The 2 upside down v's

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Scott!

If we think, that after four middle-aged drunkards he finally found a kind of young girl he was looking for, he naturally got more excited than ever before!

All the best
Jukka

[Scott Nelson]

I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly)

If the Ripper went on to make V-cuts in Kelly, he eventually obliterated his artwork with Van Gogh-like zest.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Wickerman!

And welcome aboard.

I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly).

I think, it is possible, too, that he tried to get some new kicks with this trick to his "funny little games"!

All the best
Jukka

[Wickerman]

Just to clarify, up to 2004 there was a common belief among enthusiasts and researchers that the '^'s on Eddowes cheeks were performed by the point of a knife as part of some Black Magic ritual.
The medical report clearly describes the cuts as 'flaps' not two separate cuts that meet at an apex.
My sketches were provided with an intent to demonstrate how both cheeks could have been sliced in such a fashion to create two almost parallel flaps of skin, and yes the bridge of the nose would also have been cut deeply.

As everyone can see, the deep diagonal slice across the right cheek seems to start at the same point on the bridge of the nose. The tip of her nose is described as removed in a separate operation, nothing to do with the horizontal 'hack' into her face, nor with the diagonal slice to her cheek.
I'm not entirely following Fishermans point.

When we look at the contemporary sketches of the wounds to her face it is easy to see how the public commonly believed the '^'s to have a pointed apex, the drawings are poor.
The reality of the mortuary photo's tell the truth, the 'flaps' of skin are more curved than shown in the drawings of the time.

[Sam Flynn]

"Maybe this second cut is the one that provides the best explanation to the flaps."

Indeed - although Brown doesn't give much detail as to the extent or trajectory of this particular wound, unfortunately. It might conceivably be part of the "fulcrum" I referred to earlier.

[Fisherman]

Should have read up a little better on Brown´s report. It seems there ARE two more or less parallel cuts into the nose:
"The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face...About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut."

Maybe this second cut is the one that provides the best explanation to the flaps.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:
"Why would he bother to twist his hand (and/or Eddowes' head) to peel up another "triangular" flap on the side of her face opposite him, practically in line with the one on her right cheek?"

Exactly, Sam - it would be an odd thing to do.

"there appears to be one hell of a mess on the bridge of Eddowes' nose. If not completely cut through at that point, it might briefly have served as an incidental fulcrum."

Maybe that is the best interpretation of it all. But it still does not add up to a really good explanation, I feel. To allow for the V:s, he must have cut a significant stretch of the nose. And if he did so, it was beacuse he could do it - there was no bone structure stopping him. Meaning that he could have cut the nose clean off, had he wanted to, even at this botched attempt we are speculating about.
Then, why did he stop, only to cut the nose off anyway moments later? Could have been before too, actually.

Also, though the bridge of Eddowes´nose looks much damaged, surely a cut, carried as significant a stretch into the tissues as we are talking about, would have been mentioned in Brown´s report...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Give me five minutes with each corpse and my camera...

...your mission, should you wish to accept it...

[Bailey]

I see you guys are carrying on while I was typing away... Sam, the fulcrum idea makes a lot of sense to me. It would need to be a pretty long blade though, which of course we know was the case.

Anyhoo, bed. I'll pick up again in the morning when you more knowledgable folks have had a chance to ruminate further.

B.

[Bailey]

That seems likely to me, Bailey (see my post of the 30th here). As to the "pointedness" of the wounds, the mortuary photographs show them as distinctly more rounded and broader than the sketches (this may even be gimpsed, on the right cheek, in the photograph of Eddowes in her "shell", before stitching). The sketches are evidently, and self-avowedly, "rough" and don't fill one with much confidence.

You've prompted me here to nip over to the Casebook photo archives and look at the photos again with a fresh eye - you know how it is, we've seen these photos so many times over the years, they barely register anymore. Certainly upon close examination (and especially with the large scale version posted by Jon - cheers for that) there's a significant difference between the reality and the image I'd had in my head, which was clearly based on Foster's - as you say - extremely rough sketches, plus the standard description as per the subject thread. The actual wounds appear to be more semi-circular.

At this point I'm inclined to hedge my bets on collateral damage versus intentional attack on the cheeks, but nonetheless, what I see certainly seems consistent with the way a knife would move over Eddowes' very pronounced cheekbones while it was intended to be drawing a straight line.

My one question would be whether - as per Fisherman just previously - if it was a collateral damage situation, the course of the stroke would be disturbed by the contact between blade and bone? Surely the tip end of the knife would be expected to go a bit askew - with more stability and force coming from the handle end, the tip end would, I should think, deflect off the cheekbone, with a very uneven result. I suppose this would depend on the speed and strength applied to the stroke. I would also wonder if this would leave any marks on the cheekbones, which would surely have been mentioned in post-mortem reports.

It's ridiculously impossible, of course, to determine any of this from the rough sketches and poor quality photos we have to work with. I often think of the old time machine fantasy with this case - I don't think I'd want to go back and spy to see who Jack was, but I'd love to go back and get some better evidence! Give me five minutes with each corpse and my camera... On second thoughts, maybe we should send someone with a stronger stomach.

B.

Time for bed, thanks for sending me off with such lovely images, folks!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

"Angling the blade" is partly the crux of the matter. Why would he bother to twist his hand (and/or Eddowes' head) to peel up another "triangular" flap on the side of her face opposite him, practically in line with the one on her right cheek? In defence of Jon's suggestion - which I still find plausible - there appears to be one hell of a mess on the bridge of Eddowes' nose. If not completely cut through at that point, it might briefly have served as an incidental fulcrum.

[Fisherman]

But Sam, if he made a first (unwittnessed about by the report) attempt to cut at the bone structure, then the bone would have hindered the blade from travelling far enough to produce the upside down V:s in one single stroke. If the V:s came about at such a failed attempt, they would have come about as the results of two cuts by the knife, using the blade in different angles. And that seems odd to me - if he realized when cutting at the bone that it would not give way, then why would he angle the blade to reach into the other cheek and have another go at the very same bone structure?
Surely he must have noticed at the first attempt that it was a no-go?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I see Fish's point on this, and I'm inclined to wonder if...

a) they perhaps happened on a first, unsuccessful pass at removing the nose

That seems likely to me, Bailey (see my post of the 30th here). As to the "pointedness" of the wounds, the mortuary photographs show them as distinctly more rounded and broader than the sketches (this may even be gimpsed, on the right cheek, in the photograph of Eddowes in her "shell", before stitching). The sketches are evidently, and self-avowedly, "rough" and don't fill one with much confidence.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Jon.

The mechanism for producing the cheek-flaps themselves is precisely the way I see it, albeit whether they were produced simultaneously with the severing of the nose was not part of my thesis. I can see how it might work, however. I might add that I'd not seen your splendid drawings before today. Nicely done, and far better than the "montage" I produced earlier on this thread.

[Bailey]

I see Fish's point on this, and I'm inclined to wonder if...

a) they perhaps happened on a first, unsuccessful pass at removing the nose or

b) they were done individually and on purpose, but more in the manner illustrated - a quick slash across each cheekbone, rather than carving with the knife tip like a pencil.

I must say, that seeing the Eddowes pic at that size, I'd never really made out the V's so clearly before - they're much larger than I'd always imagined, especially since the crime scene sketches suggest something smaller and more pointed. They're less inverted V's than C's that have tipped forward.

B.