|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:51 am: |       |
I think your theory is a very good one. Another alternate explanation which I have considered and which takes into account the eyelid cuts is a grotesque sick attempt to "paint" a harlequin or clown face. Your standard harlequin has painted the tip of his nose, has triangles or diamonds on his cheeks, and vertical lines thru his eyes |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi Diana, the clue to how the face was cut on the cheeks lies in the triangular shadow indicated by an arrow here..
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
This kind of shape is typically what remains in flesh when a hard sharp straight object (knife blade?) is drawn horizontally through skin, it is not the kind of mark made by the point of a knife when drawing on skin, as for example a diamond.
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
As poor as the resolution is, the mortuary photograph does at least make this wedge shape clear on her right cheek, highly suggestive of horizontal movement by the edge of a blade, not a cut by the point of a blade.
 |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 522
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 1:55 pm: | |
Jon,
Would such a triangular shape remain after all the stitching and work done by the doctors? Or, could we be seeing something that appears as a result of the stitching that was done? (pulling the skin together at one point may stretch the wound at another type thing).
- Jeff |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Jeff, I don't see any stitches on the 'flap', do you?.
I see them along the length of the diagonal slash, but possibly the 'flaps' were not stitched because they were not deep enough.
Regards, Jon |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 526
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 3:58 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Sorry, I meant as they stitched up the slash, could this process pull the skin and open up the "flap" resulting in the triangular shape in the photo?
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2181
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
I don't know, Jon, but -- looking at the photo -- to me it looks like the huge cut over the nose and cheek is a separate one from the "V"-shaped cut and not connected.
On the photo the huge cut is stitched, and why on earth would there go a stitch below the V-cut if the latter was a flap resulting from it?
If they were connected, wouldn't the stitch be made in a different fashion?
Just wondering, because to me it would look a bit odd.
Forgive me if this has been said before; I don't feel like reading through this entire discussion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Hi Jeff.
I misunderstood you.
Yes, I see what you mean, it's so hard determining the position of flesh from these old photo's, but I agree, whether the pulling of the flesh due to stitches would open up a narrow cut or make a wedged cut even wider is debatable.
I would suggest though that the side of the wedged cut that remains on the cheek (not the flap), should not be distorted in a forward direction, not so much anyway.
That particular side of the cut still has a gradual 's'-type curvature away from the flap which is hard to envisage being the result of the point of a blade unless the killer made a curving sweep with the knife.
I don't know Jeff, I can see your point but i think it unlikely given the alternative, I guess it's in the eye of the beholder - as with so many things in this case.
:-)
Hi Glenn, I'm sorry buddy, I suspect you have picked up on something which has not been suggested. I don't think Jeff suggested the diagonal cut was related to the 'flap' wound, I certainly didn't, - I guess the old adage associated with computers might be applicable :-)
"when all else fails, read the book"
I guess there's nothing for it my friend but to read the thread 
(only from Oct. 30, not too bad)
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on November 01, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2183
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Yes, but then I just don't get it.
Call me slow, but doesen't your excellent drawings imply that you seem to suggest the possibility of the V-cut being made at the same time as the diagonal slash?
Also considering the following lines:
"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.
At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.
Well, never mind; I would rather blame it on language difficulties than computers...
I guess I'll just go back to sleep and let my bowels fall out... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, Sweden
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 529
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Actually, the main slash on Eddowes' right cheek is not part of the same cut that produced the "flaps", in terms of what Jon and I have been discussing anyway. And, we've discussed the possibility that the flaps may have been caused by drawing the knife across the face, which would go over the bridge of the nose, then cut a similar flap on the other side as an alternative to the "failed attempt to remove the nose". It's the later in the diagram, but other ideas are being tossed around.
The "gist" of the idea is simply that the inverted "V" cuts may simply reflect the knife being drawn through the flesh during a horizontal cut of some sort, rather than being deliberately made in the shape of inverted V's by two strokes of the tip of the knife. It's an interesting idea, and I think it works as an alternative explanation for the particular shape of these wounds. Also, it explains the more or less symmetrical pattern on either side of the face. And, although this is based upon the drawing, rather than the photo (which is less clear), the drawing does indicate a small cut over the bridge of the nose in about the "right place". I'm refering to the comtemporary full face, front view, drawing, in the previous archived section I would think. Also in this drawing are two smaller, but similar "V" cuts shown just below and to the left (on Eddowes right, image left). These cuts "could" have resulted during the nose removal sweep, especially if the flesh in this area is "pushed up" by a left hand holding the head (by the chin and along Eddowes' right cheek). Also, it's just possible that that cut (the "bottom up nose removal cut"), resulted in the deep gash on the right cheek as well.
I'm not sure I buy the "top down nose attempt" so much, but the important idea is in there as to how a horizontal cut could produce the V shaped wounds. That's really the "key" idea that we're working with, and I think it's a good one. Now, whether or not it's "what really happened"? As with all things Ripper, that is the question. For now, it looks like this is certainly a very good alternative, and it's also a very simply one. It negates any special significance for the particular shape of these wounds, and puts them into the category of "that's the kind of wound you get when you make a cut like this". So, the Ripper didn't "intend the shape", although he clearly intended to cut.
Actually Glenn, I think you might enjoy this thread. It's been one of my favorites in a long time. But then, I sort of like the idea, and I'm interested because it's a way of looking at the evidence I've not seen before - so it's all new to me!
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 530
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
I'm not an expert in foresics, especially in areas like "wound analysis". My question was one more of "how concerned should we be about this alternative", rather than saying "I think this is the explanation".
For example, one could suggest that if the stitches in the main slash cut were distorting the flesh along the smaller V cut, then this distortion should appear along the entire length of the V flap. However, the photo seems to indicate that most of the flap lies flush. But, that could be due to other post-mortem preparations, or to blood clotting and getting sticky, etc. Not sure, don't know, wish I did.
I think we should keep it in mind, however, as the alternatives need to be identified, then each explored in turn.
- Jeff |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
Okay,
So, were the nicks to the lower eye lids intentional?
Im afraid I can't make much of the mortuary photos.. too much stiching.
Bestest,
Lyn |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
I have a weak stomach.. 
