Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through October 31, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Catherine Eddowes » Mutilations » Archive through October 31, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 651
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I wondered whether the upside down "v" was a symbol of the Mitre too.The top of the hat is this shape after all.Its like calling yourself the Boss.
Natalie
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r

Post Number: 183
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 12:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All of what the Ripper said--he made four speeches--have a meaning along the same line. The four speeches of JtR were:

1. Lipski!


David, are you implying that it was Jack the Ripper who said this?

crix0r
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559

Post Number: 276
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dave,

So, tell us already. We are all dying to know the solution. How much longer will we have to wait?

Mikey
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r

Post Number: 185
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 2:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Since almost everyone (There are a few great exceptions) who has a published (or wanted to published) a book on Jack has served me up the final solution only to have it fall horribly short in the facts department. You'll have to forgive me if I don't fall out of my chair when I read yours.

Having said that David, if you want to be taken seriously, let that thang outta it's cage. Your ideas and solutions will be proven valid or invalid in a court of public scrutiny. While I have a serious disdain for your methods and your overall behavior most of the time, I have and always will respect you and ideas/thoughts.

crix0r
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r

Post Number: 187
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh man, I forgot to ask..

Will our bowels fall out?

:-)

crix0r
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 209
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David,

If it will mean an end to the Sickert and Maybrick blather, then Godspeed to you and your solution. Aside to self: Did you ever think you would say that?

Don.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1513
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey Paul!

What's up? So... you're building up a tan, eh?

"The identity of Jack the ripper is.........ya know, Im not any closer than I was before I left. "
Welcome to the club, Bro :-) I think we can safely go on our holidays without missing out on someone solving the case.

All the best


Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Triangular marks made in Mitre Square - kind of fits with a resentful Jack, not accepted into the Brotherhood, feeling rejected by strong members of the fairer sex, taking all his bitterness out on the first weak and feeble woman he sees who looks like she's just going to lie down and take it.

Same old same old.

Love,

Caz
X

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 5:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It's not Sickert nor Maybrick,
Druitt didn't do it nor LaBruckman either.
The prince, Bury, Deeming, Cream, give them a breather.

But we do have a bit of a comeback kid here.
One we've seen before and dismissed.
And something for eleven decades--missed!

B.




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1518
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah, another riddle.

So who do you refer to, David Radka?
Chapman, Tumblety, Barnett, Hutchinson?
Or can we expect you to take the blade from the mouth for once?

Yeah...

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert

Post Number: 2351
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bullwinkle, "comeback kid"...kid...Kidney? Is he your suspect?

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r

Post Number: 193
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David -

Comeback kid, perhaps...

However, an important question is whether or not he has ever been suspected by anyone publically and dismissed. Was he suspected at all? More importantly, motive and motivation. Did he have the means to do it as well as the will?

crix0r

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn

Post Number: 660
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 3:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

An anagram perhaps[or word search] within/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum

Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If you really knew something you'd be writing a book about it! So... are you? :-)
Chris
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1522
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 4:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chris... Don't ask... :-)

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 507
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is kind of a weird question I've been puzzling over. Looking at Foster's sketch of Eddowes in situ, can anyone tell me why the blood on her right side should be in a fluid state while the blood on the left is clotted? Does it have something to do with Kate's head being turned to the left, or maybe the little dip in the cobblestones that was near the right of the body?

I don't know how blood works. . .seems like the stuff farthest away from the throat wound would clot first? I'm sure I have that backwards as the opposite seems to have happened in Eddowes's case.

Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 8:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm sure I read here some comment about the inverted 'V's on Eddowes cheeks?.

I tried to look at this from another perspective.
If you look at the picture of Eddowes face it appears the killer attempted to cut off her nose?.
I suspect, if you draw a line across her face as you might draw a knife-blade across the ridge of her nose you would find that the blade would come in contact with her cheeks on either side.
*If*, the killer attempted to slice her nose from the top down (from forehead to mouth) with the blade reasonably flat against her face it would dig into her nasal bone and possibly jar, or get stuck, but not before two 'nicks' had been caused on either cheek.
Because the direction of the cut is 'downward' with the flat of the blade against her face, the high-point of her cheeks would be cut in what resembled an inverted 'V', only because the blade jarred in the nasal bone, if it had not done so then we might see two small oval slices, one on each cheek?.
In other words, the semicircular cuts, (U or V) are in consequence of a failed attempt to slice off her nose from the top-down.
He then may have taken the more easier route of slicing from the bottom-up, the end of her nose was cut off.

