Facial Mutilations

[Sam Flynn]

If Eddowes had had the tips of her pinkies stabbed... If she had had the palms of her hands stabbed through, but not perfectly symmetrically - would you not think that was potentially beyond casual coincidence?

Of course, Fish, because there's potentially a two metre span between either wound. However - and this is important - if the hands on both sides had been repeatedly slashed, then it would make me think twice about any "symbolism" pertaining to the palms or pinkies. This is the same situation we have with Eddowes; if she ONLY had nicked eyelids, I'd be more sympathetic to the symbolist argument. But that's not the case here; yer man was making hay with her entire face, so it's hardly surprising if he had a little fun with her eyes. Doesn't imply that there's any "meaning" to any of it, though.

There is a reason that people discuss symbolism here - and a damn good reason too.

What is the good reason? That we will see inside the mind of a killer whose identity nobody really knows? Well, good luck proving any of that

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Of course, Fish, because there's potentially a two metre span between either wound.

Nope - the span of the arms equals the lenght of the person with them. So we are speaking of a meter and a half.

However - and this is important - if the hands on both sides had been repeatedly slashed, then it would make me think twice about any "symbolism" pertaining to the palms or pinkies.

Me too - but that was not the suggestion!

This is the same situation we have with Eddowes; if she ONLY had nicked eyelids, I'd be more sympathetic to the symbolist argument. But that's not the case here; yer man was making hay with her entire face, so it's hardly surprising if he had a little fun with her eyes. Doesn't imply that there's any "meaning" to any of it, though.

The eyelid nicks stand out, Gareth, even you will have to acknowledge that. The rest of the wounds are totally unsubtle and seems to have been inflicted with no plan at all.
The eyelid nicks must to a significant extent have been pondered before they were inflicted.

What is the good reason? That we will see inside the mind of a killer whose identity nobody really knows? Well, good luck proving any of that

No, the good reason is that the eyelid nicks were carefully and meticulously inflicted, targetting BOTH eyes without damaging the eyeballs - as far as we can tell.

You will be quite aware that I am not trying to prove that we could see things inside the mind of a killer we (well...) have not identified. It is a tad tragic to suggest it, even. Even if we cannot identify the reason for the nicks, it should not mean that we should look away from them. They very much belong to the picture, and they potentially bring an element of consideration into the Eddowes case. That much is all we can say - and it is not to be discarded, or made irresponsible fun of. That should be well below our standards.

With that I bid you a good night, Gareth!

[Sam Flynn]

However - and this is important - if the hands on both sides had been repeatedly slashed, then it would make me think twice about any "symbolism" pertaining to the palms or pinkies.

Me too - but that was not the suggestion!

I didn't say it was the suggestion, Fish. I took the suggestion, which wasn't representative of the Eddowes scenario, and extended it so that it was. A pair of pierced pinkies on their own is one thing, a pair of such piercings in a sea of cuts to both hands is quite another. Eddowes' eyelid-nicks sit in a sea of vicious slashes across her entire features.

What is the good reason?

No, the good reason is that the eyelid nicks were carefully and meticulously inflicted, targetting BOTH eyes without damaging the eyeballs - as far as we can tell.

As far as we can tell... indeed. But what is your source for the "carefully and meticulously inflicted" bit? God forbid that you've fallen into the trap of mistaking imagination for evidence!

We'll be reading symbolism into the "delicately dissected earlobe" next

[Observer]

Blanching doesn't refer directly to the cuts themselves, Obs - in this context, it almost certainly refers to the pallor of the skin caused by loss of blood. From the French blanc/blanche, blanching means "the action of making white" (OED definition).

I stand corrected Sam. Makes sense.

[Wickerman]

... So the upper lid is by far the prominent target. And where the act of slicing would have to have been centered.

The Morning Advertiser gives a little better detail.

"There was a cut about a quarter of an inch long below the left eyelid dividing the structures completely. On the upper eyelid on that side there was a scratch through the skin near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch in extent-a similar cut."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881005.html

There's little hints that this guy was capable of more than his general work would suggest. Which makes you wonder what it was he really valued.

And, I see this being applicable to Eddowes, Chapman & Kelly.

[Observer]

I think it's been mentioned that the cuts to the eyelids in all likelihood were done with the tip of the knife. It takes quite a bit of skill to sharpen a knife to razor sharpness, along it's full length, owing to the fact it curves inward at it's tip. Of course lots of professions used sharp knives in the LVP, more so than today. I'd say the killer was no stranger to the knife though, he certainly knew how to sharpen one.

[Sam Flynn]

On the upper eyelid on that side there was a scratch through the skin near to the angle of the nose.

A "scratch", indeed. Scratches, by their very nature are incidental, if not accidental. Thanks, Jon.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not so dark that he couldn't have cut both eyelids in approximately the same place, and to broadly the same degree.
There is, however, asymmetry apparent in Foster's sketches - upper and lower eyelids nicked on the left hand side, right lower eyelid only (portrait sketch); different horizontal placement of the left/right eyelid wounds (full body sketch).

Where is the evidence that Forster actually attended Mitre Square and did that sketch "at the time" before the body was removed to the mortuary ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Foster's sketch was drawn at 3.45 am September 30 at the Mortuary.

Dr. Brown probably drew the facial one "on the spot" along with the body in position.
Not certain on the face.

[Fisherman]

I didn't say it was the suggestion, Fish. I took the suggestion, which wasn't representative of the Eddowes scenario, and extended it so that it was. A pair of pierced pinkies on their own is one thing, a pair of such piercings in a sea of cuts to both hands is quite another. Eddowes' eyelid-nicks sit in a sea of vicious slashes across her entire features.
As far as we can tell... indeed. But what is your source for the "carefully and meticulously inflicted" bit? God forbid that you've fallen into the trap of mistaking imagination for evidence!

We'll be reading symbolism into the "delicately dissected earlobe" next

If the eyes themselves were left unharmed - and there is nothing at all to suggest that they were not - then the natural assumption must be that the eyelid nicks WERE carefully and meticulously inflicted. It goes without saying.

The eyes as such are positioned in cavities, and that is for a reason. If the eyes were protruding from the face, we would always run the risk of having them damaged. The point has been made - and I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that you have been one of those who made this exact point - that there is nothing at all strange with Kellys eyes staying unharmed throughout her carnage.
It is a very good point - a knife wielded frenziedly over a face could well leave the eyes unharmed, just because they are sunk into cavities that are protected by small ridges of bone.

In this context, you would arguably be one to argue that we should not read any symbolism into the unharmed eyes of Kelly. Fair enough!

But when we have a victim with cuts to the eyelids, leaving the eyes themselves unharmed, I think that it becomes a lot harder to regard the nicks as collateral damage, more or less. And for the exact same reason that we should not regard the unharmed eyes of Kelly as anything strange - Eddowes eyes were ALSO placed in protective cavities. But a knife nevertheless found it´s way into those cavities - and nicked the lids but left the eyes unharmed. There is quite a wow-factor to that, you know!

Those two nicks are not just two more examples of how the killer went berserk, Gareth. Most of the other cuts give that impression, but not the eyelid nicks. Together with the removal of the nosetip - which could also be described as a reasonably meticulous and careful cut, targetting a specific part of the face - they deviate.
As for the nosetip, there is another cut higher up on the ridge of the nose telling us that the killer probably hit bone instead of cartilage in his first attempt to cut the nose, thereafter moving further down and finding the correct cutting area.
Focus. Concentration. A conscious decision. Therefore meticulous and careful to an extent.

The eyelids were all of that too and more, given that they are very delicate and thin tissues.

I don´t think that you should try and paint me out as some sort of mumbo-jumbo amateur psychologist, for I am not saying that there was any symbolism involved at all. I am not proposing any psychological reason for what he did - I recognize it, and I see different options and I realize that we do not have - and quite likely never will have - the material to make any call what caused him to take the nose off and nick the eyelids. And I acknowledge that "for the hell of it" or "cause he could" may be the correct answer. So if you please, Gareth - don´t give me a burden that should not be there.

If you instead could simply recognize that of all the wounds on Eddowes, no other wounds are as deviating and strange as the eyelid nicks, we would be in perfect agreement. I would not want to ascribe any interpretation as such to the wounds other than the purely medical and physical one - they are much more delicate than the rest of the wounds, and they would have been added with a light and meticulous hand. So the killer made an effort here, he focused and he took care.

That´s all there is to it, really.

[Fisherman]

A "scratch", indeed. Scratches, by their very nature are incidental, if not accidental. Thanks, Jon.

This "scratch" could perhaps be the one that is below the left eyelid of Eddowes on the face sketch, running at a ninety degree angle to the eyelid nicks? If so, it seems to be unrelated to the nicks that are generally discussed. When people speak of the nicks as potentially symbolistic, I don´t think they involve this scratch.
And it could well be totally accidental as such.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Gareth, it has struck me that I probably represent the centre of gravity in this errand.

On the one extreme, we have those who argue that the nicks must be a gate to a world of symbolism in the Ripper´s mind.

On the other extreme, there´s you, saying that those wounds were just two more wounds in a cascade of cuts, and that they probably represent nothing at all.

And then there´s me, saying that we can´t know either way, but we must keep the door open for symbolistic thinking on the Ripper´s behalf when it comes to the eyelid nicks, just as the same door should also have an opening for your take.

The one problem we have is therefore that you think that the centre of gravity should rest with your suggestion...

[Trevor Marriott]

Foster's sketch was drawn at 3.45 am September 30 at the Mortuary.

Dr. Brown probably drew the facial one "on the spot" along with the body in position.
Not certain on the face.

So foresters sketch is unsafe to totally rely on ! Where is it written that he attended the mortuary at that time?

https://www.trevormartiott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

knowledge

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Why not?"

Because I was assuming her assailant had some knowledge of beats and their times.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

later

Hello Jon.

"As for the kidney, this is a puzzle unless he did it to demonstrate to the authorities, he knew his 'stuff'."

Or it was done AFTERWARDS--as Trevor suggests.

Cheers.
LC