Patricia Cornwell – Portrait Of A Killer Jack The Ripper

A penetration of the sternum does not merit the emphasis Dr. Killeen gave it. A sharp-pointed knife can penetrate bone, including the skull. In a case that occurred in Germany decades before the Ripper began his spree, a man murdered his wife by stabbing her through the sternum, and later confided to the forensic examiner that the “table knife” penetrated the bone as easily as if it were “butter.” The edges of the wound indi­cated that the table knife cleanly penetrated the bone once and went through the right lung, the pericardium, and the aorta.

Dr. Killeen’s belief that two weapons were used in Martha Tabran’s murder was buttressed by a difference in the size of the stab wounds. However, this discrepancy can be accounted for if the blade was wider at the guard than it was at the tip. Stab wounds can be different widths depending on their depth, the twisting of the blade, and the elasticity of the tissue or the part of the body being penetrated. It is hard to ascertain what Dr. Killeen meant by a knife or a dagger, but a knife usually refers to a single-edged blade while a dagger is narrow and double-edged and has a pointed tip. The terms knife and dagger are often used as syn­onyms, as are the terms revolver and pistol.

As I was researching the Ripper cases, I explored the types of cutting instruments that might have been available to him. The variety and avail­ability is bewildering, if not depressing. British travelers to Asia returned home with all sorts of souvenirs, some better suited than others for stab­bing or cutting. The Indian pesh kabz is a fine example of a weapon that could leave wounds of several different widths, depending on their depth.

The strong steel blade of this “dagger,” as it was called, could create an array of wounds that would perplex any medical examiner, even now.

The curved blade is almost an inch and a half wide at the ivory han­dle, and becomes double-edged two-thirds of the way up when it begins to taper off to a point as thin as a needle. The one I bought from an an­tiques dealer was made in 1830 and (including its sheath) would easily fit in one’s waistband, boot, or deep coat pocket – or up a sleeve. The curved blade of the Oriental dagger called a djambia (circa 1840) would also leave wounds of different widths, although the entire blade is double-edged.

The Victorians enjoyed an abundance of beautiful weapons that were made for killing human beings and were cavalierly collected during trav­els abroad or bought for a bargain at bazaars. In one day, I discovered the following Victorian weapons at a London antiques fair and at the homes of two antiques dealers in Sussex: daggers, kukris, a dagger stick disguised to look like a polished tree branch, daggers disguised to look like canes, tiny six-shot revolvers designed to fit neatly into a gentle­man’s vest pocket or a lady’s purse, “cut throat razors,” Bowie-type knives, swords, rifles, and beautifully decorated truncheons, including a “Life Preserver” that is weighted with lead. When Jack the Ripper cruised for weapons, he was blessed with an embarrassment of riches.

No weapon was ever recovered in Martha Tabran’s murder, and since Dr. Killeen’s autopsy report seems to be missing – as are many records related to the Jack the Ripper case – all I had to go on were the sketchy details of the inquest. Of course I cannot determine with absolute cer­tainty the weapon that took Martha’s life, but I can speculate: Based on the frenzied attack and subsequent wounds, it may very well have been what the Victorians called a dagger – or a weapon with a strong blade, a sharp point, and a substantial handle designed to stab without the risk of the perpetrator’s losing his grip and cutting himself.

If it is true that there were no defense injuries, such as cuts or bruises on Martha’s hands or arms, their absence suggests she did not put up much of a struggle, even if her clothing was “disarrayed.” Without more detail about exactly how her clothing was “disarrayed,” I can’t surmise whether she had begun to undress when she was attacked; whether the killer rearranged, undid, cut, or ripped her clothing; whether he did so before or after her death. In criminal cases of that era, clothing was im­portant mainly for purposes of identifying the victim. It wasn’t neces­sarily examined for tears, cuts, seminal fluid, or any other type of evidence. After the victim was identified, the clothing was usually tossed out the dead-house door into an alleyway. As the Ripper’s victim count went up, some socially minded people thought it might be a good idea to collect the clothing of the dead and donate it to paupers.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163

Leave a Reply 0

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *