Faecal matter on apron piece

[lynn cates]

nosing about

Hello Damaso. Thanks. Excellent question.

Two quick questions in reply.

1. Which part of her face was specifically targeted? (Ie, it took two goes to properly mutilate.)

2. With what activity/ies is that prominent part associated--I mean colloquially?

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Lynn: if no previous Whitechapel killing had facial mutilations, why would a copycat perform facial mutilations?

[lynn cates]

Doctor, Doctor!

Hello Jon. That reminds me of the old joke, "I asked, 'Is there a doctor in the house?' and 2 PhD's and an EdD showed up." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. So you are a two cut man?

That is my cue for you and Cris Malone to start a thread on the number of cuts to Kate's throat. Might be great to get a consensus.

Cheers.
LC

Is there a Physician in the house?

Jon S.

[lynn cates]

new thread?

Hello Jon. Thanks. So you are a two cut man?

That is my cue for you and Cris Malone to start a thread on the number of cuts to Kate's throat. Might be great to get a consensus.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"If the suggestion is correct, it was the first cut that broke the skin, it was the second cut which sliced through the deep structures."

Very well. But why make a superficial cut? Hesitancy? None previous.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
The superficial cut starting so far behind the left ear, as it is drawn forward may be quite deep enough as it passed over the carotid artery, and still be superficial when compared with what follows.

This does not quite explain why the large muscle on the left side would be divided through, and of sufficient depth to sever the larynx. All the deep structures being severed to the bone.

Very possibly here we have evidence of the knife being passed over the throat twice. The first, to sever the carotid artery, the second to divide the throat in half, as has been noted in previous cases.

Jon S.

[lynn cates]

hesitating

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"If the suggestion is correct, it was the first cut that broke the skin, it was the second cut which sliced through the deep structures."

Very well. But why make a superficial cut? Hesitancy? None previous.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.
If I recall, wasn't this suggested by Walter Dew in his memoirs?
I don't remember any suggestion of doing this at the time of Kelly's death.
I don't trust memoirs .

There was an exchange on this subject in the press, apparently the idea was tested:

Echo, 21 Sept.
Sir - As the question has once or twice arisen, in connection with the last murder in Whitechapel, as to whether an image of the murderer might be found in the retina of the victim, perhaps you will allow me to say that, under the circumstances, such a thing would be impossible.

I have gone somewhat deeply into the subject of the effect of light on the retina, and I know, from repeated experiments, that an impression of an object can only be retained on the retina by fixing the eye immovably on one particular point in the object for several seconds; and, even in that case, the object must be strongly illuminated. It is not conceivable, in the terrible struggle which must have taken place, that the woman's eye could have been immovably fixed for any appreciable period; but, even if it had been, the retina would require to be chemically treated almost instantly to retain even a faint impression.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Sidney Hodges.
19 Pont street, Sept. 20.




Professional opinion would not entertain the idea?

Jon S.

Hello Jon,

Thank you for the detailed reply.
No, am not fond of autobiographical Ripper references either.

Sounds like it originates from early street belief of the new camera apparatus becoming old wives tales (looks into your soul etc)

You see, Dew plays a hand in mentioning it, and if so contemparary may have been considered earlier. Of course, I dont believe it was ever considered seriously either.

Best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

A question. Re Kelly we know of the mention of the purported attempt to capture such an image.

Hi Phil.
If I recall, wasn't this suggested by Walter Dew in his memoirs?
I don't remember any suggestion of doing this at the time of Kelly's death.
I don't trust memoirs .

There was an exchange on this subject in the press, apparently the idea was tested:

Echo, 21 Sept.
Sir - As the question has once or twice arisen, in connection with the last murder in Whitechapel, as to whether an image of the murderer might be found in the retina of the victim, perhaps you will allow me to say that, under the circumstances, such a thing would be impossible.

I have gone somewhat deeply into the subject of the effect of light on the retina, and I know, from repeated experiments, that an impression of an object can only be retained on the retina by fixing the eye immovably on one particular point in the object for several seconds; and, even in that case, the object must be strongly illuminated. It is not conceivable, in the terrible struggle which must have taken place, that the woman's eye could have been immovably fixed for any appreciable period; but, even if it had been, the retina would require to be chemically treated almost instantly to retain even a faint impression.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Sidney Hodges.
19 Pont street, Sept. 20.

Why not Eddowes, one wonders?

Professional opinion would not entertain the idea?

Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Halse states he passed through Goulston st at approx 2.20am.

Brown was in Mitre Sq at 2.18am.

Halse states he went from Goulston St to Mitre Sq.

Halse then states he went from Mitre Sq to Golden lane, one assumes after Brown had conducted his prelims and had the body transported to Golden Lane mortuary which is around 10 mins away.

Halse and Collard observe the undressing of Eddowes and Halse notes the apron piece missing.


Monty

Hello Monty,

Pardon the delayed response. Thank you for your posting. Appreciated


Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Well, it was only first mentioned in the press on the 20th of Sept., and ten days later, hey presto! the next victim has her eyes sliced?

What was left of Kelly's eyes?

Hello Jon,

A question. Re Kelly we know of the mention of the purported attempt to capture such an image.
Why not Eddowes, one wonders?

And a follow up question. Is there any known photographic example of this ever actually being attempted through the LVP time period? (re contemporary belief)

Best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"This may be a contentious issue, but I believe a case can be made which suggests Eddowes actually was also cut twice."

But the second cut--if there--was merely a scratch.

Lynn.
If the suggestion is correct, it was the first cut that broke the skin, it was the second cut which sliced through the deep structures.

"Because Lynn, the answer may lay in the contemporary belief that the eyes retained the image of who or what the victim last saw.

IE; just covering his tracks."

And so he just figured that out in this ONE case?

Well, it was only first mentioned in the press on the 20th of Sept., and ten days later, hey presto! the next victim has her eyes sliced?

What was left of Kelly's eyes?

Jon S.

[lynn cates]

dry

Hello Simon, Jon. I like my humour dry. Allusions are nice too.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

conundrum

Hello Cris. Thanks. Conundrum on the other board?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

I appreciated it, Simon. Very dry.