The 2 upside down v's

[Archaic]

Hi, Sam. I noticed a long time ago that Chapman's decorative arrangements overlooked "Patriotic Flag Etiquette", so thought I'd mention it here as I don't follow Chapman enough to know if it's been mentioned before. It is considered both improper and insulting to hang the American flag upside down, and that's probably true for British flags as well.

Please don't anyone tell me that's a Freemason Conspiracy thing...

Personally, I think the man just didn't know any better & was trying to recreate a decorative display he'd seen somewhere else that impressed him.

Best regards, Archaic

[Sam Flynn]

Of course i can't prove that there's a connection with the 2 triangular wounds made under under Catherine Eddowes eyes by the ripper, but it's "thought provoking".[/

Hanging weapons criss-cross fashion on a wall is rather a commonplace thing to do, Anna. Besides - they don't form upside-down "V"s on Klosowski's wall, but an "n" and an "X".

[miss_anna]

I posted the pics below on this thread about Klosowski/Chapman, who presented his weapon displays in inverted V formations.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=206&page=34

These are pictures of Klosowski with his later murdered wife Bessie Taylor.

Of course i can't prove that there's a connection with the 2 triangular wounds made under under Catherine Eddowes eyes by the ripper, but it's "thought provoking".

http://photos.casebook.org/albums/v_4/normal_eddowes_sketch.jpg

I scoff at the freemason conspiracy take on these wounds, but i feel they symbolized something for the ripper.[/

I think Harry struck upon a probable answer as to why the facial cuts might be first....and why perhaps they include certain specific cuts....like the one to her nose, let alone the "v's".

Nosey....cutting off ones nose to spite their face....keeping ones nose out of trouble....sniffing around.......the nose is used in the above phrases as way to suggest improper curiosity ...even if the offense is based on hearing something or saying something.

Its said that Liz told a former Landlord she was going to collect the reward for turning in the killer on the loose known as "Jack". Thats context.....at least possible context, for Kates facial wounds.

Cheers M & P

Sorry for that error, the last line should of course have read " Its said that Kate.....".

Sam,
Although as you say the facial mutilations are just another mystery that cannot be solved,as with the other mysteries ,there is nothing lost in talking of possibilities.It does appear to me,and of course I can be wrong,the attention to the face,at least in Eddowes case,seems unwarranted,and though pure viciousness could undoubtedly be a factor,I feel,as Michael implies,there was a familiarity between killer and victim,that resulted in the killer attacking the part that was familiar,her facial features.He knew her.
What was the result of the attack on her face,and later that of Kelly?It disfigured them,and that I believe was the intent in those two deaths,in addition of course to the need,whatever that was,of mutilating other areas,and taking parts?So in effect what I am proposing ,is that there was a different motive in attacking the face to the motive in attacking other body parts.

I think Harry struck upon a probable answer as to why the facial cuts might be first....and why perhaps they include certain specific cuts....like the one to her nose, let alone the "v's".

Nosey....cutting off ones nose to spite their face....keeping ones nose out of trouble....sniffing around.......the nose is used in the above phrases as way to suggest improper curiosity ...even if the offense is based on hearing something or saying something.

Its said that Liz told a former Landlord she was going to collect the reward for turning in the killer on the loose known as "Jack". Thats context.....at least possible context, for Kates facial wounds.

Cheers M & P

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Something about Kate's facial mutilations got me thinking about where Jack's interest lied that night.

I re-read the on-site stuff the coroner[?] wrote at the crime scene but I'm not sure if I missed it or it wasn't mentioned at all, but was her face smeared with blood et cetera?

Because if not, then the immediate and likeliest scenario seems to be that Jack mutilated her face first before going to work on her abdominal cavity; which, I think we can all assume, was his main interest.

So why waste valuable time slashing her face before doing what he, presumably, set out to do? How quick he operated suggests (to me at least) a sign of 'eagerness' to get in there, take something, and get out. But he seems to put the ripping and organ taking secondplace when mutilating Kate, so was he as interested in cutting women open as we think he was or did he just like cutting women - period?

Unless Kate did or said something to piss him off, I can't see why he'd even bother with the facial mutilations in the first place (other than experimentation; but wouldn't he have done that after he'd opened her stomach?), let alone that being the first thing he thought to do after killing her. Going by what we little 'know' about him, I would've thought the facial mutilations would've been secondary to the ripping, not the other way round.

[Supe]

Pluck,

Sam, you all right by me buddy.

I think we would all agree with those sentiments. Hate to rehash that unfortunate moment, but really it was just one person making that invidious accusation and moreover a charge that once loosed upon the light of day immediately wilted and disappeared.

Don.

[PLUCKING VIOLETS]

Can I just say that as a newcomer to the casebook and a 20 year follower of JTR I have been taking the time to read through some old threads......very interesting too.

But, going back to the early days of this thread I was suprised to see acusations of plagiarism against a fellow devotee. I just felt the need to comment.

Here goes. If a book , document, report or thread results from ideas and conversations from others does it really matter. The sole objective is to get us closer in some way to the murders of these poor women. I do understand the meaning of this word and totally agree that it is wrong in the extreme, but, from the point of view of what we wish to achieve here then what is the problem?