Lyn
Okay, five word rule... Im have a decidedly weak stomach.. post in reply carefully! |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 531
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
Hi Lyn,
From the descriptions of the nicks on the lower eye-lids, it does appear that they were done more "deliberately" (i.e., focused on making specific cuts, rather than simply a slash that as a result produced the proposed "V" cuts as a consequence). In that sense, I think suggesting the cuts to the lower eyelids were "intentional" would be a defendable position. It seems a reasonable interpretation to me, anyway.
- Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Jon, Jeff, All,
Interesting thread. It seems entirely reasonable to me that the inverted 'v' mark on each cheek could, as Jon suggests, have been the unintentional but natural consequence of the killer's attempt to do a 'nose-job' on his lifeless victim.
And our pesky diarist might well agree. In fact, he could have got there before Jon did, and goes as far as to suggest a specific order of attack. 
...I cut deep deep deep. Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off [resulting in the cheek marks?], had a go at her eyes [meaning deliberate nicks to the eyelids], left my mark [singular, not plural, so this could mean anything or nothing at all], could not get the bitches head off. I believe now it is impossible to do so.
The part about her nose annoying him so much that he cut it off has always sent shivers through me; it's a powerful portrayal of a man reacting to what he perceives is an intolerable irritation (one which most people would not experience), and reacting in a way that any normal person would find totally inappropriate and shocking. To the diarist, it appears the most natural thing in the world - to rid oneself of anything annoying.
Love,
Caz
X |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 532
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
Although the diary mentions the removal of the nose, it doesn't really say "how" it was removed (apart from cutting it off). And since the nose removal was no secret, all the diary really covers are the known wounds, one suggested order (which could be presented in any order since there's no way for us to really confirm the order they were actually performed), but nothing so specific that it's validity can really be examined.
For example, if we simply rearrange the suggested order to:
I cut deep deep deep. (throat wound)
Left my mark. { inverted V's }
Had a go at her eyes. { connected with the V's }
Could not get the bitches
head off. I believe now
it is impossible to do so. { gets more angry }
Her nose annoyed me so I cut it off. { can't get the head, so takes off the nose }
We have a different order, which works just fine. Almost any order, of these sentences works as far as I can tell; although they may imply something different in different positions and orders (i.e. I cut deep deep deep at the end would suggest the begining of the abdominal mutilations rather than the throat wound, etc)
That's what's quite interesting about these sentences, depending upon where you place some of them, like "I cut deep deep deep", it might suggest different things. As the first line, it suggests the throat wound, as the last line, it suggests the abdominal mutilations. After the nose, it might suggest the nose removal, etc. It's the use of nonspecific statements that let's the reader fill in the "detail". This makes the diary very hard to validate, because the sentences are so vauge while they appear to be "specific".
For example, the "I left my mark", is a strange one really. What "mark" was supposed to indicate a JtR victim? As far as I know, apart from the general "sequence of throat wound, abdominal mutilation", there wasn't a common "mark" between the victims.
However, the one set of wounds that seem to get some attention with Eddowes were the "triangular flaps" on the cheeks, which have generally been viewed as being "deliberate" (done in 2 strokes, with the point of the knife). In that sense, the most obvious reference to "my mark" are the two inverted V's, but the diary doesn't specifically say that's what the "mark" was. I think, however, most people have agreed that is what the diarist is referring to. But then, I don't really follow the diary that much these days.
Anyway, if that's the case and the Diarist is referring to the inverted V's as "his mark", then the Diarist is suggesting those V's were done after the eyelid cuts, and they were done in a deliberate manner (as per the conventional view of these wounds up until, as far as I know, Jon's suggestion).
And if Jon's idea is correct, that these V's may be a natural consequence of a particular kind of cut (horizonal cut through bulged flesh) and do not reflect a deliberately made pattern by the killer, then it would appear that the Diary is describing these wounds incorrectly because the diary attributes intentionality to the shape of these cuts, while the shape may not have been intentional.
If the premise that the Diarist is referring to the inverted V's as "his mark" is wrong (which means my above reasoning would be based upon an invalid premise) the question remains of what then, does "my mark" refer to if not the inverted V's?
Anyway, the diary is not specific about what "my mark" is, so even if Jon's idea is correct, it doesn't "prove the Diarist is not the killer". But, as the diarist is not really that specific in his descriptions, and given that any order suggested for the wound pattern cannot be considered as "more likely" than any other (apart from starting with the throat wound I guess), then the fact that the diary puts an order to them doesn't really buy us much. But, because the diarist puts an order to them, it does suggest intentionality was involved in what ever "mark" the diarist is referring to. And if that "mark" is the "V cuts", and Jon is correct, then the diary is wrong on this point.
A lot of if's there, of course.
- Jeff |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Jeff,
Thanks so much for your clarification regarding the nicks to Eddowes' lower eyelids.
I am still beginning to see similarities in the disfigurement of MJK...
Bestest,
Lyn |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
Whats up folks?
I havent posted in a while, so this thread seems an interesting place to get back in it. I like the theory of the "V" marks being accidentally caused by the knife while attempting to do a nosejob on her....to me it just seems a little easier to cut the nose off starting at the bottom and slicing upwards....but thats just me.
Since he was already in the disfiguring mood, why didnt he just cut her eyeballs out? Since he was in the neighborhood. Talk about shock value.
If he were slicing her nose from the top though,
and Im sure this was covered earlier in the thread but I didnt feel like going through and finding it.... how did the inverted "V" get on the other side of the face? I think the marks mean something to the killer....what? Who knows! I dont think they were made accidently. Even though the theory is a good one. Regards.
Paul |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hello all,
At the risk of sounding arrogant (which I do not believe I am), to anyone who has carefully studied the wounds to Eddowes' face, and all applicable information, the idea that The nose was cut off deliberately, the eyelids were nicked deliberately, the space between her eyebrows was cut deliberately, but two inverted V's on each cheek were an accidental by-product of cutting off her nose, is arrant nonsense. To see Caz lending her support to this idea blows my mind. Is 'Jon Smyth' the same as 'Drifter' on jtrforums.co.uk, who is making the equally ridiculous suggestion that the Ripper accidentally made the gash across Eddowes' face while cutting her apron? I don't wish to come across as too harsh, and applaud those turning their attention to often ignored, but extremely important, areas of the case, such as the Eddowes markings. But let's please do our research first and attempt to stick within the bounds of reason.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 533
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 12:13 am: | |
Hi Tom,
Nobody is saying the wounds were "accidental". Everyone is in agreement that the Ripper was intending to mutilate the face (either in a failed nose removal attempt, or by slashing horizontally across her face).