I'll do a sketch if that is not clear.

Regards, Jon

(Message edited by Jon on October 30, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 245
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello Jon,

Very creative, but it doesn't seem likely at all, nor does it take into consideration the careful nicks to the eyelids. From the photos, illustrations, and doctor's description, it seems not only likely, but certain, that the injuries to Eddowes' face were intentional.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 1:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Neither missed,or ‘dissed'
Nor a comeback kid.
our man’s got medical acumen
unlike,pardon me,a disheveled Yid

He had the chutzpah
and a sinister plan
a misfit and occultist
from a seed crushing clan

It ain’t Carroll or Eddy
or the favorite of Sleman...
It’s the One Who Knows
from a bolthole on Leman..

Okay....start shooting.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok Tom, just for you, the *unlikely* attempt to remove the nose..

cutface
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't know why it came up double :-(

Regardless, whether the cuts across the cheeks was a straight line, a semi-circle, an inverted 'U' or 'V', would certainly depend on the muscular structure of her cheeks, whether she had high cheekbones or not, and as you can see from her mortuary photograph Catherine Eddowes appears to have had high cheekbones.

I don't see any reason to expect to find one singular answer to account for all the lacerations to her face, obvously the 'nicked' eyelids were intentional. The deep slash across her right cheek may though, have also been the result of another unrelated action.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 511
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
That's an interesting idea, and one I've not seen suggested before. I would think, though, that such a cut on the cheek would result more in a straight line slash, rather than the "inverted V flaps" that are described. Even the diagram seems to indicate quite a "flattened out U", which seems unlikely to result in something being described as an inverted V.

That aside, it's an interesting idea and certainly shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. For example, if Jack's holding her head while trying to cut off the nose as you suggest, the cheeks might be "pushed up", making an inverted V type cut even more plausible?

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David.
Quite possibly an answer to your question of fluid & clotted blood might lay in the testimony of Dr Brown.
"There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction."
(Inquest testimony)

So, two factors are apparent, the blood at her left side was stationary and pure blood, thick and so would clot quicker.
Quicker that is, than 'blood-coloured serum' which was flowing (on the move) towards her right shoulder, hence would not clot so quickly.

Sound reasonable?
-------------

Jeff.
How sure are we that the cuts were 'V' shaped?, if you look at the face-on drawing by Foster we see a 'V' but if you look at the side view, also by Foster (body displayed on pavement) we see only a straight-line cut, not an inverted 'V'.
Contradiction?, not necessarily, perspective plays a part in viewing a straight line from front-on to look like a 'V', but it is just a straight line across/through a curved cheek.
Then of course, your suggestion is equally possible, I hadn't thought of that.

Regards, Jon

(Message edited by Jon on October 31, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jon,

The drawings are nice and the theory, as I said, creative, but it doesn't hold up long to reason. Foster's drawings aside, the photographs clearly show a pointed, inverted V,and one on each cheek. You're also overlooking Dr. Brown's opinion that the tip of the nose was detached by 'an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face'. If the killer removed the nose, cutting from bottom up, as Dr. Brown determined during his postmorten examination, then it's impossible the cut could have produced either or both of the inverted V's. Nevertheless, I do like your thinking on the matter, as very few researchers seem to have spent time considering the marks and wounds to Eddowes' face, in my opinion one of the most important pieces of hard evidence we have.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks for that Jon, that combination of two factors certainly does sound very reasonable.

Cheers,
Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This enlargement may turn out to be of poor resolution, but I am looking at the deep mark across the ridge of the nose coupled with the short horizontal line across her right cheek.

cutface2
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 320
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This photo is good but the curvature of the cut across the cheek may be hard to distinguish, it does though align very reasonably with the gash across the high-point of the ridge of her nose.

cutface3
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 321
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 3:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It could be the result of a downward slice, as I propose.
But then, it's just a proposal.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom, I appreciate your input, you say:
"was detached by 'an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face'."

Yes, I agree, this I stated in my initial poste, - in my poste timed at 8:51, I offered, "In other words, the semicircular cuts, (U or V) are in consequence of a failed attempt to slice off her nose from the top-down.
He then may have taken the more easier route of slicing from the bottom-up, the end of her nose was cut off."

You have just confirmed my thoughts.

