparison between the smaller blade used on Tabram and the description Phillpis made of the knife that killed Chapman. He said it was a long, thin, narrow blade - and that is more or less exactly the same type of knife that stabbed Tabram 37 times, from what we can deduct from Killeens wording and our knowledge that the blade travelled deep in Tabrams body.
It is only a fascinating coincidence, if I´m correct, though - I think that the man who used the thin blade on Tabram was not the same man that cut up Chapman. For much as those blades seem to be of the same general type, they are used in very dissimilar fashions.

The blade that pierced Tabrams chestbone, though, would seem to be a much sturdier weapon, along the lines of a heavy dagger or something like that.

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Belief that 1 weapon was used contradicts directly the opinion of the man who observed all the wounds first hand.

There can be little if any doubt of that, one was indeed larger. To make this more reasonable to suggest that one man killed Martha,....(therefore making him a possible lone knife killer like the later iteration of Jack the Ripper)...by suggesting the attending physician was less qualified that we are to determine if different weapons were used is not a great position to defend.

If so, Mike, we have to trust Dr Phillips as well, and believe in Jack's great anatomical knowledge.
But most of us don't, though Phillips was certainly more qualified than Killeen.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

we don´t know that the same knife was used on the C5, do we?

Hi Fisherman

We can be reasonably confident that the same knife was used on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. But we don`t know exactly what type of knife it was so it may have been something that was quite sturdy.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:

"We can be reasonably confident that the same knife was used on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. But we don`t know exactly what type of knife it was so it may have been something that was quite sturdy."

Once he found a weapon that suited his purposes, he would have no need to change it, would he? But I don´t know about the "sturdy" bit - Phillips did call it a thin, narrow blade, and that does not sound too sturdy to me!

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

If so, Mike, we have to trust Dr Phillips as well, and believe in Jack's great anatomical knowledge.
But most of us don't, though Phillips was certainly more qualified than Killeen.

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

I believe that 2 victims confirm that he indeed was anatomically savvy...Annie and Kate. I believe the only way you could assume that Jack the Ripper didnt have some skill and knowledge is if you include murders in his tally that exhibited none.

Phillips wasnt the only medical authority that thought the Ripper possessed both skill and knowledge...and Dr Bond in an about-face on his opinions given in 1888, excludes Alice Mackenzie because her murderer lacked skill and knowledge as shown with some Ripper victims.

He removes a uterus intact, and a kidney through a victims front, both in less time than the surgeon testifying regarding the extractions could do with formal training.....both acts, if intended targets as they seem to be, were by someone with knowledge that 90% of the population would'nt have, even the ones that read the Anatomy or Surgery textbooks of the period.

If speaking about what Jack the Ripper does and what he knows....I believe that Annie represents the best source for that information. And her uterus was taken out skillfully.
Saying that Jack was a slash and grab artist, or that he was unskilled with knife use...or ill informed about anatomy, is something that can be directly refuted with Annie.

Whether that is seen in other Canonicals is irrelevant,...they arent proven victims anyway. Annie is...by virtually everyone whose ever read a Ripper book....a definite Ripper victim....and her killer had skills for certain. He didnt unlearn them to kill Martha, or Liz. He used them on Polly, Annie and Kate.

Best regards David.

[Jon Guy]

Phillips did call it a thin, narrow blade, and that does not sound too sturdy to me!

An amputation knife like the Liston is pretty thin and would pierce bone, and there must be other similar knives.

Surely the possibilty of Tabram`s wound been made by the same weapon as the others can`t be discounted ?

cheers Fisherman

[Supe]

Fisherman,

First of all, let me say it a pleasure debating with you. While we don't agree on the particulars about Tabram's assailant(s) your replies are always thoughtful, to the point and and polite.

Secondly, I am sorry if I appeared crankier about the word "guess" than I was. It wasn't intended as a rebuke, believe me.

Two other points, though. I quite agree that we are at a great disadvantage because we lack a post mortem report with (don't we wish) a diagram of the wounds. Thus, except for specific references to organs, we can only make rough surmises of just where the wounds lay. This is especially true of that bothersome "cut" to the "lower body." Still, we must at least consider that even that wound was just another random stab that irksomely hit bone as the killer worked his way down the torso, inflicting stabs to the stomach and two to the spleen, an organ that reposes in fair proximity to those organs of reproduction without, of course, being in that grouping. We don't know just where the wounds actually were and I suppose we may all interpret the vague descriptions as we wish.

Your point about touching bone with the other stabs is an interesting one that I have pondered. It would be nice to know just what Kileen meant by a "pen-knife" because if he was speaking with any degree of verbal exactitude then it would have been a very short-bladed instrument, indeed, originally intended to dress the points of quill pens. Given a short blade and the depth of the fatty tissue Martha evidently carried, it is possible bone would not be reached in most cases anyway.

Without more information, we are all, I fear reduced to (bite my tongue) guessing.

Don.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy asks:

"Surely the possibilty of Tabram`s wound been made by the same weapon as the others can`t be discounted ?"

Discounted? No. Since we have different medicos describing the types of blades, we must allow for some slack when we try to interpret it all. But my gut feeling (whatever that is worth) tells me that the blade that pierced Tabrams sternum was a sturdier, wider and thicker one than that of the knife that disembowelled Chapman. Like I said, my own feeling is that the "pen-knife" would have carried more of a resemblance to the Chapman weapon.

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello again, Don!

Thanks for your kind words - coming from you, I value them much!

The two points you raise:

1. Yes, you are correct in saying that we do not know how the stabs were administered over the body. And therefore we cannot say just how exotic a bird the cut was. But we do know that there was at least some sort of exoticism to it, since it was arguably the only wound to the lower body, and it was the only one that came out much enough of a cut for Killeen to emphasize it. But you know all of this before, just as you know which way it has directed my thinking on the matter!

2. The matter of the length of the blade; I think that we must accept that the detail that prompted Killeen to speak of a pen-knife was first and foremost the width and thickness of the blade. It was, quite simply, a size or two below what was ordinry in stabbings.
Our knowledge of all the internal damage done to the organs, in combination with the fact that Tabram was a voluminous woman, tells us that the length of the blade was not that of an ordinary pen-knife. And we know that Killeen spoke of a common knife OR a pen-knife. Perhaps he combined the length of the common knife blade and the width of the pen-knife blade in his assessment?

Thebest!
Fisherman

[DVV]

And we know that Killeen spoke of a common knife OR a pen-knife. Perhaps he combined the length of the common knife blade and the width of the pen-knife blade in his assessment?
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
thanks for this, I had almost forgotten how vague and uncertain were Killeen's words.
Ordinary knife...penknife...perhaps two weapons...a bayonet...or some kind of dagger...

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 ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David