Facial Mutilations

[Sam Flynn]

Most like he made an initial incision, and then pulled the eyelids away from the eyeball to cut through.

The cuts come rather close to the bridge of the nose, where the skin is quite tight and difficult to pull forward. Besides, there's not much skin to get hold of, and - once grabbed - there's not much room to work a knife-blade into, to say nothing of how slippery it might have become.

Much too fiddly, if you ask me, if not wholly impractical.

It is like using a chef's knife to cut out exactly two pages in a book. No more, no less. Crouching over the book while it lays on the ground, without nicking the third page, you can't rest you elbows on anything, and the clock is ticking down.

What about using the point of a chef's knife to close/open the pages of a book? Well, you'd leave a nick where the blade had been... which is what we see with Eddowes. There's little precision; in fact, the wounds aren't even equidistant from the bridge of the nose, nor are they the same size and they damage the eyelids in differing, asymmetric, degrees.

A deliberate, meaningful act would have produced a more regular pattern.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Jon.

"I take the slicing of the eyelids as some kind of acknowledgment of the urban myth, that the retina can capture the last image the eyes see before death.
This topic had been covered in the press only the week before.

Our killer was keeping abreast of the investigation."

Absolutely.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

time

Hello CD.

"However it could simply be that he felt more emboldened on that occasion and also felt like he had more time."

With Kate at Mitre sq???

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

The cuts come rather close to the bridge of the nose, where the skin is quite tight and difficult to pull forward. Besides, there's not much skin to get hold of, and - once grabbed - there's not much room to work a knife-blade into, to say nothing of how slippery it might have become.

Much too fiddly, if you ask me, if not wholly impractical.What about using the point of a chef's knife to close/open the pages of a book? Well, you'd leave a nick where the blade had been... which is what we see with Eddowes. There's little precision; in fact, the wounds aren't even equidistant from the bridge of the nose, nor are they the same size and they damage the eyelids in differing, asymmetric, degrees.

A deliberate, meaningful act would have produced a more regular pattern.

Here´s the report on it:

"The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch."

If he simply closed the eyes with his blade, then why is the LOWER left eyelid cut and the upper left eyelid scratced through the skin?
Surely if he wanted to close the eyes, he would have put the tip of his knife to the UPPER eyelid and pulled it down? Or, to be more practical, if he really wanted to close the eyes, then why not use his thumb?
The lower left eyelid was "cut through", so he applied the sharp edge to it. Then he may have used the tip of his knife on the upper left eyelid, scratching it.
Whatever the eyelid cuts are, they certainly are not collateral damage, we can agree on that, I think.
The medical report tells us that the eyelid was cut through, so there was an act of cutting involved. The upper eyelid is, in contrast, only scratched.

As for the assymetry you speak of, I think it is asking a lot to say that the wounds should have been exactly alike to work as examples of cuts made with a symbolical meaning. It was very dark, the blade was long and probably unsuited for the purpose of cutting eyelids and so on. And Fosters sketch surely implies that he at the very least saw a symmetry!

I more often than not like your no nonsense approach, Gareth. But I don´t want to apply it as a universal remedy. In this case, it fails to deliver to my mind.

That´s about all I have to say on the matter.

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"However it could simply be that he felt more emboldened on that occasion and also felt like he had more time."

With Kate at Mitre sq???

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Why not?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

As for the assymetry you speak of, I think it is asking a lot to say that the wounds should have been exactly alike to work as examples of cuts made with a symbolical meaning.

Not so dark that he couldn't have cut both eyelids in approximately the same place, and to broadly the same degree.

And Fosters sketch surely implies that he at the very least saw a symmetry!

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).

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not so dark that he couldn't have cut both eyelids in approximately the same place, and to broadly the same degree.

I am not aware of the exact degree of darkness in Mitre Square, Gareth, so I cannot discuss it in detail. Nor do I know in what exact position Eddowes lay as the lids were cut - such things may have an impact too.

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).

And yet, these exact sketches have for 127 years led people to think that there IS a great symmetry... But as I said, I have stated my case, and it has not changed.

[Sam Flynn]

And yet, these exact sketches have for 127 years led people to think that there IS a great symmetry...

But there isn't a "great" symmetry there at all, Fish - there's an approximate symmetry at best. Just the sort of thing you'd expect in less-than-perfect lighting conditions, and just the sort of thing you'd expect if there wasn't any profound "meaning" to the wounds.

Besides, the sketches haven't been available to a broad public for all that time, in fact they've only attained widespread exposure in recent years. Years in which a generation of post-Aquarian boobies like you and me grew up, fed on a TV and cinema diet of mystery, science-fiction and super-sleuths.