What is under question is whether or not the V shaped wounds were carved to deliberately be V shaped wounds, or could such wounds simply arise as a consequence of a horizontal cut.
If you believe those wounds must indicate a deliberate intention to make a V shaped pattern on Eddowes face, have a look at the contemporary police drawing showing Eddowes face. Notice just the left and below of Eddowes mouth (left of the image; right side of Eddowes face), there are two more V shaped cuts indicated, although smaller.
So, how did they get there? Why aren't there similar cuts on the other side of her face? If you read through the above messages, we've been tossing around ideas about these cuts. And, the general notion tends to work.
Personally, I think the idea that such wounds may simply reflect a more "slashing type attack" fits more with the rest of the Ripper's behaviour at all the crime scenes. The only wounds that seem "out of character" are the cuts on the lower lid, which seem to be much more carefully done.
- Jeff |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1398
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 4:13 am: | |
Guys,
The killers position in relation to Kate.
Kates position indicates he worked off her left shoulder, back to the empty house.
Would it be possible to make the injuries mentioned in the way mentioned from this angle?
Just thinking here and I apologise if this has already been mentioned.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
Tom,
yes i do believe they are.
that's all as I haven't been following this thread properly!
Jenni |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Paul.
The tip of her nose was removed, "from the bottom of the nasal bone (which is the top end of the cut) to where the wings of the nose join onto the face" (bottom end of cut).
The cut was oblique, as described by Dr Brown, but there is no clue as to the direction of the sweep of the knife, up or down.
What we have been considering is the cut across the bridge of the nose, "There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose...", and if it was related to the two cuts, one on each cheek. The cuts were described as 'flaps', but unlike the sketch where they are wrongly shown as small pointed 'V's (inverted), the photograph shows the flaps (just the right one) as a large flap of skin more oval than pointed, and in reasonable alignment with the gash across the bridge of the nose.
The inquest testimony from Dr Brown describes the cut across the bridge of the nose along with the diagonal gash across the right cheek, this then indicates that these two cuts met at the left border of the nasal bone.
(We are not considering the diagonal gash)
It is incorrect to describe the two flaps as accidental, we have no idea what his intentions were, whether to slice off the nose from the top - down, or to attempt to take a slice off her face including her nose, we cannot say.
I'm not sure what you mean by "how did the inverted "V" get on the other side of the face"?.
The orientation of the knife and how it may have made contact with both cheeks while slicing through the bridge of the nose is detailed in one of the pencil sketches above (somewhere).
A carefull review of the close-up photograph of Eddowes right cheek tends to dispell any myth about someone carving small triangles on her face with the point of the knife, clearly there are no lines that conjoin at an apex. The flap is neither small nor pointed but is oval and as large as her eyesocket.
The myth is fueled by the Foster sketch, which in his own writing is described as only a "rough diagram of face".
Regards, Jon |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hi Jon
In the photograph of Eddowes pegged up on the board and stitched up, we can see a mark on her right cheek which corresponds to the position of the mark of the "carat-like" (inverted V mark) in Foster's sketch. But the light on the right side of her face, or rather the way her face curves away from the viewer, prevents us properly seeing the full configuration of the mark, which I would assume was the way it appears in the sketch. Although the drawing is described as "rough diagram of face" someone sketching the face such as City Surveyor Frederick Foster, used to making precise drawings, would sketch what they saw. Why else would Foster do the drawing but to show what he saw?
Therefore, I have every confidence that the mark appeared as we see it in the sketch, while the feature might not be so obvious in a photograph. A photograph besides, by nature, might not be as punctilious in capturing every detail. And we should note that the photograph in question is also more of a full body view than a head shot as is the sketch. By the way, those marks in the sketch do correspond with the view of Eddowes in the Illustrated Police News sketch of her, which, if you recall, gave her a clown-like appearance.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 534
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 2:41 pm: | |
Hi,
I think it's important that we remember these "inverted V" cuts produced "flaps" of tissue that came away from the face. I'm pretty sure there is a contemporary source that indicates this aspect, but it's not in the inquest testimony? Anybody know where the contemporary source is to indicate these are "flaps" of skin and not two separate slashes? (sorry, I'm digressing by this search for a reference)
Anyway, because these wounds produced "flaps", the knife must have passed behind the triangular part. If the killer just wanted to make a "clown face" (or carve some mysterious symbol), then this would be done with the point of the knife, as on the eyelids. Just "cut the design" into the face, and that wouldn't produce a "flap" of skin, just two cuts in a pattern.
But, if the shape of these wounds was not the intention, but rather the shape is simply a result of the wounds being produced by a horizontal cut across the face (or a failed attempt at nose removal from the top), then we shouldn't put any special significance on the shape of these wounds.
And, a horizontal cut through a bulged piece of flesh will produce a cut of the appropriate shape. Take a round stick of lunch meat (balogna, or salami), take a knife, cut on an angle into the side of the lunch meat. Voila, you will have a cut that
1) produces a "flap"
2) produces an inverted "U" (in this case)
3) did not require that you do anything "by design" to produce the first two, just cut into the lunch meat.
Now, take a slice of the salami, squeeze it to produce a fairly wide ramp (a ridge in the meat that starts flush with the table top and gets "higher" as you move along the salami). Take your knife and cut into the ridge. Depending upon the width of the ridge, the angle of the ramp, etc, you will get flaps, and various shaped inverted Us and Vs.
In other words, this shape of wound can easily be produced without the killer intending to produce that particular shape. And, there are a couple of intended attacks (uses of the knife) which the killer could have done which would result in this wound pattern. At the moment, both of those "attacks" seem reasonable to discuss.
I suppose this discussion will not sit well with anyone who puts some sort of emphasis on the interpretation of the shape of these wounds. If the particular shape meant nothing to the killer, then such emphasis would be inappropriate. And, if after a thorough investigation of Jon's idea, this alternative can be put forth, well, it does seem a simpler explanation to me.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 535
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I would have thought he worked from her right side, at least when cutting her throat and letting the blood drain. He may have changed position when performing the abdominal mutilations though. As such, I think it's possible to suggest he could have been in any position.
You know, what gets me, is if he's moving from one position to the next, how does he prevent himself from stepping in the blood? And why aren't there indications of bloody footprints at any of the crime scenes?
- Jeff |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
"Although the drawing is described as "rough diagram of face" someone sketching the face such as City Surveyor Frederick Foster, used to making precise drawings,"
Hi Chris.
Excuse me for drawing your attention to this slight contradiction, but when an Engineer or Surveyor makes a "rough sketch", it is because it is precisely that.
You cannot argue that Mr Foster has made a precise drawing 'because he is a professional', when in his own words he advises the reader that his sketch is not accurate, which is exactly why he used the caveat "rough sketch".
What Mr Foster is telling the reader is that he is a trained professional in using angles, scales and degree's, not free-hand sketches, this is the domain of an artists, Mr Foster is telling us he is not an artist.
If Mr Foster had made an accurate, faithful rendition of the cuts then he would not have advised us otherwise, correct?.
Jeff was unsure if the inverted 'V's are described as 'cuts' or 'flaps' in contemporary accounts.
Dr Brown himself, in his own testimony does not describe the cuts under the eyes as simply cuts in the face, he specifically uses the term 'flap', which means precisely what Jeff has gone to some pains to point out.
The knife had to have passed across the back of the 'triangular/oval' portion of skin for him to use this term. Even a semi-oval feature with a flat base is certainly triangular, as described, but to call it a flap makes it reasonably certain to the reader that these marks were not made by the point of a knife as a scribe would produce, but more by the side of a blade that a horizontal slicing motion would produce.
I can imaging some readers have put some stock in the 'clown-like' art-work on her face as part of their own perception of the mental state of the killer. Quite often though, there comes a time when certain preconceptions need to re-evaluated.
Regards, Jon |
JC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Well simply you guys are weird..... why are you discussing..nvm fuk it |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 12:29 am: | |
Hi all,
I feel that the mutilations to Kate tell us 2 very important things. 1. Mary Kelly was a ripper victim. He started to attack Eddowes face but he did not have the time to finish. With Kelly he had all the time in the world and he took her face off. I feel the attacks to the face point to the same man commiting the two murders. 2. Lawende and levy could not have seen Kate alive at 1:35am In my opinion the ripper would not have had the time to perform the mutilatins on kate in only 9 minutes. Alot of theories have been put forth claiming that Lawende or levy reconised the ripper. Such as, The Seaside home identification and the brother of kosminski conspiracy theory. I do not believe that this is possible based on the times they gave. The men claimed to have seen Kate with a man around 1:35 in the morning. Watkins discoverd the body at 1:44 in the morning. That would have only given the ripper nine minutes to mutilate Kate. The coroner stated that the facial mutilations would have taken five minutes alone. Some beleive that Morris scared the ripper away when he opened his door. This would have given the ripper less time to commit the mutilations. I do not believe that the ripper could have worked that fast. The coroner claimed the body had been dead for no more then thirty minutes. I am not a persons who believes that the doctors were all idiots back in 1888. Some have suggested that the coroner could be hours wrong about the time of death. [Check out the Kelly boards.] I believe he could have been a few minutes wrong. He arrived on the scene at two in the morning. I suppose this would suggest that Eddowes had to have been murderd between 1:30 and 2:00 This would support the witnesses statements about seeing Kate at 1:35 but what if Kate did not go off with him right after she was seen with the ripper? That would give him even less time. The importance of the mutilations to me is the time it would have taken to perform them. Kate was realeased from the jail at 1:00 It takes ten minutes to reach the point were she was last seen. Were was she for the other twentyfive minutes? Was she just wondering the area? nobody else saw her in the area that night. I think the night went something like this. Kate was released at one she met the ripper about ten to fifteen minutes later twenty at the latest giveing the ripper plenty of time to do his cutting. I am not sure how long Watkins beat was and how long it would have taken him to make his rounds or how responsible he was about doing so. Given the Coroner's statement I would suggest she was killed around 1:15 or 1:20 The coroner would have only been a few minites mistaken about the time of death and the ripper would have had plenty of time to commit the mutilations but she would have been dead well before Lawende and Levy claimed to have seen her. In closeing I feel the mutilations are important because It tells us that Kelly was a ripper victim. The mutilation to Eddowes shows pattern and the time it took to mutilate the body eliminates some witneses. Doese anyone believe that the ripper could have commited this tipe of murder in nine minutes and that would be the maximum amount of time he would of had to kill Kate
Your friend,CB |
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 2:14 pm: | |
Forgive me if this idea has been posted before, but I was thinking ...the facial mutilations- the inverted "v's" may have been intended as flaps the killer could grab ahold of and manually tear away flesh. This may have been an attempt to "skin" her face. He likely did just that with Mary Kelly. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 539
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the reference to who indicated the cuts were "flaps". They are always referred to as such, and I was sure somewhere there was documentation to support this idea. I just couldn't remember where it was. Anyway, "flaps" clearly indicate the knife had to have passed under the, well, flaps. So the knife had to be used in a horizontal fashion. I suppose now the question is one of "Did Jack do something like pinch the skin on the cheek, and cut a flap, then repeat this on the other side; or did he hold the head in a way that the cheeks were pushed up, slash across the face cutting first one cheek, hit over the nose, and cut the other cheek in one stroke thereby producing the two flaps, or similarly, hold the face and try and remove the nose from the top and cut into both cheeks?
Even the first suggestion (or something along that line) doesn't require Jack intended an inverted V shape for the wounds, and the more I think about it, the more I would think such a method would produce much narrower flaps (a large pinch might work?).
Anyway, it seems to me that the entire facial mutilations could be completed in about 15 seconds, let's say 30 tops.
Hi CB!
The coroner's indicate that the entire mutilations might be done in as little as 5 minutes I think, not just the facial mutilations.
Watkins testified that his beat took 12-14 minutes to complete. So he checked out Mitre Square somewhere around 1:30 to 1:32 ish, and Eddowes wasn't there.
Lawende report they got up to leave the pub at 1:30, and estimate they passed by Eddowes as her "man" at 1:35. If it was only 1:33, then Jack and Eddowes could be "in position" shortly thereafter, just after Watkins finishes his patrol. That means they may even have seen Watkins leaving Mitre Square, and Jack might realise he has the maximum amount of time before Watkins returns. If the typical patrol is about 10-15 minutes, he might figure he just has to get out of the area is 5 to 7 minutes. PC Harvey comming up Church Passage might have been a huge shock to him! (Yah, a lot of mights and ifs I know).
- Jeff |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
Hi Jon
When a draftsman or a surveyor says it is "a rough sketch" it does not mean it is inaccurate as you apparently think. All he is stating is that he could have done a neater, more perfect drawing, as befits a draftsman or, say, a medical artist. I think we can accept that the sketch portrays what he saw even if the drawing could have been more neatly done.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 251
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 10:38 pm: | |
Hello all,
I’m not writing this post in an attempt to change the minds of Jeff and Jon, who clearly believe they’ve discovered something new, even though it flies in the face of recorded history. I’m writing this for those who come along and accept this theory as fact, when in reality it’s not even a feasible alternative. This has been the trend in Ripperology as of late – find a new interpretation to put on something, no matter how unsupported it is, then present it as fact. If written (or drawn) documents conflict, then just point out that the original investigators were Victorian and, by default, incompetent and inferior. If, as in this case, photographic history conflicts with your revelation, just tell people they’re seeing it wrong.
So, let’s take a look at this:
Jeff Hamm writes: Nobody is saying the wounds were "accidental". Everyone is in agreement that the Ripper was intending to mutilate the face (either in a failed nose removal attempt, or by slashing horizontally across her face).
Tom replies: Nobody is saying the wounds (inverted V’s) were accidental? That’s all I’ve been reading! Take the following, the post that started all this, where Jon, as I stated, makes the argument that the V’s were the by-product of the Ripper attempting to remove Eddowes’ nose from the top:
Oct. 30th
Jon Smyth: 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?.
Jeff Hamm writes: If you believe those wounds must indicate a deliberate intention to make a V shaped pattern on Eddowes face, have a look at the contemporary police drawing showing Eddowes face. Notice just the left and below of Eddowes mouth (left of the image; right side of Eddowes face), there are two more V shaped cuts indicated, although smaller.
Tom replies: I’ve been aware of those cuts for years, Jeff, though no one ever comments on them. Doesn’t their presence destroy the idea that the larger inverted V’s were the by-product of an attempt to remove the nose? After all, they’re the same shape, but nowhere in the vicinity of the nose.
Jeff Hamm writes: So, how did they get there? Why aren't there similar cuts on the other side of her face? If you read through the above messages, we've been tossing around ideas about these cuts. And, the general notion tends to work.
Tom replies: How did they get there? The Ripper carved them with the tip of his knife! Dr. Brown repeatedly stated the Ripper’s knife had to have been sharp-pointed, and this is borne out by the eyelid nicks. I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.
Jon Smyth writes: What we have been considering is the cut across the bridge of the nose, "There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose...", and if it was related to the two cuts, one on each cheek. The cuts were described as 'flaps', but unlike the sketch where they are wrongly shown as small pointed 'V's (inverted), the photograph shows the flaps (just the right one) as a large flap of skin more oval than pointed, and in reasonable alignment with the gash across the bridge of the nose.
Tom replies: Why aren’t you quoting the good doctor in full? What he said was “There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the angle of the jaw on the right side, across the cheek – this cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth”. This makes it clear the cut you’re referring to was made at a motion moving down and slightly to the right, making it impossible to have inflicted the cheek wounds. The doctor then discussed other mutilations before discussing the inverted V’s, making it clear he thought them unrelated to the ‘deep cut over the bridge of the nose’. And why are we supposed to accept that Foster’s diagrams are wrong? And the inverted V I see in the photo is just that, not an inverted U. I believe you got an idea that sounded good and now cannot see the forest for the V’s…I mean trees.
Chris George writes: By the way, those marks in the sketch do correspond with the view of Eddowes in the Illustrated Police News sketch of her, which, if you recall, gave her a clown-like appearance.
Tom replies: Strangely, the Illustrated Police drawing corroborates the two smaller inverted V’s on the lower portion of her face, but omit the two large ones!
Jon Smyth writes: Excuse me for drawing your attention to this slight contradiction, but when an Engineer or Surveyor makes a "rough sketch", it is because it is precisely that.
You cannot argue that Mr Foster has made a precise drawing 'because he is a professional', when in his own words he advises the reader that his sketch is not accurate, which is exactly why he used the caveat "rough sketch".
Tom replies: Jon, I know you’re smarter than that. And I’m sure you must be aware that the purpose of the sketch was to catalog the wounds. He calls it a ‘rough sketch’ because the face outline was rather generic and not in keeping with Eddowes’ facial structure, and as such the wounds as depicted are not in proportion to her face, but as the purpose was to record the mutilations, it’s safe to say that had he seen two U’s, he would have drawn two U’s, not two V’s, which he clearly did, and which are corroborated by the photographs, and (in the case of the two smaller ones) by the Illustrated Police News drawing.
Jeff Hamm writes: I suppose this discussion will not sit well with anyone who puts some sort of emphasis on the interpretation of the shape of these wounds. If the particular shape meant nothing to the killer, then such emphasis would be inappropriate. And, if after a thorough investigation of Jon's idea, this alternative can be put forth, well, it does seem a simpler explanation to me.
Tom replies: Simpler?!!! In order to accept what you and Jon are saying, we have to accept a) Dr. Brown was blind and/or incompetent, and couldn’t see that the wounds correlated, b) Foster was blind and/or incompetent and can’t tell a V from a U when he’s staring at them AND drawing them, and that c) A diagonal cut across the bridge of the nose, which Dr. Brown totally missed and doesn’t record but you ASSUME is there, produced two U shaped flaps that appear as V’s to everyone but yourself. I’m afraid I don’t see how this is simpler than accepting the killer intentionally inflicted these wounds separately.
Again, Jeff and Jon are welcome to believe what they’d like, but I feel their talents – and unquestionably they’re very intelligent and observant – would be better put to use if they and the many like them would make the truth their priority and not just wanting something ‘new’ to claim as their own for the attention. Perhaps, in this case, this is not their intention, but as Jon seems to be holding on to this idea for dear life – and is attempting to make something out of Foster’s drawings that they’re not in order to discredit them – I feel that is what’s happening. Just a fair warning to all who were considering accepting this strange notion as reality.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 540
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:24 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
I've suggested that the smaller V's may have occured during the removal of the nose, as the tip of the knife caught skin during a circular type motion. It seems, based upon Foster's drawing, that if the nose is removed by placing the blade at the left nostril while holding the knife somewhere up around the left ear (I'm just guessing at a length here, the idea is to give two landmarks to describe the angle of the blade), and then the blade is rotated up through the nose, this could
1) cut the upper lip in the angle that wound is drawn
2) the tip of the knife could nic the skin around the areas where the smaller V's are indicated
And, just to take an idea to it's fullest to see where it goes, I suggested the knife tip could then cut into the cheek producing the curved cut up the cheek, and even result in the stab wound above her left eye. I don't really expect these last two to really work all that well, but was just speculating on how many wounds could be produced in one cutting motion. I suspected, however, that I'm way out in large monkey land here and don't really think the evidence will support such a sweeping inclusion.
In fact, rrom your presentation of the description of the large right cheek cut as given by Dr. Brown, this later idea seems quite inconsistent with the actual wound. Being busy with exam marking, I've not had time to really dig up the various reports just yet and obviously, such suggestions reflect that.
However, that aside, you seem fixated on one specific notion, which is a failed attempt at removing the nose from above. That may not be the "horizontal cut" that would produce this shape of wound. A horizontal slash across the face would suffice. And Foster's diagram does indicate a horizontal wound across the bridge of the nose in the right location to be a continuation from one cheek to the other (in addition to the larger cheek wound, I might add). In other words, the ideas are not inconsistent with the data.
And a horizontal cut through bulged flesh (a result of a hand holding the face) will produce a wound of this shape. So yes, I find such an explanation much simpler than the notion that Jack took the time to carve this particular shape at least 4 times in Eddowes face. Complicated speculations about these marks being idosyncratic tailors symbols, or some occult symbol, or two halves of M for Maybrick, seem far less simple to me than a shape that results from the way the knife passes through flesh during a knife slash. Especially since the Ripper has somewhere in the vicinity of 5-7 minutes to do the entire murder and get out of Miller's Court. The less "careful work" he has to do, the easier it is to imagine he could do it.
If you don't like the nose removal idea, which Jon knows I'm not convinced of either, that doesn't change the fact that this shape occurs as a natural consequence of a horizontal cut, made through the cheeks, and could have resulted without the Ripper intending the wounds to have that particular shape. And that is the underlying point of the discussion.
We've not gotten to the stage of comparing different specific ideas of how such a horizontal cut might have been made, only trying to formulate what the implications of different "attacks" might predict. That way, when one goes into the detailed examination one knows what sort of data would negate the idea. Otherwise, one may end up biasing how they look at the data to make it fit their theory and/or suspect.
But, if you can't see how these shapes could be produced without the Ripper intending that particular shape, nothing said here is likely to change that.
- Jeff
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:40 pm: | |
Jeff,
Perhaps I'm becoming confused because you and Jon are supporting essentially the same idea, but not keeping your stories straight. Are they V's or U's to your mind? And if you find it hard to think the Ripper would have stopped to draw these specific marks, why do you so easily accept he'd stop to nick the eyelids? Why not fit those into your grand 'round motion' design as well? Anyone who accepts the eyelids were intentionally nicked should have no trouble accepting the inverted V's were as well.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 542
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:18 am: | |
Hi Tom,
The photo only shows the right cheek, and in the photo the cut appears inverted U to me. The drawing, which shows a full facial view, draws the wound on Eddowes left cheek to be an inverted U, but it draws the one on the right cheek to be an inverted V. I'll take the photo over an admittedly rough sketch. I don't think Fosters statement indicating the sketch was "rough" was "false modisty, suggesting he could do better" but rather simply indicating that things are not "to scale", etc. What else would an engineer mean?
Anyway I can't see the other cheek in the photo, I wouldn't want to make any definate call, but given the idea we're tossing around here, I would suspect it to be inverted Uish as well.
And yes, it's a similar idea. A horizontally made cut. The general idea is Jon's, not mine. I'm just mulling over alternatives to the "top down nose removal attempt" as the specific knife stroke, but keeping his basic idea intact. It's the combination of a horizonatally made cut, combined with the shape of the flesh over the cheeks, resulting in "inverted U or V shaped flaps" is really the important part of Jon's whole idea; at least to me.
Since I suspect my "grand circular idea" is already way too "grand", I think I'll refrain from expanding it. But thanks for the vote of confidence! ha!
Also, since the photo seems to indicate the wound on the right cheeck extends closer to the nose than the version in the sketch, again, I think placing too much emphasis on the details of the sketch in terms of size and exact shape might be inadvisable. But, I think the sketch does give a good idea of the general layout of the wounds, since that was apparently Fosters' intention.
And, as I've indicated earlier in the thread, yes the intentional nic's to the eyes do seem out of place. But then, any cut or wound done in such a careful and deliberate manner, rather than in a more frenzied manner, seems out of place in the Ripper murders. In none of the other murders are there such careful and deliberate cuts. Even Kelly's face is reported as "hacked and slashed" in all directions and angles. If Jack wanted to carve intricate symbols or letters or write a letter on human paper, Mary's murder was an ideal opertunity for such careful work. None of the victims prior to Eddowes show any such "delicate markings". But all they require is placing the knife along the lower lid and cutting (if with the tip) or slicing (if with the blade). Once on each eye.
