Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Eddowes V-shape wounds are scissors I think
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostOkay, I understand how the article writers believe its the tip of the knife making these incidentally as the nose is cut... but the Vs are on both sides.
So let's say the one under her left eye-lid was made by a knife tip traveling from the right side of her nose. How does the one under her right eye-lid get made?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostJon 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
It kicks my idea that two inverted Vs = W for Wolverhampton into touch, though.
😬
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostThey are - and a combination of a longish blade (keep in mind what Bagster Phillips suggested) and protruding cheek bones ā la Eddowes forms a very good ground for that.
Incidental? Yes, entirely - which is always unexpected to some degree when we are dealing with symmetric wounds. But there you are.
So let's say the one under her left eye-lid was made by a knife tip traveling from the right side of her nose. How does the one under her right eye-lid get made?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batman View Posthttps://www.casebook.org/images/rip73-photo1.jpg
So basically the Vs come from the tip of the knife cutting through the nose? They are incidental.
But they are on both sides of her face, under each eye.
Incidental? Yes, entirely - which is always unexpected to some degree when we are dealing with symmetric wounds. But there you are.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostWell, it was all deliberate, I guess, in that he intended to inflict damage. But there was no "grand design" in any of it as far as I can see. I seem to remember writing that article in response to a number of discussions about the "clown's mask" and various attempts to read symbolism into the wounds - stuff which I refuted then, and still do now.
Leave a comment:
-
So basically the Vs come from the tip of the knife cutting through the nose? They are incidental.
But they are on both sides of her face, under each eye.Last edited by Batman; 10-08-2018, 10:20 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostThanks, Trevor, but I've said all I need to say about the inverted "V" wounds in a Ripperologist article years ago, and I see no reason to revise my position on them. So, instead of elaborating in words, I'll let a picture do the talking for me:
[ATTACH]18829[/ATTACH]
That inverted "V" could obviously have been produced by a single downward slice, as it most certainly was.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostAs for your dissertation, it is a good one that I have often read - but I find myself more and more convinced nowadays that very little of the damage done was accidental.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostJon 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
As for your dissertation, it is a good one that I have often read - but I find myself more and more convinced nowadays that very little of the damage done was accidental.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostSam
I disagree that pic doesnt show an inverted V.I agree on a single downward slice
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI think Jon Smythe (Wickerman) solved the riddle of the "inverted V:s" a long time ago
For those who haven't read it, my dissertation - which covers a lot more than the cheek wounds - can be found here on Casebook:
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostThanks, Trevor, but I've said all I need to say about the inverted "V" wounds in a Ripperologist article years ago, and I see no reason to revise my position on them. So, instead of elaborating in words, I'll let a picture do the talking for me:
[ATTACH]18829[/ATTACH]
That inverted "V" could obviously have been produced by a single downward slice, as it most certainly was.
I disagree that pic doesnt show an inverted V. I agree on a single downward slice, and I have maintained all along that many of the wounds to her face were as a direct result of her struggling to move her face and neck away from the killer wielding the knife. The angle of the cuts to the face corroborate that in my opinion.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: