2 types of knives = 2 people?

[Errata]

Would it really be that much different today? I don't know if it's the kind of thing that can be ascertained with 100% certainty.

It's not really about forensic science. Which is to say, you don't have to trust the forensic science to make conclusions about the knives being used, as long as you have some confidence that the descriptions of the wounds are correct.

So for example, I don't trust Victorian forensic science enough to take the coroner's word for what knife was used. Though some of the science we use today was used then. And I think they made fair estimations. But they speak in specifics where they should have used generalities. So when someone says "bayonet" what they really mean is "dual edged blade anywhere from 5-14 inches in length and less that two inches in width." (which is the description of any bayonet available at the time) Which I think is correct. And that could be a bayonet, but it could be a dagger, a custom blade, a surgical tool, etc. But the point is that the wounds in question attributed to a bayonet could not have been made by a pen knife, a kitchen knife, a craft blade, a clasp knife, a sword, an axe, a spoon, etc.

But I do accept that the coroner found cuts on the underside of Eddowes liver along the track where the killer was taking out the kidney. Since it is unreasonable to assume that he stuck a one sided blade in and cut the liver, and then rotated the blade to take out the kidney, and because doing that leaves a ton of damage that is not described, I accept that the knife he used on Eddowes was double edged. And given that cutting out the kidney with a knife that is 12 inches long is ridiculously difficult, likely impossible, I think the knife has to be shorter. But since there are cuts of the liver, and thats an inch or so away from the kidney, the knife has to be long enough to cut the liver while cutting out the kidney, so more than three inches long. A lot of knives are 5 or 8 inches long, they are standard blade lengths. But he didn't chop up the intestines getting into the abdomen, so either he was in complete control, which seems unlikely, or it was a shorter blade. So I'm betting a 5 inch blade. And since the knife has to be strong to get this done, It has to be a fixed blade. A 5 inch double edged fixed blade. A dagger, to use the general term.

I don't need to trust the coroner's opinion, or his grasp of forensic science. I have the information I need to make an educated guess.

[Batman]

But they speak in specifics where they should have used generalities. So when someone says "bayonet" what they really mean is "dual edged blade anywhere from 5-14 inches in length and less that two inches in width."

According to Casebook... "There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."

I think it was not just the mark left by the blade but where it had been made that identifies it as a dagger/bayonet. It suggests training IMO. A reflex action.

[Errata]

According to Casebook... "There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."

I think it was not just the mark left by the blade but where it had been made that identifies it as a dagger/bayonet. It suggests training IMO. A reflex action.

Bayonet training targets the abdomen right below the ribcage. I suppose it could be a result of failing to calculate for the height differential, but since they are trained to work on uneven ground, that seems unlikely.

It could however refer to the shape of the blade. Bayonets used to have diamond or schlager shaped blades (though I will say the Victorian models looked like regular knives). If the cross section of the blade was not flat, it may have altered the term used to describe it.

[Archaic]

According to Casebook... "There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."

I think it was not just the mark left by the blade but where it had been made that identifies it as a dagger/bayonet. It suggests training IMO. A reflex action.

I recently examined a 19th C. US Civil War bayonet that belonged to a friend's gr-gr-great-grandfather. It had a semi-triangular shape.

The flat side had a very evocative detail: a sort of center "channel" that let the blood run out through it when you stabbed another person in the abdomen. I suppose the indented channel had to do with getting less blood splatter on the soldier wielding it?

It was rather sickening to hold that heavy cold piece of metal and imagine it going through another human being.

Wounds from sharp flat thin knives would thus be different from bayonet wounds, but I think with the amount of stabbing overkill involved in the Tabram murder it could also be a case of multiple knife thrusts in the same spot giving the appearance of a bayonet wound.

I think I have a photo of the bayonet on my phone; if I can find it I'll post it.


Best regards,
Archaic

[gnote]

It's not really about forensic science. Which is to say, you don't have to trust the forensic science to make conclusions about the knives being used, as long as you have some confidence that the descriptions of the wounds are correct.

So for example, I don't trust Victorian forensic science enough to take the coroner's word for what knife was used. Though some of the science we use today was used then. And I think they made fair estimations.

The estimates given and the validity of coroner's word are still what's "used" today are they not? Unless the individual performing the postmortem examination had a great expertise with knives and the type of wounds they could/might cause wouldn't the "average" coroner make the same basic conclusions today?

[Archaic]

I don't understand why it is considered "very, very unlikely" that the killer might carry two knives.

I'm not arguing for two knives in any particular murder - but it's something I think of and say "yeah, I guess that might be possible" and I want to understand why so many others think of it and instead say "no way".

Hi, I agree with you. We don't know if the killer had 1 weapon or 2 or even more, but there are plenty of good reasons for him to have had at least 2.

It would make sense for anyone committing a violent and gory crime in the crowded East End to have a second weapon available, if for no other reason than the first one might get slippery, dropped, or lost at some point. If he wasn't finished with what he hoped or intended to do, he'd want a second implement of some sort in order to continue.

Likewise, if he somehow dropped his first weapon or it became too slippery and then he had to suddenly run for his life from police or other pursuers, I think he'd feel much safer if he knew he had a second weapon he could rely on.

There's also the fact that individuals who are attracted to Picquerism are often attracted to the sharp objects that can inflict that type of wound.