The fewer of such "out of character" type marks we need postulate, the more consistent the Ripper's behaviour is; and that is of a more frenzied attack with the knife.
The general consesus has alwasy been to interpret these wounds as intentional in their shape. And that assumption has led to some pretty bizzare ideas about what those shapes are intended to mean. However, Jon's basic idea, if not dismissed simply because it flies in the face of current assumptions, might actually indicate that these shapes mean nothing because the shape was not necessarily intended. And, at the moment, I see no reason as of yet to discard the idea as a working hypothesis. Notice, I'm not saying "this is a fact. The Ripper must have done it this way". It's a theory, and the general idea would produce inverted "U or V" shaped flaps. That means, it's a theory that just might work. Getting to the point where we can prove or disprove it's validity is going to be difficult because the forensic evidence we have is very limited. What may simply result is that a new explanation for those particular shape of wounds is offered in which the shape of the wound is not required to be intentionally made by the Ripper.
And just because the wound shape can occur without the Ripper intending it, doesn't rule out the possibility that he did intend it. Everybody can keep their pet interpretation of the symbols if they want. This just allows for people who don't want to assume the Ripper was thinking X to offer a potentially valid alternative explanation for these wounds.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 543
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:27 am: | |
Here's the close up of Eddowes' right cheek. I've coloured in what appears to be the line of the inverted "U" shape cut. The uncoloured version is shown a few posts back (I just copied from there to sketch in what looks like the edge of the wound).
Of course, the quality of these photos is poor, and yes, it is possible that the visible lines are not the actual cut. I am going with the idea that what looks like a duck is a duck, even though I can't hear it sound like a duck.
- Jeff
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Hi Chris.
I accept your objection, I just think we are confusing terminology here. An Engineering drawing (my trade) which is not to scale is called 'functional', in other words, it's sole purpose is to present details in a relative fashion. This is expedient where scaling and perspective are not important to present the gist of the details to one who is not an Engineer (or Surveyor).
In that respect it is inaccurate, that is how I intended the meaning, I was addressing the issue from my 'old position' in life :-)
Mr Foster provided a functional representation, not an accurate, scaled, portrait that could be considered true to life.
I should have taken more time to explain the point - sorry.
Regards, Jon |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Thomas.
This is a discussion group, a suggestion has been presented, responsible (mature) members have posed concerns & actually assisted in clarifying certain issues, in fact you yourself can be counted among the 'concerns' in your first two postes.
However, your next contribution bordered on a juvenile outburst of emotion, not at all contributory to a discussion group. Is there any wonder 'professional' people shy away from taking part in these types of discussions?.
Your latest attempt has all the hallmarks of 'grandstanding', you appear to be so frustrated that you can no longer deal with specific issues of detail but would prefer to argue just for arguments sake.
Take some direction from your peers and deal with the evidence as it is available, the testimony, sketches & photographs and present a coherent argument as to why the suggestions are not feasible, not practical, or not factual, and leave your emotion aside please?.
Regards, Jon |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Hi Jon and Tom
Hey guys, you are both thoughtful and useful commentators on the case. I don't think either of you is actually trying to make waves but just to understand what each other, and Jeff, are saying. Let's all be friends, okay?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 544
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi all,
I agree with Chris, there's nothing wrong with disagreement, but let's not fall into the trap of being disagreeable. As with all things related to Jack, we're working with a limited amount of evidence so nobody should be surprised if there are quite a few alternative explanations. And, although parsimony is maintained if we remove intentionality of shape, parsimony by itself does not disprove alternatives (such as intentionality of shape). But, if Jon's basic idea can explain the data, it becomes a good explanation for the wounds that does not require meaning being intended by the shape. So it's a good counter-arguement; it's what reminds us that nothing is beyond doubt in this case because so much vital information is missing.
I'm hardly one to claim that "I've got it all solved", and quite often end up refuting my own ideas. Yah, I know, I'm wishy washy that way! As I've already done on this thread, I suspect the idea of a single cutting motion producing the nose removal, the two small cuts to the lower right chin/cheek area, the right cheek deep cut, the deep cut on the right side of the bridge of the nose, and the small cut over the left eye, well, rather unlikely.
This "change of view" is because I wasn't married to the idea in the first place (I try not to get too friendly with theory, it has a bad habit of leading you astray). It doesn't seem to jive well with the description of Dr. Brown, who describes the wound as starting at the nose (I'll present a not very convincing "out" for this in a minute), and I'm not sure all the angles and the required movement quite "fit". This last is more speculative concern on my part since it's obvious (I hope) that I don't have a human head to try things out on. Salami isn't quite the right shape for this experiment!
Anyway, the "out" would be that Dr. Brown is describing the "spatial layout" of the wound, without intending the direction of the cut. Meaning, the "start" is just "one end", etc. I don't like this myself, but all alternatives need to be explored before being dismissed.
The only reason I'm continuing to explore this rather grand circular alternative is because of the following. If the cut was made from the nose to the cheek, rather than from the cheek to the nose, then the knife is being pressed down into the flesh. And, I find it strange that such downward pressure on the knife did not cut through the membrane on the inside of the cheek. The knife is being pressed down on nasal bone, then along cheek bone, then over the cheek. At this point, the downward pressure should cause the knife to cut through the cheek and the inner membrain entirely, but it didn't. So the physical evidence seems strange to me if the knife was supposed to be cut in that direction.
Now, in the alternative direction, if the right cheek slash was created by the tip of the knife being angled down into the cheek while the nose was being removed, then once the knife is moving up through the nose, the pressure on the blade is "upwards", lifting the cheek and cutting up through the flesh rather than pressing the knife down into the flesh; so in this direction there would not be the downward pressure to cut through the inner membraine. Finally, as the nose comes off, the resistance is gone and the knife would slam into the nose, causing a deep cut.
That's the alternative explanation. But, it's only a theory, and I'm not sure it works all that well because I'm not sure if the knife would maintain all the angles I've described, it's a bit beyond my visual imagery. I can visualise individual steps, I can emulate the arm/wrist movement, but it's the combination of the movement, a knife, and the contours of a human face that all have to be combined and still work if this alternative is a viable one. Also, since I'm basing this idea in part from Fosters drawing which suggests the cheek slash is curved in an appropriate manner, it also rests on the assumption of that wound being more or less accurately drawn. As I've suggested the right cheek mark is not quite right, it's a bit cheeky of me to suggest a different wound is "just right" (my, that was a bad pun; sorry) I'm only suggesting it for others to consider, and either it's possible or it's not.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi Tom,
It still seems to me an 'entirely reasonable' proposition of Jon's, that the inverted v shaped cheek wounds could, unless someone can convince me otherwise, have resulted from the knife job on the nose.
I never said I no longer considered it reasonable for anyone to think these wounds were individually inflicted, or given a specific shape that was important to Jack; for all I know they could have been.
I haven't even offered an opinion of my own, but simply observed what the Maybrick diarist chose to say on the subject.
As Jeff has pointed out, the diarist's words tend to be vague enough to live alongside almost any theory others may care to put forward to explain the facial mutilations. The nose was cut off; the eyelids were nicked; and various other injuries were caused, one of which could have represented, for the killer at least, his 'mark'.
It shouldn't blow your mind to 'see Caz lending her support' to an idea, when all I'm doing is demonstrating my usual habit of not rejecting an alternative idea as easily as those who already have certain ideas of their own that they are not prepared to reconsider for whatever reason.
I remain open as ever to well-argued and evidenced persuasion on the matter of what the wounds can or can't tell us about the killer's specific intentions.
So meanwhile I'll stick with never saying never - d'oh! I just said it twice. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Hi all
Considering that the curve of the face and cheek would have been away from the nose, a flat blade such as a knife would likely not make the marks that you think it would. If anything, the flaps if such they were would make rounded pockets not v-shaped flaps, moreover, it seems too coincidental that the mark on the left cheek and the right cheek are in the same place. They seem more likely to be knife marks made separately and intentionally to the cheek not in the process of trying to remove the nose. That's my tuppence.
Best regards
Chris
 
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Chris.
Have you taken the 'rough diagram' and compared it to Dr Brown's testimony from the inquest?.
Each mark we see on the 'rough diag' is described by Dr Brown, that is with the exception of the two 'V's on the front of the cheek.
Dr Brown himself describes two triangular flaps of skin on either cheek, which peeled up, the dimension of which he gives as 1 1/2.
Now, if you look at the 'rough diag', in no way can we accept that the 'V's are presented as 1 1/2" in any direction (height/width?), however, if you look at the photograph of Eddowes right cheek (which Jeff & I have been posting) we can all well imagine the width of the arch (bottom, closed edge of the triangle) as 1 1/2" across.
The height of the wound can in no way have been 1 1/2" as this would take the arch into the eye-socket.
The point being, the 'V's on the 'rough diagram' never existed as such.
No-one "cut" into her cheek with the tip of a knife, as was done with her eye-lids and other 'cuts' described by Dr Brown, the wounds are 'flaps' of skin, the base of which appears to be approx. 1 1/2" across and the upper angle, forming a curve towards the eyeball and back down to the side of the nose, is not accuratley represented by Foster.
Neither the photograph nor the Inquest testimony show/describe/nor indicate any 'V's, anywhere. The existance of which are the result of modern misinterpretation in viewing the 'rough diag'.
The wounds to the cheeks resulted in two large flaps of skin which have been wrongly drawn & interpreted as inverted 'V's.
Jeff and I have been pursuing 'how' the cheek wounds could have been caused, if made by one sweep if the knife, as would be required to produce a 'flap' of skin. The injury to the bridge of nose is of major significance here.
Regards, Jon
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Now, as regards the cut across the bridge of the nose.
"There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose"
(Dr Brown)
This is what is required if the wounds to the cheeks were made by one horizontal sweep of the knife across the face, cutting through the nose.
As a sideways sweep of the knife is required to produce a 'flap' of skin, then the question should be, "did the killer make two individual slices, one on each cheek. Or, did he produce both 'flaps' by one sweep across the face"?.
If there was no damage to the nose the obviously the flaps were produced independently. However, because Dr Brown describes the bridge of the nose as being cut through, then this fact lends itself readily to the suggestion that there was only one sweep of the knife across the face.
The second 'slash' to the face just happens to originate at the same wound in the nose and extends diagonally across the right cheek.
Two sweeps of the knife, one across the nose & cheeks, the next diagonally across the right cheek.
These are proposals, not solutions.
Dr Brown describes the diagonal cut as commencing at the gash across the nose.
"There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near to the angle of the jaw on the right side, across the cheek - this cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth."
(Dr Brown)
Whether the gash across the bridge of the nose was the result of the first slice across the face, or the second across the cheek, is likely not determinable.
The nose at this point would hardly carry two deep cuts anyway, the bone being so small and fragile would, I think, only show one deep wound.
So, the significance of the wound to the nose is that it allows the first suggestion to be permitted - without proving anything either way.
without the wound to the nose the first suggestion would fail.
Regards, Jon
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 112
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
I just don't see how a knife wound make the v marks in one slice. Even if Kate had prominent cheekbones, the wounds wouldn't have caused a V mark.
It is an interesting theory though.
Nina |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
Nina.
That is exactly the point, - there are no 'V's on the front of her cheeks, what does exist are two 1 1/2" wide slightly oval, yet three sided slices across the highpoint of her cheekbones. These are described in the inquest testimony and are visible in the mortuary photographs - these large slices, described as 'flaps' by Dr Brown certainly exist - but no 'V's inscribed by the point of a knife ever existed, as drawn by Frederick Foster.
Regards, Jon
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 117
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
I have been going by Fosters drawings which show the v's quite clearly. I believe I shall do more research on the matter before making any further comments.
Nina |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3387
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 4:42 am: | |
Hi all
Am I right in thinking that forensic scientists have, over the years, managed to conduct experiments on dead bodies in order to test the effect of making various woumds and thus see if they can duplicate the patterns that they find in the course of their work? A fictional example of this would be Sherlock Holmes in "Black Peter" who attempted to transfix a body (albeit a pig's) with a harpoon, in order to gauge the strength of a man who'd pinned a man to the wall with said harpoon.
I was just wondering if there was a forensic "database" of face wounds that might help us.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
