|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 547
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | 
|
Hi Robert,
I think forensic's conduct various experiments to determine things like what a knife wound looks like after decomposition has set in for various periods of time, or after burning, etc. Often they do use pigs as well (according to some news broadcasts on such things; so Holmes' experiment with the pig was a bit of forshadowing of later methodology).
And, an inverted U type shape, rather than an inverted V shape with a pointed vertex, would be the natural consequence of cutting through a buldge of flesh horizontally if the knife is not held at 90 degrees to the face (as my salami experiment demonstrates). So, if the Ripper is holding the face around the chin, this pushes up the cheeks (creating the buldge of flesh).
At this point, Jon suggests an attempt is made to remove the nose from the top, and this results in a horizontal cut across both cheeks and a deep wound on the nose. The knife would be moving at a 45 degree (or there abouts) angle from the top of the nose down towards the bridge of the nose. So, when the knife intercepts the cheeks, it cuts diagonally through the flesh, creating the flaps with rounded tops (as shown in the photograph, although not in the rough sketch).
I've suggested an alternative, which is just that the Ripper makes a horizontal slash across the face, with the blade angled slightly. Again, this would produce an incision wound and a corresponding flap, with a rounded top and broad base, as per the photograph. And if the slash continues to the other side of the face in a single sweep, you get two of these wounds at roughly the same place on each cheek, given the symmetry of the face.
The idea is a simple one, and given the minimal data we have, I see no reason to discount it out of hand. The reason these cuts have been referred to as "inverted V's" is because of Foster's drawing (where one of the flaps is drawn as an inverted V; the other is an inverted U). The one drawn as a V, however, can be seen in the photograph as being much more U-like. And since Foster tells us that the sketch is a "rough one", and comparison with the doctor's reports of the size of the wounds clearly indicates that Fosters sketch is not accurate in details, but accurate in gist, (see Jon's post above), then Foster's own words should be taken as meaning "the sketch is indeed a rough one", and we should be wary of putting too much emphasis on the details contained in his sketch. (Much of my "great circle of wounds" idea comes from the layout of the wounds in the sketch, which is another reason I don't suggest it as anything more than something to be considered, and rejected if possible).
If the shape of these wounds can be produced without Jack intending this particular inverted V or U shape, then these wounds do not have to be interpreted as symbols of any kind. They are not the "diarist's marks", they were not drawn as "occult symbols", they were not supposed to send a coded message to "Levey", etc. They are just wounds, produced during a hasty and frenzied attack with a knife.
Given Mary Kelly's face appears to have been slashed in all directions, she appears to have been attacked with a knife in a frenzied, but sustained, manner; which could simply reflect the additional time available. And, since none of the previous victims seem to show any such "marks", or "symbols", it becomes rather uncharacteristic of the Ripper to suddenly decide to do some drawing.
In contrast, the Ripper did appear to take some time to deliberately mark the lower eyelids in this one case. And as I've said before, these wounds seem out of character.
- Jeff |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Jeff.
You are so elloquent, I'm seriously considering filtering my postes through you because up to now it appear that what I write comes across in a foreign language 
In considering Kelly's murder, this discussion has certainly made me reflect on one issue.
Actually, Lyn was very astute, she picked up on it immediately in that this proposal of a mindless hacking into the face rather than deliberate 'design' is somewhat suggestive that the same killer was at work with Kelly - where I have always had reservations before.
So, in one respect, what we have opened here has made me rethink some other aspects - such is life.
Regards, Jon |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 122
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Jon,
I just finished reading Doctor Brown's report. 'There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half.' This sounds like a V to me. As for the mortuary photographs, they are not very clear. Just my opinion!
Nina |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 549
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
Sometimes I get lucky in my phrasing I think. Elloquence would require I be able to repeat the process at will! ha!
And yes, I agree, that if Eddowes wounds are the result of a more frezied type attack, it does increase the suggestion there was a similar hand was involved in both Eddowes and Kelly's murder.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 550
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Hi Nina,
The photo's are not very clear, which is one of the problems for us all.
Is there a copy of Dr. Brown's report on the site here? I've been looking for it. I'm sure it will be in one of my books, but I've not had the time to search.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 551
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Hi Nina,
Found it, under Victims (go figure, the one place I hadn't checked before!).
- Jeff |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Jon,
Thanks for those kind words.. I wasn't sure whether my 'rethinking' might in fact be confusing things (and people) even more. I know that I'm more confused than ever! But if my muddled thoughts have made sense to you, then my rather confused grey matter is pleased 
Bestest,
Lyn |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 125
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
There is a also a detailed report in
"The Ultimate Jack The Ripper" Evans
pages 228-232
Nina |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Hi Nina.
When you read Dr Browns description,..
'There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half.'
Which shape do you think it adequately describes?
This one under her right eye socket?
Or this one drawn under her right eye?
Or would you describe them both as the same shape - a triangle?
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Lyn, why do you worry about confusing people?
I apparently excell at it, ...and I don't lose any sleep
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 127
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
I believe I would have to go with the second picture. The first one dosn't look like a triangle to me.
Is this a test? 
Nina |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hi Nina.
Ok, so you do accept that the words you quoted came from Dr Brown?, you read them yourself right?
So because Dr Brown did an autopsy on the body which had the marks as we see them in the photo, why do you suppose he called them triangular?.
Yes, a test in a way, though I am not toying with you, I am pursuing your train of thought - so tell me why.
Thanks, Jon
(depending on your answer, I have a suggestion to make) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hi all
Triangles! Then that settles it, doesn't it? As shown in both the sketch by Foster and as stated in Dr. Brown's report, each bearing each other out.
Might I suggest that the marks are what I and others have been suggesting, not done as part of the effort to detach the nose (which more reasonably would have been curves not triangles if the damage was peripheral to a cut to the nose) but separately and deliberately to make triangular marks on the cheeks?
And might I further suggest as someone has theorized before, I regret to say I cannot remember whom as I would gladly credit them, that the marks were meant as indicators or arrows pointing to the eyes, and thus also the not inconsequential and not coincidental marks on the eyelids, to draw attention to the eyes as in, "The bitch saw me, now she can't talk!" This might further indicate that Eddowes' supposed talk of knowing who the Ripper was, hours before she was killed, might well be true, and the killer was disposing of a witness in killing her.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 129
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
Doctor Brown stated that there was a triangular flap on both cheeks. Also, I believe that the cut on the first photo would have been slightly lower, in the darkened area.
Nina
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 553
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Christopher,
I think the issue at the moment is whether or not the photographic evidence should be taken as more accurate than the sketch. In the photograph the wound is more curved at the top, as you suggest they should given the notion under discussion (wound due to horizontal cut).
If what we're looking at in the photo is the wound in question, then it is quite clearly rounded. Triangular would be an acceptable description because the shape is, more or less, well, triangular. Although in a strict trigometric sense it would probably be more of a paraballa (sp?). But for a general description, triangular would not be misrepresentative.
Nina suggests if we go with the sketch, then we might not be looking in the right spot. That's true, but again, the question we're trying to sort out in part is how accurate is the sketch in terms of exact scale and shape? Well, not very as I'll get to in a moment.
Also, the sketch shown in Nina's post seems to be a different one from that shown in Jon's post (in the 2nd archive section of this thread). If there are two versions of this sketch, and they do not exactly match, which one are we now going to say is "accurate"? For example, in the version in Nina's post, the inverted V wound on Eddowes' right cheek appears to touch the slash on her cheek, while in Jon's posted version, there is clear separation between them? In Nina's version, the wound we're looking at appears to be in a slightly different place from the photograph, but in Jon's they seem quite similar in location?
Anyway, unless what we're looking at in the photo is not the wound in question, then the wound appears to be definately curved at the top, and not pointed. As Jon has pointed out, the dimentions of the photograph version appears to be about the right size (1.5 inches seems about right for along the base of the "triangle" shown in the photo). If I measure across the base of the wound in the sketch above, and call that 1.5 inches, then Eddowes's head ends up being about 18 inches across. And, just looking at the proportions in the sketch, the chin is way too long, etc.
So, personally, I just can't convince myself that the sketches should be considered as more reliable than the photographic version. The only real question is whether or not what we are looking at in the photgraph is the wound in question. And, it seems to me that we probably are. It more or less in the location indicated by the sketches, it appears to be the "right size", and it's basically the right shape. It's just that it's not a "pointed triangle", it appears to be a "rounded triangle", which is exactly what would be formed if the knife was cut horizontal across the face.
- Jeff |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Nina and Jeff
I believe in the post mortem photograph of Kate Eddowes that you kindly posted we are looking right at one of the triangles on Kate's right check, running at an angle downward away from her eye. It's just that the shine on the cheek prevents you seeing the full shape of the triangle.
Nina, compare that mark to the sketch that you also posted: the triangle on the right cheek is just above that long sliced cut running downwards at an angle away from the bridge of her nose, the same nasty cut that is stitched up in the photograph.
Jeff, I am afraid that your arguments don't wash. Rounded triangle? Come on. Give it up.
Poor Kate. Even if she was dead, the desecration is appalling. For some reason, perhaps because there is more of the living Victim still visible, these photographs of Kate Eddowes have tended to disturb me more that the admittedly awful photographs of Mary Jane Kelly's even more demolished body. 
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on November 08, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Nina.
To suggest the curved arch on the photo is a different wound than the ^ on the drawing is to bring Dr Browns detailed testimony into question.
How on earth do you think he missed a wound as big as that? :-)
Jeff, one small factor that we are not mentioning here is the impact that this question is having on personal theories.
The belief that pointed ^'s were etched into her cheek with the point of a knife by her killer is firmly rooted in Ripper mythology.
I can almost guarantee that should we bring a doctor into this discussion, even he will not convince die-hard's that those facial wounds were caused by a slicing action producing a flap, as opposed to an intentional 'directional marker' from the point of a knife.
Regards, Jon
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Hi Cris, you offer..
Might I suggest that the marks are what I and others have been suggesting, not done as part of the effort to detach the nose (which more reasonably would have been curves not triangles if the damage was peripheral to a cut to the nose)
But isnt this exactly what you are saying you would expect?
Produced by this action?
"The bitch saw me, now she can't talk!" This might further indicate that Eddowes' supposed talk of knowing who the Ripper was,
?, he didn't cut out her tongue though, did he?.
You actually bring heresay into this?
You do surprise me Chris.
All the best, Jon |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 554
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
The idea that the wounds, whatever the shape, were carved by using the point of the knife to etch like a pen, is clearly refuted by the fact that the wounds produced flaps.
Now, I suppose one could suggest that following the etching, the Ripper then sliced under the skin to make a flap of the pointed triangle. But such use of the knife in a carving motion, I would think, would have been detectable and noted upon by the doctor's.
The photo clearly shows the shape of the wound curving up into a rounded shape near the top, not a wound with two straight edges joining in a point. As Chris points out, the apex of the wound is not visible due to the reflection of light from the skin, however, the edge of the wound is visible prior to it dissappearing into the "shine". And following the curve produces the red line I've sketched in.
Below, I've added in two blue lines, which continue the straight line edges as if the wound were triangular. The first bit of evidence against this being the "real path of the wound" is that the left edge continues through portions of the photo which are not influenced by "shine", but there is no visible wound in that area. And secondly, the apex of the triangle appears to be in her eye itself, or at least at the very edge of it. Now, that again points to the sketches being inaccurate (neither shows a triangle touching the eye, or terminating within the eye).
So, since the photo shows a wound that curves near the apex, that does not show any indication of a wound that continues to form a pointed triangle, and that a "curved apex and flap type wound" is what would be expected from a horizontal cut through this portion of the face, I think it's safe to suggest that:
1) the wounds on Eddowes' face were curved
2) the wounds produced flaps
3) the wounds are roughly "triangular" (a description perhaps more suited to directing a viewer's attention to the wound as shown on the sketch, rather than as it actually was)
4) the wound was probably produced by a horizontal cut across the face
5) there is no reason to assert the killer must have had any intention of producing that particular shape of wound.
- Jeff
P.S. Obviously a "triangular wound" does not suggest the cuts extend beyond the apex. A triangular wound would stop at the intersection of the two blue lines.
(Message edited by jeffhamm on November 08, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hi Nina.
Getting back to your thoughts on the shape, you agree with the designation 'triangular'.
There really isn't any need to dispute this description, as there are only three basic shapes to choose from, circles, triangles or squares.
When looking at the curved feature in the photo we can clearly see they are neither circles nor squares. There is no other basic shape with which to describe them, so 'triangular' is as near as needs to be.
The problem though is that 'triangle' is more associated with the 'V' on the drawings than the arch on the photo, leading to the assumption that the drawing is correct and the photo, though heaven knows how, must be incorrect.