Thanks for considering it though - I guess I'm having a slow day :-)

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 512
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
I think a careful review of the various medical reports is in order to determine just how "V like" the cuts were. In the photo of Kate, we see the large cut stitched up. This cut, shown in the drawing, may be separate to the inverted V's.

In the photo, for example, it sort of looks like there might be two straight lines converging on her right eye; the first starting mid-way between the 2nd and 3rd stitch from her nose; the second cut starting left of the stitch line, but near the dark patch of her right cheek. If those are the "V" cuts, then it suggests the two diagrams are showing different wounds.

Of course, the two lines in the photo I'm talking about might not even be "cuts", but could be artifacts of the photography, scanning, enlargement, shadows, etc.

Still, I think what you're suggesting is worth looking into. It begs the question of why there are such marks on both sides however? Are we to think he "failed from the top" on one side, then tried from the other, then finally tried from the bottom? That would require, I think, the Ripper to shift from one the top to the bottom side of her head I would think (from the top, he V cuts her left cheek, from the bottom he V cuts the right cheek, then cuts "up from the bottom", creating the large gash on the right cheek as well?).

Something like that might work.

Again, as you say, we need to get more information about just how "pointed" these V's were, and whether or not the V's and the large gash are the same or different wounds.

- Jeff

(Message edited by jeffhamm on October 31, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 332
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 4:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Dave,

In addition to what Jon wrote, I’v found another thing. I thought I read it somewhere recently, but I couldn't immediately find it. Anyway, now I have, so here it is.

When Detective-Sergeant John Mitchell was heard at the Eddowes inquest, Mr. Crawford posed: “The theory has been put forward that it was possible for the deceased to have been murdered elsewhere, and her body brought to where it was found. I should like to ask Dr. Gordon Brown, who is present, what his opinion is about that.”
Dr. Gordon Brown: “I do not think there is any foundation for such a theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think that the deceased moved the least bit after that.”
The Coroner: “The body could not have been carried to where it was found?” - Witness: “Oh, no.”

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin

Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thanks, Frank. I completely agree that Eddowes was killed where she was found.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 323
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jeff, I guess my sketch did not clarify my point, I was suggesting that the knife was swept across her face cutting into the ridge of her nose and at the same time the highpoint of BOTH her cheeks, not one at a time.

The two lines you observed underneath her right eye are what I assume to be both the left & right sides of the curved slash, in other words it may be a semi-circular flap of skin, not two individual cuts.
The almost triangular patch of shadow at the base of the left (side) cut I think is an indication that a blade was dragged across her cheek in a horizontal direction.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This isn't too clear but I believe the cut under her right eye is an arched, or semi-circular slash, and that it was the same on both cheeks, caused by one sweep of the knife passing through the ridge of her nose.
cutnose4
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 513
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
Ok, sorry, I did misunderstand. So, the two cuts would be from a single attempt. That would suggest the blade angle changed through the cutting attempt I think (starts angled down to cut the right, then the blade is tilted point up and cuts the left side). I'm just "thinking aloud" here.

And, looking at the close up, I suppose one could just imagine that the left cut of the "V" just might curve near the top, near the eye. It sort of looks that way, but I'm not sure if it looks that way because I'm "looking to see it that way", if you know what I mean. Still, that would fit more with an inverted "U" type cut you're suggesting.

Anyway, I think your idea certainly has merrit (for what my thoughts are worth). It's certainly a new idea as far as I can tell, and for that reason alone I think it deserves a careful examination. The photo could be showing a wound pattern that would fit with your idea, so that's a start.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 514
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Also, the same basic idea could be used, but rather than the cut be an attempt to remove the nose from the top, if it was just a cut made along the horizontal plane of the face itself.

Let's say, holding the face with the left hand with the palm under the chin, squeezing the cheeks in, then with the right hand, slashing left to right; the starting of the slashing facial mutlations shown more extensively in Kelly later. Anyway, after that, then cutting off the nose from below.

This "alternative" might work a bit better as I would think a deliberate attempt and failure to remove the nose from the top angle would still have left enough of a mark on the underlying bone to warrent a mention in a doctor's report. However, a slash, or horizontal slice, might just get included as being one of the "multiple facial wounds" type thing?

Anyway, the particular intent of such a cut is a different question as to whether or not the two "V flaps" might have resulted in such a horizontal use of the knife.

I think it's sounding quite plausible. Nice idea.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 6:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok, thanks Jeff, I was only focusing on 'nose removal' because that was what he eventually did (second attempt?), but if your suggestion is correct he may have actually been attempting to remove her face?
Yes?/No?