[Wickerman]

The thing is that he sliced the eyelids without apparent injury to the eye itself. Which is not easy,...

I think the eyeball is likely to depress into the eye socket to some degree before the cornea divides under the pressure of a blade. There being nothing firm behind the eyeball to offer resistance.
I don't suggest he lifted the eyelid to check if the eyeball had separated, he may have just assumed a vertical slice across the closed eye was sufficient to make the point to those who find the body.

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

[Errata]

The cuts come rather close to the bridge of the nose, where the skin is quite tight and difficult to pull forward. Besides, there's not much skin to get hold of, and - once grabbed - there's not much room to work a knife-blade into, to say nothing of how slippery it might have become.

Much too fiddly, if you ask me, if not wholly impractical.What about using the point of a chef's knife to close/open the pages of a book? Well, you'd leave a nick where the blade had been... which is what we see with Eddowes. There's little precision; in fact, the wounds aren't even equidistant from the bridge of the nose, nor are they the same size and they damage the eyelids in differing, asymmetric, degrees.

A deliberate, meaningful act would have produced a more regular pattern.

You're wrong about that I'm afraid. Symmetry is not an indicator of purpose and meaning. It's an indicator that the way something appears matters. But a lack of symmetry does not mean the reverse. The only relatively symmetrical wounds on Eddowes were the cheek cuts, thought to be if not exactly accidental than at least incidental. He did not cut both ears, he did not injure all eyelids symmetrically, there were cuts on her right side that were not on her left. He did not take both kidneys. Symmetry was not his thing. It seems silly to insist that it should be the measure for minor disfiguring wounds on her face, but not for the rest of her.

And grasping the eyelids to pull them away from the eye explains why the cuts are so close to the bridge of the nose. And you can get a plenty good grip on eyelids, which you would know if you were one of the poor bastards who has ever had to use a pair of tweezers to get a contact lens out. One is hardly going to cut through ones own thumb and forefinger to cut the middle. There would need to be a bit of a gap between the lid and the eye for the tip of the knife to be able to move without slicing the eyeball. And the only way that happens is if the lid is not on the eye.

And your analogy doesn't hold. If the killer had put the blade between the lids to open the eyes, the upper lids would have been cut, not the lower. It's the upper lids that have to move to open the eyes, so the pressure would be on the upper lids, and the knife movement would have been on the upper lids. A still knife with reasonable pressure is not usually enough to make a cut. Which is why you can press a knife on a finger tip pretty hard and still be perfectly safe. It's pressure+movement that cuts. And you still would likely perf the eyeball because you are stabbing the eye, however slowly, in order to put the knife tip between the lids. Or you are flicking the tip against the split and that makes a bunch of small cuts that weren't found. While covered with blood in a dark alley using a tool that is in no way suited to the job at hand. And why not just use a thumb to open the eyes like everyone else? It's not a utility injury.

The eyeball is about an exact cross between a water balloon and a grape. Stronger internal structures than a balloon, more free fluid than a grape. My mom once plunged her fingernail into her pupil while putting in a contact. So she certainly wasn't trying that hard to jab herself in the eye. And she did it with a fingernail, so imagine if she had done it with a blade. It healed fine, but the two biggest defenses the eye has is that it has lids, and that it is round. Those two things deflect most damage. Neither can counter a deliberate attack on the eye. Which this was. And we know that because the eyeball wasn't damaged. Raking the knife across the eye hard enough to split the lids punctures the eyeball. Losing control of the knife and "skipping" it into the eye plunges the knife into the eyeball. Probably to the hilt, depending on the length of the blade. Even accidentally tipping the the knife into the eye while cutting elsewhere stabs the eyeball. And while a cut to the eye wouldn't necessarily be enough to pop it like a grape, the cut is very apparent. The coroner's reports would not have said that the eyelids were nicked. They would have said the eyes were.

[Errata]

I think the eyeball is likely to depress into the eye socket to some degree before the cornea divides under the pressure of a blade. There being nothing firm behind the eyeball to offer resistance.
I don't suggest he lifted the eyelid to check if the eyeball had separated, he may have just assumed a vertical slice across the closed eye was sufficient to make the point to those who find the body.