Sam, I have read many of your threads and have enjoyed the discussions that develop and more power to you. If I ever have that eureka moment and post it here please feel free to use and develop the argument....thats what this is all about.

Sorry and all that but feel that sometimes we get carried away by the minor details and give no thought to the big picture. Sam, you all right by me buddy.

[harry]

Sam,
Although as you say the facial mutilations are just another mystery that cannot be solved,as with the other mysteries ,there is nothing lost in talking of possibilities.It does appear to me,and of course I can be wrong,the attention to the face,at least in Eddowes case,seems unwarranted,and though pure viciousness could undoubtedly be a factor,I feel,as Michael implies,there was a familiarity between killer and victim,that resulted in the killer attacking the part that was familiar,her facial features.He knew her.
What was the result of the attack on her face,and later that of Kelly?It disfigured them,and that I believe was the intent in those two deaths,in addition of course to the need,whatever that was,of mutilating other areas,and taking parts?So in effect what I am proposing ,is that there was a different motive in attacking the face to the motive in attacking other body parts.

[Sara]

Slicing downwards would easily produce the inverted "V" shapes, Sara - ripping upwards, after inserting the knife into the cheek, would produce a (right-side-up) "V" (or even "U") shape, if anything. Dr Brown's detailed description shows that the inverted "Vs" comprised peeled up triangular flaps of skin, rather than a cut "/" and "\" joined at the apex.

It might be worth your while reading through the earlier posts in this thread

I did read them all Sam!

[Sam Flynn]

in many violent criminal profiles, wounds to the face were very often an indication of some kind of a personal relationship between killer and prey.

I keep hearing that, Mike, but I can't recall anyone responding to requests for empirical evidence/statistics to that effect. We should be wary of trotting out old chestnuts without a second thought - that sort of thing is best left to the likes of Mrs Paumier

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;53220]Quite possible, Harry, however even if there were such a meaning (a) we could speculate until the cows come home and still never be able to know for certain - so what's the use?; and (b) people get their faces mutilated with Stanley-knives, machetes or broken bottles every day, and it's put down to nothing more "mysterious" than plain viciousness - can't see why that explanation can't "do" for Jack as well.

QUOTE]

Hi Sam,

There is a huge difference between maliciously cutting someones face while fighting with them, or to maintain a dominant role in the society the knife wielder lives in, leaving them alive but maimed....and cutting a face of a human after or while in the process of killing them.

Although I dont think case studies of serial killers is something that should be used to evaluate why Jack the Ripper existed, since we possibly dont have more than two or three victims by one man, and we dont know that he didnt know them,...I do see value in some specific data regarding type of wounds inflicted by such people, and in many violent criminal profiles, wounds to the face were very often an indication of some kind of a personal relationship between killer and prey.

Since we do know that Kate had her hand on the chest of the man she is believed to be killed by, witnessed by the Three Wise Men, a gesture of intimacy and familiarity.....not totally uncommon for street whores, but suggestive, when considering the facial wounds she is later found to have.

The killer did a few things in Mitre Square that were not required for taking abdominal organs or killing, including the facial wounds, each act taking precious time that we know he had very little of. My conclusion about that is that he evidently felt marking her face, and cutting off her nose....perhaps in the same motions, was something worth his precious time.

Based on that fact alone, they are signifigant, because they were to him.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Surely Sam there was meaning to those murders,in the mind of the killer,though we may not be able to fathom it.

Quite possible, Harry, however even if there were such a meaning (a) we could speculate until the cows come home and still never be able to know for certain - so what's the use?; and (b) people get their faces mutilated with Stanley-knives, machetes or broken bottles every day, and it's put down to nothing more "mysterious" than plain viciousness - can't see why that explanation can't "do" for Jack as well.

It's not as if we're short of genuine mysteries in the Ripper case as it is, without going out of our way to create unprovable mysteries of our own.

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking of ripping, posters seem to assume that the v (or rather c) marks were made by a downward movement. Is it possible though, that they were made by stabbing into the side of the top cheekbone with the knifetip, and then ripping upwards, which could produce a flap effect?

Slicing downwards would easily produce the inverted "V" shapes, Sara - ripping upwards, after inserting the knife into the cheek, would produce a (right-side-up) "V" (or even "U") shape, if anything. Dr Brown's detailed description shows that the inverted "Vs" comprised peeled up triangular flaps of skin, rather than a cut "/" and "\" joined at the apex.

It might be worth your while reading through the earlier posts in this thread

[harry]

Surely Sam there was meaning to those murders,in the mind of the killer,though we may not be able to fathom it.The choice of victim,the awareness of danger,the ability to avoid suspicion,seem to suggest some thought process in evidence.Unless his thoughts were centred on the face at the time of attacking that part of the body,it is hard to imagine how the injuries came to be there.Attacking the abdomen,and cutting the throat, was unlikelyto have caused the injuries up higher.So I see a significance in his attacking the face,that was not of a random nature,and was different in meaning to the other injuries.
A disturbed mind surely,if only occasionly.