Isn't it considered possible that a killer will attack the eyes of someone who has seen something they shouldn't?, I am puzzled by the bizarre vertical slits through the middle of her eyelids -it's like he is telling us something, or punishing her, but why and for what?

Regards, Jon

(Message edited by Jon on October 31, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 515
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an attempt to remove her face, if you mean as in "skinning the face", but rather just a slicing across the face in order to mutilate the face. Even Mary Kelly's extensive facial mutilations do not appear to have been an attempt to remove the entire flesh from the skull, but more a series of violent slashes, and hacks, as it were. Although some indications seem to point to skinning of the forehead in Mary's case?

Anyway, I think it could be more of a single "cut", or "drawing of the blade" across the face, with no purpose other than to mutilate. Perhaps after cutting the throat, while still in the position of holding her head from that cut, and waiting for the blood flow to stop, Jack simply cut across the face. This might leave his hands in the position I mentioned above, and so on. Again, this is all very speculative, and I think some hard thought and close reading of various reports will be necessary to see how well it all stands up, but the general idea seems to produce a "working hypothesis". That's the easy part though, the examining the validity of that hypothesis is where the real research is done. And it's always the hard part.

As for the attack on the eyes, I think in Russian folklore, and possibly in others, there was the idea that the last thing a person sees is "etched" on the back of their eyes. The Russian serial killer (Citizen X, or the Red Ripper) cut out eyes because he was worried they could get his image by photographing a victims eyes. I think there were some suggestions that such photography was attempted with Mary Kelly. Even if that attempt was never really tried, such reports would indicate that the same thing was believed, or the "idea" was not unheard of in London. So, if the Ripper held that belief as well, then this could explain his attacks on her eyes.

However, since the eyes themselves were not actually damaged, nor were they in Mary Kelly's case, nor were they in any of the Ripper murders, I think this is unlikely to be the motive for the eye-lid cuts. If the Ripper were worried his image might be captured, I would think he would have just cut out the eyes, or damaged them in a way to ensure that his image wasn't left there.

It seems to me, that if the Ripper did do something like the "horizontal cut" over the bridge of the nose, the two vertical cuts over the eyes are simply of a similar nature. Cuts over the prominant features of the face, which ends up de-humanising the victim, or depersonaliseing them. More or less just another show of the Ripper's contempt for his victimes. Same with the removal of the nose. I think in Mary's case, he even cut the lips, and that pretty much covers all the main features of the face: eyes, nose, and mouth.

Since he repeats facial mutilations with Kelly, although to a greater extent, I think what these indicate is simply the progression of mutilating more "surface area" of his victims. Experimentation, if you will. The throat wounds of Eddowes do not encircle the throat the way Nichols and Chapman's did, with the right cartoid artery not completely severed (only a small hole I think). This throat wound seems more similar to that of Stride, actually, where her wound was more "left sided" as well. This might be the one thing to link the same person to Stride and Eddowes. I've suggested this before, and as before, to really push such an idea would require a level of forensic knowledge about knife wounds, and "throat cutting knife wounds in particular", to know if these similarities are really something to make note of. They could be "well, of course you found that, it's the most common type of wound in these cases". That would reduce the importance of such similarities.

Anyway, I'm digressing. At the moment, I think we could start with the idea that these cuts, both the suggested horizontal cut, and the two vertical "eye" cuts, and the nose removal, are not really "messages". Rather, they are simply an extention of the Ripper's desire to destroy his victims. He's just doing so on more parts of the body than before.

Of course, I recommend this because I think it's far too easy to convince ourselves we know what the Ripper was thinking specifically if we start putting messages to each and every cut. I think we can be pretty sure he has contempt for his victims, that he wants to dehumanise them, or destroy them, but anything more specific would be dangerous guess work. Too many things fit the above, and in the end, what would it buy us apart from an inclination to become biased to our own suggestion?


- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey

Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 8:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jon,

Am I right in thinking that you're saying the Ripper deliberately cut off Kate Eddowes' nose? Because, if that was the case, then I have to rethink about MJK being a Ripper victim after all. As you know, MJK being a Ripper victim has always been a 'grey' area for me. However, I am now seeing more similarities between Eddowes' mutilations and MJK's, thanks to your posts on this thread.

(I don't want this thread to verge off onto Mary Kelly - just didn't know where else to put this, since it ties in with my question..)

Thanks for the illustrations, by the way! Awful as they are, they have helped me to get a clearer picture of Eddowes' mutilations.

Please keep going with this thread!

Lyn
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is a drawing, also by Foster, of the extent of the wounds to the face.
I provide it as an indication of symmetry in the wounds, which surely must be intentional.
The diagonal slash across her right cheek is out of place, and therefore, because her head was turned to the left side (her left cheek was to the ground), then her right cheek was upper most and I suspect may have been cut unintentionally.
I really need some diagrams to explain what I mean but this is the pic.

cutface5

Courtesy of Evans & Skinner.
Jack the Ripper, letters from hell, 2001
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yes Lyn, I believe the killer deliberatly removed the end of her nose, it is difficult to envisage it being accidental. The 'nick' in the centre of the eyelids is equally intentional, as I believe the 'curved' cuts across both her cheeks, though these in consequence of a direct horizontal slash across the ridge of the nose, as I explained above.
We are left with odd marks and abraisions on the face which do not permit productive analysis.
Likewise her right ear is cut, the lobe removed, a diagonal cut across her upper lip, and her left upper eyelid also carries a cut.

Several of those marks and abraisions could have been made during the struggle, before she fell to the ground.

I have been looking for the news article which mentions her apron was pulled up around her neck. This may be of some significance in attempting to describe the diagonal slash across her right cheek.

body
Courtesy of Evans & Skinner.

Mostly I think, we tend to accept the killer crouched at her right shoulder. We also tend to accept he was right-handed. So, being crouched, and therefore close to her head, he may have reached over with his left hand and pulled her apron up and over her head.
The apron appears to have been cut diagonally (one string attached), therefore I propose the killer, while pulling the apron with his left hand, which raised it up to her neck, he slashed through it with the knife, being so close to her body and the knife being 6-8" long, he inadvertently slashed her right cheek leaving that long gash we see so readily.

Regards, Jon

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 516
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
I think looking at this latest diagram, to the extent it is "accurate" (meaning accurate enough for us to make inferences) then the "V" on the right does show more of the "U" like shape that you mention. Also, I'm looking at the bridge of her nose, and see in roughly the "right place", an indication of a cut that goes horizontally across. And, that is what we would expect to see if the idea of a "horizontal cut" was made (as well as for a failed nose removal attempt of course). The drawing, however, seems to look more like a slice type mark, but again, we wouldn't want to draw too specific a claim from a sketch only. Mind you, we have little else to work with, but that's our problem. We must limit our claims because our information is limited.

Anyway, what I find interesting, are the two additional "inverted V cuts" shown just left and below her mouth.

I'm not sure I will be able to describe this all that well, but let's give it a go. Using your idea that these "V" cuts indicate something like "bunched up flesh" through which the knife passes while making a cut, what if we have the following.

During the nose removal, the knife starts with the blade against the left nostril, angled down and to Kate's right. With reference to the screen image, take your right hand, make a fist like you are holding a knife; my this is gross actually, and place you fist just above Kate's left ear. Use a ball point pen as your "knife" and angle your hand so the pen just touches where the left edge of the nose would be.

If one were holding her chin with their left hand, this would push up the flesh near the bottom two "V" cuts, and the knife (the pen) would be in about the right position to cut through these areas. If you rotate your hand to bring the pen/knife through the nose, the blade lands along the line on her upper lip. Then, if you continued to cut in this rotating manner, the blade would land along the large curving mark on the right side of Kate's face (left side of the picture). Again, if the left hand of the Ripper is pushing up her right cheek while doing this cut, that would push that part of her flesh into the path of the blade during this procedure.

And, if the tip of the blade nicked the areas just below her mouth, we again get those two "V" cuts.

And finally, this kind of "grip" might explain what looks like "abrasion" on her right cheek.

Anyway, it's looking like your idea as to how those "V" cuts might have been made could work to explain the other two inverted V's also indicated in this drawing. A combination of Jack's grip, causing the flesh to bulge, and the knife being cut through those areas. I think you may have something with this idea. Very cool!

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff, the delicacy needed to poise the tip of the knife in the centre of each eyelid to produce a slight cut is in stark contrast to the violent slashes evident across the neck and abdomen.
It's so bizarre that I can almost picture him crouched over her body staring into her face and talking to her while placing the tip of the knife so precisely....it's almost like an interlude, the calm before the storm.
He then turns and rips open her abdomen....