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

Yes, but we are talking about pressure AND movement. Which is the textbook definition of slicing. And a straight slice would have more of the injury across the upper lid, not the lower. Close your eyes and feel where your upper lashes are. They are at the bottom of your eyeball, and not by the strength of long lashes. It's that the lower lids don't do that much. So the upper lid is by far the prominent target. And where the act of slicing would have to have been centered. And if her eyes were open, that means he could not have made a straight slice. Given the limited area he likely wouldn't be able to cut both lids at once. And he certainly would have cut the eyeball. Remember this is something he is doing with the tip of the blade, not the middle. The tip of the blade can only cut when first there is a stab to insert it into the tissue that is getting cut. Like using an exacto knife that weighs a quarter of a pound. Otherwise it just scratches things a bit. He has to get it just right to stab through the lid but not the eye. A cushion gained from lifting the lids makes it a little easier. Without one, then he really was showing off. Which he may have been doing anyway.

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.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

But there isn't a "great" symmetry there at all, Fish - there's an approximate symmetry at best.

It´s not that I can´t see your point, Gareth - but with respect, people HAVE been accepting and discussing the meaning of the inherent symmetry much because of the Foster drawings. That does of course not mean that the symmetry becomes retrospectively perfect (or "great"), but it DOES implicate that the symmetry there is, has been quite enough for people to disagree with your take on things for 127 years. They have perceived great symmetry.
Right or wrong, Gareth, your view is not in sync with what the majority of people seem to think. And without wishing to offend you, that could well owe to differing interpretations.

Just the sort of thing you'd expect in less-than-perfect lighting conditions, and just the sort of thing you'd expect if there wasn't any profound "meaning" to the wounds.

Didn´t you say that there was light enough for a perfect symmetry...?
As for profound meanings, I agree with you that there need be no such thing at all - but that does not change how people more often than not think there WAS a profound meaning.
I can see that you are trying to de-demonize the Eddowes cutting scheme, and there is nothing wrong with that. You have - as far as I´m concerned - done a world of good in that respect. But I am less sure that we should try and establish that the eyelid nicks MUST have been very casual. They ARE very odd and very unusual - and that should make us think, I believe.

Besides, the sketches haven't been available to a broad public for all that time, in fact they've only attained widespread exposure in recent years. Years in which a generation of post-Aquarian boobies like you and me grew up, fed on a TV and cinema diet of mystery, science-fiction and super-sleuths.

I am every bit as much of a sceptical person as you are, Gareth, believe me. I enjoy a good detective novel or -film as much as anybody, but I suspect that goes for you too. I am, however, very picky when it comes to what I condone when it comes to motives and such matters, and I am more likely to laugh than to sweat when I read or watch.

I know that the sketches have not been available for 127 years to the broad public. Nevertheless, once they did go public, the idea that the eyelid nicks had a possible element of symbolism to them did not subside - quite the reverse.

[Sam Flynn]

You're wrong about that I'm afraid. Symmetry is not an indicator of purpose and meaning.

Some would have us believe that there WAS symmetry, and that it was somehow meaningful. I'm just pointing out that it weren't necessarily so.

And grasping the eyelids to pull them away from the eye explains why the cuts are so close to the bridge of the nose.

Sorry, there is no sign that this happened, and no justification for thinking that he'd have needed to do any such thing.

And your analogy doesn't hold.If the killer had put the blade between the lids to open the eyes, the upper lids would have been cut, not the lower.

Depends where the blade hit first.

[Sam Flynn]

I know that the sketches have not been available for 127 years to the broad public. Nevertheless, once they did go public, the idea that the eyelid nicks had a possible element of symbolism to them did not subside - quite the reverse.

Indeed, which reinforces my point. That elements of "symbolism" are so often seen is hardly surprising, when we've been brought up on Columbo, X-Files, Henry Lincoln, Erich von Däniken... not to mention the more direct influence of Ripper books like Stephen Knight's.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, which reinforces my point. That elements of "symbolism" are so often seen is hardly surprising, when we've been brought up on Columbo, X-Files, Henry Lincoln, Erich von Däniken... not to mention the more direct influence of Ripper books like Stephen Knight's.

But we cannot dub every perception among people of a possible symbolism an X-file addition to Ripperology, Gareth! I very much agree that we should not say that there MUST have been symbolism involved on account of the killer - both sides of the coin may apply.

Which is why I advice against ruling out one of those sides on account of what you personally believe is too little symmetry.

If Eddowes had had the tips of her pinkies stabbed, both of them, but not perfectly symmetrically - would you not think that was potentially beyond casual coincidence?
If she had had the palms of her hands stabbed through from the backside of the hands, but not perfectly symmetrically - would you not think that was potentially beyond casual coincidence?
If she had had both earlobes sliced away - would you not think that was potentially beyond casual coincidence?

And believe me, Gareth - having had both eylids cut the way Eddowes had is infinitely more odd and intriguing. There is a reason that people discuss symbolism here - and a damn good reason too. That´s not to say that they are right or that I personally think they are - but the discussion as such belongs very much to a full serious weighing of what happened to Eddowes.