For some people that object could be a pen-knife or a knitting needle or even a sharp pin, for others it could be bladed weaponry.

(No, I'm not saying the murders were done with a knitting needle, just that different individuals would be attracted to different sorts of implements and weapons, and might tend to collect whichever sort tickled their fancy.)

Best regards,
Archaic

[SirJohnFalstaff]

The problem I have with the 2 knives 1 murderer hypothesis is because it doesn't make sense.

A bayonet is designed for trench warfare to perform a quick kill. It is to be thrusted while attached to the gun, near the sternum. So basically trained soldiers puncture this way with it.

A bayonet though is not a million miles away from an amputation knife or a similar tool that JtR used. However a pen knife is as far away as you can get from an amputation knife.

What doesn't make sense is why someone trained to use a bayonet knife (the wound on Tabram is where a soldier is trained to make it) would then suddenly start performing Tabram's sexual mutilations with a pen knife when the bayonet is probably second choice to a surgical knife for this type of MO?

It's like a dentist doing a root canal perfectly and then suddenly using a shovel to do a basic filling on another tooth.

I, for one, don't believe there was a bayonet involved. A dagger, probably.

[Errata]

The estimates given and the validity of coroner's word are still what's "used" today are they not? Unless the individual performing the postmortem examination had a great expertise with knives and the type of wounds they could/might cause wouldn't the "average" coroner make the same basic conclusions today?

Not really, because today we have wound casts. They take rubber casts of injuries, like a stab wound or blunt force trauma to the skull, and then compare the casts to weapons. There is an amazing lab at Virginia Tech (if I remember my college visits correctly) where they have a room full of everything a person has ever been hit over the head with. Baseball bats and crowbars to ashtrays and lamps. And a lot of injuries are common enough for a medical examiner to know that a person was hit with say, a liquor bottle without bothering to take a cast. Evidently there are classics in the murder game, and they are classics for a reason.

Most knives are identified through a stab wound instead of a slice, and more often than not it's the cross section of the blade they match, not the length or width. Getting stabbed with a 18th century style bayonet makes a very similar wound to getting impaled on a piece of re-bar. It's the triangular cross section and the tapering of the wound that is going to rule in a bayonet and rule out re-bar. And wound casts show that difference. It's why a dagger could be a candidate for Jack's weapon, but not a poniard. Very different wound from knifes that look pretty similar to the average person. People might use the words dagger, poniard, stiletto, etc. interchangeably, but they are very different blades that make very different wounds. And a rondel is just right out.

Now we know that the cross section is going to be more telling than the length of the blade. So modern MEs would not make the mistake of identifying a weapon by length.

[Batman]

The wound in question actually went through the chest bone. Dr.Killeen felt that a pen knife couldn't have made that wound.

[lynn cates]

poverty

Hello Rocky.

"I recently read Mann the mortuary attendant was part of a workhouse which you got put in for crimes right?"

Poverty, like as not.

Cheers.
LC

[RockySullivan]

Hello Rocky.

"I recently read Mann the mortuary attendant was part of a workhouse which you got put in for crimes right?"

Poverty, like as not.

Cheers.
LC

Hi lc, i tought this was intereting "The fact is that Whitechapel does not possess a mortuary. The place is not a mortuary at all. We have no right to take a body there. It is simply a shed belonging to the workhouse officials. Juries have over and over again reported the matter to the District Board of Works. The East-end, which requires mortuaries more than anywhere else, is most deficient. Bodies drawn out of the river have to be put in boxes, and very often they are brought to this workhouse arrangement all the way from Wapping. A workhouse inmate is not the proper man to take care of a body in such an important matter as this."
copied from Inquest, London: The Life and Career of Wynne Edwin Baxter
by Adam Wood

So a workhouse inmate could have time alone with dead bodies. hm

[DVV]

It's cute to see that some people still believe in the bayonet story.

[Errata]

The wound in question actually went through the chest bone. Dr.Killeen felt that a pen knife couldn't have made that wound.

Well, it could have, but it's unlikely. There are a lot of things that go into the strength of a blade. So it would depend on the knife.

But truth be told, a Victorian bayonet isn't going to puncture the sternum either. Not when wielded by hand. If the bayonet is actually on a rifle, the force driving the stab is at the shoulder. A strong base that allows for body weight to be put into the thrust, like a spear. Enough force to puncture the sternum. But without rifle, the driving force is the elbow, which is much weaker. And since the Victorian bayonet is essentially a Bowie knife (in basic form) then it's less likely to punch through anyway. A wider blade displaces force.

To puncture a sternum what you really want is a stiletto shape or a rondel. Very tapered, needle sharp tip, fixed blade, full tang. And you still need body weight behind, so the knife needs to held reversed, fist of your sternum. Essentially ramming someone chest to chest with a knife sticking out.

If a Victorian bayonet punches through the sternum, you are looking a 2 in. long 2mm wide thin rectangular wound. Which requires a TON of force. A stiletto leaves a 1/4 to 1/2 inch triangular puncture. Much easier. Its the different between trying to hammer a silver dollar into a board vs. driving a nail in.

[DVV]

Had Martha been seen drinking with a Siouan, Killeen would have voted for a tomahawk.

[GUT]

Had Martha been seen drinking with a Siouan, Killeen would have voted for a tomahawk.

I like that idea