A uniquely bizarre set of circumstances.
Regardless of the 'triangle' issue, detractors are not addressing the two other significant details written by Dr Brown.
Does the photo accurately portray a feature which is 1 1/2" across? and does it adequately represent a 'flap' of skin?.
Finally, is there any reason to believe that the drawing of the inverted 'V' is not a rudimentary depiction of the triangular feature in the photo?.
And if it is not, why do you suppose Dr Brown only described the one 'V' and missed the larger 'triangular' arch in his testimony?.
Thanks, Jon |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff and Jon, you two reprobates, you...
Two cuts like a teepee, then dig your knife under the skin to create a flap, okay? The same operation on both cheeks.
Jon, the drawing you show of the knife cutting into the nose and hitting the right cheek does not adequately explain how the same wound appears on both cheeks at around the same place. A wound that is not rounded as you show in your drawing, but that is triangular in Foster's sketch and in Brown's report. Still not convinced?
My contention, in short, is that these are purposely caused triangular wounds to both cheeks, and my conclusion is supported by two pieces of evidence from 1888. Your contention that the wounds were inadvertently caused by an attempt to remove the nose is refuted by official evidence and cannot be supported by your hypothesizing IMHO.
Have a good evening both of you. 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Chris - you nay-sayer you!!
Explain how this action is not possible, please.
And Chris, you have not produced anything that refutes the possibility that the horizontal cut was an attempt to remove the nose - though, it could also have been an attempt to slice off her face - the intention can only be guessed at.
Regards, Jon |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi Jon
For one thing the big slash right across the nose, later stitched up, might indicate the work on the nose was done in a frenzy rather than the controlled, even-blade-across-the-nose manner that you show in your drawing.
And neither you nor Jeff can explain that Brown and Foster's sketch both testify to two triangular wounds to the cheeks not the rounded wounds that you show.
Rounded triangles, Jon? Nah! We all know what a triangle looks like, Jon lad, and 'taint rounded. 
What's at the basis of our debate, of course, is that I think the killer was possibly sending a message with the cuts, a triangular cut to each cheek, plus a nick to each eyelid, parallel wounds that cannot be coincidence. You and Jeff see the cuts to the cheeks by contrast as inadvertent and tangential to the attack on the nose. Hmmmmm....
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on November 08, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 130
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
There is no other basic shape with which to describe them, so 'triangular' is as near as needs to be.
We are in agreement here!
Does the photo accurately portray a feature which is 1 1/2" across?
Dr. Brown never said that the flap was 1 1/2" across, merely that there was a flap about 1 1/2". He could have meant a vertical flap.
and does it adequately represent a 'flap' of skin?.
I can see no reason why he would refer to it as a flap of skin if in fact it wasn't.
why do you suppose Dr Brown only described the one 'V' and missed the larger 'triangular' arch in his testimony?.
Could you clarify this statement for me? I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to.
I would like to view a larger photo of Kate before she was stitched. This could possibly answer some questions. The only photo I have is from this site and it is rather small. Do you happen to know what book the following photo was taken from?
Nina
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 131
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I can see now!
Nina  |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 555
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
The difference seems to be which historical evidence you look at, the sketches or the photograph. The photograph shows a rounded wound, while the sketch shows a pointed wound. If the wound was rounded, then the doctor used the term triangular either to direct the juries attention to the sketch so they knew what wound he was talking about, or because that was the simplest word that more or less captured the shape, and most easily described the wound to the jourey. Focusing on why he chose this word begs the question of why the photograph shows a rounded wound, while the rough sketch shows a triangular one.
And if the wound was rounded at the top, then the sketch is inaccurate, and the wound was not a perfect geometric triangle. Rather, it was a wound, with two sides that tended to get further apart as you move away from a common vertex; gee, sort of sounds like a triangle!
In otherwords, the doctor's description via the word "triangle" is not incomprehensible even if the wound was shaped as it is in the photograph. So neither a "rounded wound" nor a "pointed wound" is really inconsistent with the contemporary description (although I admit, a pointed wound is more triangular, and so yes, would fit better).
What is taken for the wound in the photograph, seems to be about 1.5 inches when compared with the size of her face (it spans about what you would expect a 1.5 inch cut to span), which fits with the testified size of that wound; so the photographic wound fits the contemporary evidence that describes the size of the wound, and weakly fits the described shape.
Using the wound as depicted on the sketch, however, makes Eddowes head about 1.5 feet across (not in circumference, but from ear to ear, which is far too big. So, the "sketch wound" does not fit at all with the contemporary evidences concerning the size of the wound, although it fits the word "triangle" better.
Moreover, the sketch was testified to be a "rough sketch" by the person who drew it. And this seems born out by the fact that the proportions seem all wrong (the wound size is wrong, her chin is too big, her eyes appear misaligned with respect to the vertical axis, etc). So, the contempory evidence even tells us to be cautious about the sketch. Photographs, although they can distort things, the angle of the photo in question should not do so. But, as you've pointed out, the "glare" is (as with all things related to this crime), in exactly the one place we wish it wasn't. Fortunately, however, before the edge of the wound dissappears into the glare, it can be seen to be curving. And if you follow that curve, it joins up nicely with the other visible edge of the wound. So, that suggests a curved top wound, no matter what geometric shape was used to describe it. And, to try and fit the used geometric shape to the photograph, suggests the point of the triangle is somewhere in her right eye.
Since we have the photo, why not base our more specific observations on that, where possible?
Finally, there is no reason what-so-ever why a horizontal cut or slash of the knife could not have produced just such a wound as shown in the photograph, with that particular shape, on both sides of the face, in roughly the same place on each cheek.
Any attempt to "draw then lift out by horizontal cutting" to produce "triangular flaps" would have produced tell-tale signs of such "carving", and nothing in the reports indicates there was anything like that. Nor is there anything in the photograph to suggest the edge of the wound was produced by anything but a single drawing of the knife. The photograph shows a smooth edged cut.
Anyway, since this is sort of boiling down to opinions on whether the sketch or the photograph more accurately depict the shape of the wound, I'm not sure what one could do to move forward from here.
- Jeff |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 10:45 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff and Jon
The sketch may be rough but the photographs are fairly lousy for seeing detail, aren't they, since as we discussed shine and shadow obliterate the details.
Neither the sketch nor the photographs are ideal, but I should say that the sketch to some extent is more reliable, if not in scale.
Anyhow, mates, let's agree to differ, eh, Jeff and Jon?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 349
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 11:18 pm: |
|
I don't remember if I posted to the discussion on this board or just the thread on the other forums talking about it, but I think this new theory makes a lot of sense as a possibility.
The apparently rounded cut on the photo clearly matches up what was described and drawn as a triangle elsewhere. Based upon the big slash mark across the face, I can't see how the drawn flap could possibly be in the darker area of the face without being intersected by or below the diagonal cut.
As far as I can tell, if we are going to be literal about the triangular cuts having to have a sharp pointed edge in the middle, based upon the photo that point would have gone straight into the eyeballs (which is not what we are seeing in the photos or how it was described), or would have to be elsewhere on the face (which would dramatically prove that the sketches aren't rendered accurately).
And I'm not sure how one can argue simultaneously that the sketch is accurate and that the slashes were meant to point at the eyes, as the sketch has one of those triangles pointing upwards but missing the eye completely.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 556
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 09, 2004 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think "agree to disagree" is probably all we can do. It's not my intention to insist this "has to be what happened", only that as far as I can tell, Jon's basic idea seems like a valid alternative to the usual conclusion that the cuts were made to have a deliberate shape.
Also, even if we were to accept the idea that the cuts were "rounded", that doesn't "prove" the Ripper didn't make a horizontal cut knowing it would produce this particular wound pattern. All it does is leave open, as a reasonable alternative, is that these shapes could be produced without the Ripper's expressed intent on producing a particular shape. But as I've said before, if one is convinced there is meaning behind the shapes, one can always argue that the Ripper may have "cut horizontally" in order to produce these shapes. Since we have no way of proving what the Ripper's intentions were, there's no way to prove such arguments wrong. All the "nay sayers" can do is fall back on parsimony; if the shape does not require intentionality on the Ripper's part, then one can not assert the shapes were intentional. Which one counters with, "We're dealing with a specific instance, and parsimony is based upon general probabilities. One shouldn't limit interpretations of a specific instance based upon population statistics." And round and round she goes.
Anyway, this alternative, if accepted by one making a case for a suspect (or simply making an argument where the "wound shape" comes into play), means that no "symbolic interpretation" has to be made with respect to the shape of these particular wounds.
And I agree, the photograph is not great. But I think the sketch is not great either. Given the choice, I suggest the photo to be the lesser of two evils, if you will. Also, I think there's just enough detail in the photo to demonstrate that Jon's idea is not refuted by the photographic evidence. I do think, however, that pointed triangles would indicate cuts where the photograph does not show cuts, and these areas do not appear to be affected by "reflection glare". (All I'm doing is stating why I believe Jon may be onto something very interesting here; NOTE: interesting does not mean "necessarily correct" - many interesting ideas turn out to be untrue; cold fusion was interesting, for example).
Also, as I was reading the Ultimate last night, it was the medical opinion at the time that the only purpose to the mutilations of the face was to disfigure. This suggests the doctor's of the time saw nothing to indicate a deliberateness (is that even a word?) behind any of the facial wounds except the cuts to the eyelids. (Deliberate here meaning, deliberate etching, or carving, rather than deliberately slashing, or deliberately removing the nose). Although, as with so much of what we have to work with, these are vauge statements where we need to fill in the gaps, I would think any attempt to carve out two lines, then cut out the flesh underneath, would be apparent, and hence would result in comment. Such as the comments made about the apparent "deliberate placing of the instestines", etc. The basic principles of Jon's idea, however, offers a way to explain these cuts and offers an explanation why the doctors at the time may not have seen anything "purposeful" to them apart from disfigurement.
Anyway Chris, I think in the end, a valid case that fits with the contemporary evidence quite well can be made to suggest the "flaps" were not necessarily made with a particular shape in Jack's mind. Whether the cut was Jon's "failed top down nose removal" or simply my suggestion of a "horizontal drawing of the knife across the face" (so, not a nose removal attempt, just a slash/cut/drawing of the knife, across the horizontal plane of the face), is getting into specifics, rather than the general principle of a horizontal cut. If the medical evidence can rule out a top-down nose removal, that doesn't mean it's ruled out something like a horizontal slash.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone that "intentional theories" must be wrong. All I'm trying to convince people of is that I think Jon's idea has some merit, and that it deserves real investigative consideration.
- Jeff |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your responce. You are correct sir. I read the Inquest again and the doctor infact claimed that all the mutilations could have only took 5 minutes. Watkins did claim that he had been through the area around. 12:30 The scary thing about all of this is I read the Inquest before I posted my last post. I guess I can add reading comprehension to my long list of problems. The mistake prooves how much I depend on responces from people like you. THANKS Needless to say diregard my last post.
Your friend,CB |
thetruthisoutthere
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 12:34 pm: |
|
I can't but help wondering whether the mutilations were some kind of "message", not unlike the mafia - bullet through the eye:we're watching you, and so forth. Before anyone thinks I'm suggesting Tony Soprano was JTR (fuggedaboudit!), I should add that these messages, or signs, if you will, need not have held any meaning to anyone except Ol' Jacky himself. What do you think? |
Tony Rutherford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hello All,
I came across this photo from From Hell, and thought it may help the debate!
Tony |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 9:28 pm: |
|
It certainly brings home the ghastliness of it! I still see a harlequin |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 379
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi Tony,
Not sure how a modern artist's depiction that gets many of the wounds in places different than the original sketches or descriptions had them would help us out too much.
Interesting work though. Did you make it or find it somewhere?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I hope you don't mind my carrying this from the Stride thread. I have a bad habit of derailing threads, a habit that I'm trying to correct. You wrote:
Wynne Baxter was also, as you may know, a major subject on the UK Conference, and it appears indeed as the was a more remarkable chap than what we sometimes gives him credit for.
As for his idea about Eddowes being a copycat, it is very hard to understand his views, since her body displayed every possible element connected with the Ripper's work on Chapman plus some additional features.
However, I'd say that just shows how inexperienced even the most skilled people were at the time with killers like these.
I am not sure of I agree with you that that the mutilations on Eddowes shows 'plenty of skill'. I personally can't see that at all, if we disregard the picking of the kidney. The PC said she looked like being ripped up like a pig in the market and there was a lot of hacking inside the body. I fail to see the skill in all of it.
Yes, I agree. Baxter's certainly a remarkable figure on several levels and a more than worthwhile as an object of study. Adam Wood has done a good job with him. I don't follow why Baxter should describe the Eddowes mutilations as "unskilful".
Now I don't want to turn this into an Eddowes thread, but in making up your mind on the question of skill, you can't disregard the kidney. The kidney, locating it under that membrane, is what particularly impressed Brown. Other questions might be: Was division of the lower left eyelid an accident (as I read it, the eye was left intact)? Do you attach significance to the removal of the womb? If so, you must allow that the Ripper identified the womb--a display of skill. The triangular flaps on each cheek--indentical wounds, repeated. Not cuts, but flaps about an inch and a half long. Two of them. Certainly not accidents, they were made with purpose, indicative of skill.
Now, what you can disregard is a police constable's description of the wounds. I don't remember who said that--he could be Super Constable but he is unqualified to form a medical opinion. Listen to the surgeons, that's why they've been summoned. Did Baxter summon PC Long or Watkins to dissect the body? No, my friend, he summoned Dr. Brown. You know how much they paid surgeons to conduct internal postmortems? Two guineas, a rather large amount. They took hours to conduct but the professional opinion is what coroners were after.
Admittedly, the medical men differed over whether skill was shown. I give Brown's opinion more weight because I find his level of detail impressive. I think he's the best witness out of all the inquests.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on October 16, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4156
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
I agree, Dr Brown was probably one of the more qualified and his report is very detailed for its time.
However, let's remember a couple of things:
a) note that the word 'medical' is crossed over in the passage speaking about 'knowledge', indicating that he necessarily didn't refer to any medical skills.
b) also note that Brown states that such knowledge' could be possessed by someone 'cutting up animals'.
So it depends on what kind of 'skill' we are talking about.
Are we talking about 'medical' or anatomical' knowledge? If it's the latter, yes, I think he would have had some of those, although similar mutilations have been done by others without a singe element of skill beforehand.
As for the kidney, and as have been stated before, Brown assumed that the killer looked for the kidney and knew what it was, which is something we shouldn't take for granted.
If someone would have greater anatomical or medical knowledge/skill, then he'd know that the easiest and fastest way to reach the kidney would be from the back. If you're in a difficult situation and wants to be effective and do it fast, you go for the easiest solution based on your knowledge and experience. The fact that he hacked himself through the belly and the front could in fact indicate someone with less skill.The rest of the hacking inside the body, not to mention the destruction of some of the other organs, doesn't in addition really indicate much skill to me beyond a butcher's or even much lower.
Just my two cents, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Good point. Allow me to clarify. I mean skilled in the sense of having some anatomical knowledge, not necessarily a proper medical man. Brown says the removal of the kidney showed "great knowledge", but such information could come from reading a book, right? By skill, I mean he wasn't merely hacking. He knew his way well enough around an abdomen and was skilled enough with a knife to set and meet objectives (if we believe he deliberately removed the kidney and womb).
Dave |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4158
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hi dave,
OK, now I am with you. Agreed.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
If someone would have greater anatomical or medical knowledge/skill, then he'd know that the easiest and fastest way to reach the kidney would be from the back
Right as rain...but methinks our boy wanted more than just the kidney. The way they were displayed out in the open may have been of high significance to the Ripper...
Dave O makes good points about the finesse shown with the other markings. Thats not proof of anything certain,except perhaps,an act of deliberation on his part with those markings.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4159
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:40 pm: |
|
How,
It is quite true that there might be deliberation behind those markings. They could have meant something to him, although a new interesting theory actually puts forward that they might have been a result of damage inflicted when he did the other cuts in the face.
But we can't rule out that they were deliberate.
Whatever, I fail to see why that necessarily would point at some kind of 'skill'. If you know to some degree how to handle a knife, as I suppose most people in most trades would at the time in Whitechapel, you would know how deep to cut in a certain situation. Wouldn't really take any extraordinary skills beyond the usual butcher or tradesman, in my view. Not even under those conditions.
And again, there is nothing saying that he was after the kidney in the first place; from at least three of his victims we can assume that the womb was his primary target, at least in my interpretation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Another good point, Glenn. Thank you for reminding us about Jon Smyth's posts above, which are related to the cheek mutilations. I had forgotten.
Thanks, Howard. I agree, it's proof of nothing. Just interpretation.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 824
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
I'm going to repost my chart on Jack's proficiencies. I came to the same conclusion as Dr. Brown if you study it carefully. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page