I'm not suggesting that's the sequence of events, I guess I'm just picturing a scene.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 517
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Oh, by the way,
If the large circular cut can be explained by the above idea, then it might explain the cut in the right upper eye lid as well. That seems, in the drawing, to be along the same curve as the main wound. If it was a deep wound, perhaps as the knife completed it's removal of the nose tip, then the point hit the left eye.

You know, if all of this "works", then the entire "facial" mutilations come down to:
1) a slice horizontal over the bridge of the nose
(the two main inverted V's, and a cut on the bridge of the nose)

2) a circular removal of the nose tip produces the two additional minor "inverted V's", the missing nose tip, the cut on the upper lip, the main wound on the right cheek, and the upper eyelid wound on the left eye.

3) two vertical cuts, one on each eye
4) a third vertical cut on the left cheek

That's just 5 cuts producing all that damage! And, that wouldn't take more than, what, ten or fifteen seconds?

Anyway, it wouldn't be all that surprising if I'm a bit off base here on some, or even all of them, but the fewer cuts that are required to account for all these wounds means Jack doesn't need all that much time to do the facial mutilations.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 518
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
I agree. The vertical cuts in the lower eye-lids have always struck me as spookily calm, compared to the violence displayed in the nose removal and the abdominal mutilations. This is one of the things that makes me think the Ripper was might have been delusional; the precision and carefulness required is almost "tender", like a caress of sorts. As sick as that sounds. I could be, and probably am, over-reading things, but I understand what you mean about the difference between the vertical cuts on the lower eye-lids.

I had forgotten that the vertical cuts were only on the lower eye-lids. My earlier suggestion of two random cuts over each eye was based on thinking the cuts included marks on her brow ridges as well. I have no idea where that came from; because I always thought these eye wounds were more "delicate". Go figure, I fogot what I thought! ha!

- Jeff

(Message edited by jeffhamm on October 31, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jeff, Our postes crossed..
I like your suggestion, good thinking, but I had considered, just as a thought, that those lower 'V' cuts at the lower right-side of her mouth, - were possibly fingernail or thumbnail marks?.
I know the drawing identifies them as 'cuts'...

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 519
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
They look to be in the "wrong" place for fingernail marks. It would be a strange grip I think. And, since they are labelled as cuts, and they look like smaller versions of the diagramed cut on the left cheek, I think we are safest to assume they are actually cuts.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 520
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I just thought of a reason why Jack may have started facial mutilations with Eddowes. What if it was to try and prevent Lawende and friends from identifying Eddowes as the women they saw? He may have figured along the lines of, even if they can identify me, if they can't identify her, then I can't be placed in her company.

Not very sophisticated lines of reasoning, but the Ripper may not have been one of the "great thinkers" of 1888. Just one of those random thoughts that might be worth sharing.

- Jeff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon

Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

All thoughts are worth sharing.

I have always been of the opinion that witness 'identifications' were largely done based on the appearance of the individual, clothes, coat, dress, beard, moustache, hat, styles & colour, etc. Rarely do we read of facial details like narrow nose, pointed chin, blue eyes, etc.

If nothing else Jeff, I suspect between us we have rationalized the conventional view of the extent of her facial mutilations, that they are not that extensive.

Regards, Jon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm

Post Number: 521
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 11:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Jon,
Yes, it does appear that the witnesses tended to identify the victims based upon the victims clothing. However, as we normally identify people by their faces, and Jack would have a good look at his victim's face, this would be the thing that would worry him the most. And, he can't actually take all her clothes with him either. That's sort of the line of reasoning I was following. Again, it's dangerous to put "our thoughts" into "Jack's mind", so I'm not really sure this idea would really provide much "help" in our investigation.

Anyway, I think you're correct. We're proving that the notion that Kate's facial mutilations were not all that extensive. And, when compared with Mary Kelly's, well, that's sort of obvious! Oh well, I think it's useful to examine things this way though. It may lead to a clearer idea of what Jack "did". And, if these notions are correct, then it certainly indicates that the "V's" were not symbolic of anything at all. They would not be, for example, two halves of an "M" (as suggested at one time or another with reference to Maybrick), nor would they be they "home-made tailor's symbols", as suggested by David Radka at one point. They are simply marks that resulted from a combination of how he held the head while making other cuts with the blade of his knife. The tip then cuts into bulged up flesh, and there you have it. An inverted "V" type wound. This suggests, of course, that the knife used had a pointed tip I think; or could a rounded tipped knife produce this as well? Does anyone know for sure?

- Jeff

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.