Eddowes V-shape wounds are scissors I think

[Batman]

You wouldn't even have to make a cut to demonstrate this.

In the worldwide history of the medical science of pathology, including students making mistakes by slicing parts of a cadaver, they shouldn't have, that such claimed coincidental V marks/U marks, should be not just easy to replicate, but should have been replicated many times already in their experiments, day to day work and the professional literature.

Since the time this solution to the Vs came about, has any pathologist come forward to corroborate the mechanisms of the claim being made? Have they been able to show correlating patterns on other cadavers? If not, why not? I doubt it for lack of awareness.

As I said, this particular explanation can actually be falsified. You can know for sure, 100%, if it true or false, today, by repeating it. You can do a ton of repeats and run the test afterward to even get the odds of repeating it, but once you have done it, that should be sufficient to show it can be done.

Forensic dummy if you want to spend, but from a science perspective, corroborative wounds elsewhere would suffice.

[Sam Flynn]

The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off - Dear Boss letter.

Eddowes' earlobe was partly cut, not clipped/snipped, and only one ear was affected. The killer could have cut off both very easily, if he'd somehow known about the "Dear Boss" letter. Also, it's quite legit to refer to something having been clipped off with a knife; one doesn't need scissors in order to do so.

I hope you enjoyed looking up Picquerism

I know what piquerism means, and I also speak French, so I don't subscribe to the slack and incorrect extension of its definition to include cutting. "Piquer" means "to prick/spear/stab/jab", and piquerism should honour that etymology. The acts of slicing a throat, cutting through an abdomen or lopping off a nose with a knife - or scissors for that matter - ne sont pas piquer.

[Batman]

Eddowes' earlobe was partly cut, not clipped/snipped, and only one ear was affected. The killer could have cut off both very easily, if he'd somehow known about the "Dear Boss" letter. Also, it's quite legit to refer to something having been clipped off with a knife; one doesn't need scissors in order to do so.I know what piquerism means, and I also speak French, so I don't subscribe to the slack and incorrect extension of its definition to include cutting. "Piquer" means "to prick/spear/stab/jab", and piquerism should honour that etymology. The acts of slicing a throat, cutting through an abdomen or lopping off a nose with a knife - or scissors for that matter - ne sont pas piquer.

I have no doubt you understood what Piquerism means. Sorry that wasn't meant for you.

Yes, he could have clipped off the other ear. The fact the Dear Boss letter discusses it and then he tries to do it, tell me he likely read the letter. Which if not by his hand, is yet another nice red herring for police to chase up. Namely, waste timing finding who wrote the letter.

Also the creme de la creme (in french) example is ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearside_Jack

The Yorkshire Ripper exploited this mistake by the investigators. Geordie accent? Sutcliffe had none. It was one of many mistakes made by investigators that allowed him to continue. He was on their short list with an investigator about to bust Sutcliffe for wearing the killer's boots and looking like the composites before Wearside Jack came along. He got 8 years in jail for that hoax.

[Sam Flynn]

I have no doubt you understood what Piquerism means. Sorry that wasn't meant for you.

No problem, Batman.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, he could have clipped off the other ear. The fact the Dear Boss letter discusses it and then he tries to do it, tell me he likely read the letter.

This is unlikely, unless he was a police/press insider, as I don't believe that the text of "Dear Boss" appeared in the papers until after the murder. Furthermore, if he had somehow read it, then - as we agree - he could easily have cut off the other earlobe. In fact, he could have cut off both her ears, as "Dear Boss" suggests, never mind just one lobe.

[Jon Guy]

- as we agree - he could easily have cut off the other earlobe. In fact, he could have cut off both her ears, as "Dear Boss" suggests, never mind just one lobe.

Easily :-)

[Abby Normal]

Jon and I arrived at our conclusions independently, although I didn't twig that the infliction of the wounds might have coincided with the attempted cutting off of the nose - that ingenious suggestion was entirely Jon's. However, we both maintained that the wounds were an accidental byproduct of a slicing action of the knife, and not deliberately written/drawn on the skin.

For those who haven't read it, my dissertation - which covers a lot more than the cheek wounds - can be found here on Casebook:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...or-design.html

Hi Sam
I agree on the face of it, it looks like the could have been accidental cuts at a failed first attempt to cut off the nose. However, and wicks picture shows it- for that scenario the killer would have to be slicing the nose down completely parallel to the face. dosnt work. the way a knife is held there will be an angle to the face-theres no way you can do it completely flat. its not a band saw coming down.


think about it-or hold a knife and try it. see what I mean?

In my mind they were deliberate, and I don't see any evidences for a scissors being used either.

[Abby Normal]

This is unlikely, unless he was a police/press insider, as I don't believe that the text of "Dear Boss" appeared in the papers until after the murder. Furthermore, if he had somehow read it, then - as we agree - he could easily have cut off the other earlobe. In fact, he could have cut off both her ears, as "Dear Boss" suggests, never mind just one lobe.

Hi Sam
as he said, or tried to explain in the postcard, he didn't have time. I think he didn't want to admit the whole truth, he forgot about saying he would cut the ears off, and then remembered at the end-and tried to do it hastily, botching it as he lost the part of the ear he did cut off in her clothes, and said awe screw it, need to get out of here.


which makes sense after all the craziness that happened the night of the double event-and with the monkey wrench of being interrupted by a bunch of jews and how he was now probably thinking how to get back at them and deflect suspicion. his plans changed as the circs did.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Sam
as he said, or tried to explain in the postcard, he didn't have time. I think he didn't want to admit the whole truth, he forgot about saying he would cut the ears off, and then remembered at the end-and tried to do it hastily, botching it as he lost the part of the ear he did cut off in her clothes, and said awe screw it, need to get out of here.

C`mon Abby. Of course the Ripper would have risked his neck to fulfill a threat he made earlier in the week !! Even if Harvey wandered down Church Passage or George Morris was sweeping away across the street. He could have written the GSG on the wall in the corner of Mitre Square too !!

[Abby Normal]

I think Eddowes has had her face attacked by a pair of scissors. The V shapes aren't depressions of a knife. It's a sharp pair of scissors clipping downwards from above her head. I think JtR brought scissors to make it easier for him to get through their clothing and is using them also to disfigure them.

well a scissors being used would point to the hairdresser chapman, not a cop. ; )

[Jon Guy]

well a scissors being used would point to the hairdresser chapman, not a cop. ; )

Charles Ludwig was arrested with scissors on him in the Minories (but he was in a police cell at the time of the DE)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
I agree on the face of it, it looks like the could have been accidental cuts at a failed first attempt to cut off the nose. However, and wicks picture shows it- for that scenario the killer would have to be slicing the nose down completely parallel to the face. dosnt work. the way a knife is held there will be an angle to the face-theres no way you can do it completely flat.

I tend to agree, although I found Jon's suggestion ingenious and still do. For my part, I just wanted to show that the "V" shapes were the accidental byproduct of a horizontal slice of a knife through the flesh of the cheek as opposed to deliberately written "letters".

[Batman]

Kozminski tried to be a barber in Whitechapel but apparently wasn't successful... unless his interpretation of barber involving mutilating unfortunates. Which given Kozminski's mental issues, just 'might' be the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
as he said, or tried to explain in the postcard, he didn't have time. I think he didn't want to admit the whole truth, he forgot about saying he would cut the ears off, and then remembered at the end-and tried to do it hastily.

Problem there is that the Saucy Jack postcard was postmarked and received on October 1st, before many details of the Eddowes murder had been published. Had the author known about the severed earlobe, I'm sure he'd have claimed responsibility, e.g. "had not time to get both ears", in order to add greater authenticity to his story. As it turned out, it wasn't until October 4th that news of the cut earlobe was printed in the papers. If only the hoaxer had waited a few more days...

[Abby Normal]

I tend to agree, although I found Jon's suggestion ingenious and still do. For my part, I just wanted to show that the "V" shapes were the accidental byproduct of a horizontal slice of a knife through the flesh of the cheek as opposed to deliberately written "letters".

Thanks Sam

I don't think they were letters. but I do think they were deliberate.

just a thought-from the photo of eddowes it appears she had high cheekbones-which in western culture is a sign of feminine beauty. maybe that had something to do with the ripper cutting there? I don't know, just thinking out loud here.