The 2 upside down v's

[Fisherman]

These are truly gruesome and disturbing images, Jon. Still, they are of course helpful.
What I can´t help feeling when I look at them is that I would have expected one or two of them flaps of flesh to have come off her face if they were the result of the blade slicing her nose off. If they came about as a result of the cutting away of the nose, then we must assume that the cut travelled no further down her face than the borderline offered by the deep ends of the flaps. And to me, that deep end seems not to be deep enough. Moreover, the flesh and cartilage of the nose will have restrained the downward movement of the blade, up to the point where the nose came loose. After, that, the power in the movement of the hand that steered the blade, would have had the blade travelling on, further down her face. To my mind, after having taken a good look at these pictures, that movement would have taken the blade beyond the lower point of the two V:s, and they should have been cut either deeper or, perhaps more probably, have been cut off from the face altogether.
There is one more curiosity involved: the angle of the blade against the face. To produce these two V:s while slicing off the nose, we must accept that the blade was angled more or less exactly at ninety degrees to the bridge of the nose (if not, the V:s would not have sat at the same approximate height), PLUS the blade must also have been at more or less exactly ninety degrees to the side of Eddowes´face, if we imagine her head as a perfect cube for simplicitys sake (if not, the V:s would not have cut equally deep into her flesh).
Can these things really be overcome by using a scenario where the flaps come about as a bi-product of the nose cut? I am not so sure of it.
Any thoughts?

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

If you wish to post some images, click on the arrow next to the paperclip symbol in the toolbar, which will pop up the "Upload file from your computer" dialog. You'll have gathered that I am of the same opinion as you on this matter, so upload away!

Ok, lets see if this works..

[Jeff Leahy]

That's a possible explanation I'm happy with, too, Jeff.

I've never plagerized anyone, nor has my wife

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon,

If you wish to post some images, click on the arrow next to the paperclip symbol in the toolbar, which will pop up the "Upload file from your computer" dialog. You'll have gathered that I am of the same opinion as you on this matter, so upload away!

[Wickerman]

Hello Sam.
The previous discussion which a number of members are referring to was from Oct 2004, where I suggested that the chevrons inflicted on Eddowes face may not have been intentional at all.
The current theory, what I called a myth, was that the chevrons were part of an intentional design.
I theorized that they were more likely the result of a knife blade being drawn horizontally across the face cutting into the ridge-bone of her nose and slicing two 'flaps' across her cheeks. I posted several pictures to illustrate how I perceived this to have occurred.
At the time I remember Ivor Edwards, Chris George & Tom Wescott did not agree with my re-evaluation. I think they were more taken with the mystical angle than a rational explanation.
If anyone can help me figure out how to post pics (its changed since 2004), then I will gladly repost them.

Best Wishes, Jon Smyth

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps he used the knife to close the eye lids before slashing the face?

That's a possible explanation I'm happy with, too, Jeff.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"If we read meaning into the facial wounds, Fish, then I presume we might conclude that Kelly's killer was commenting on her "chinniness", "lippiness" and "eyebrowiness" - as well as her "eariness" and "nosiness". Alternatively, perhaps she was attacked by a maniac who simply slashed her face, like Eddowes' before her."

...which is exactly what I am saying, Sam - unless you´ve noticed it.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

But there is no way knowing whether the message - if there ever was one - was to be read in the nicks under the eyes or in the cut -off nose ("She was nosy, so I finished her off) or the piece of ear that dropped to the ground as Eddowes´ body was lifted from the ground ("You´ll be hearing from me again").

If we read meaning into the facial wounds, Fish, then I presume we might conclude that Kelly's killer was commenting on her "chinniness", "lippiness" and "eyebrowiness" - as well as her "eariness" and "nosiness". Alternatively, perhaps she was attacked by a maniac who simply slashed her face, like Eddowes' before her.

[halomanuk]

I just think that the nicks are not obvious enough.
If the Ripper was going to leave a clue/message/symbol then he would have done something instantly recognisable,not something that had a good chance of being misinterpreted or overlooked...but we will never know at the moment frustratingly !!

[Jeff Leahy]

Having given this some consideration in various light conditions I do feel he could have seen the eyes which are quite reflective and noticable even in very low light conditions..

Perhaps he used the knife to close the eye lids before slashing the face?

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Halomanuk, Sam!

Of course there can be no certainty that the nicks were messages. In Sweden, the papers are right now carrying a story of a woman who bought a mango, cut it in two, and found that one of the halves carried the text "Allah" whereas the other half said "Muhammad" ...

My only point here is that if time is supposed to be the limiting factor here, I think we must accept that he had time enough to communicate, knife-wise so to speak. But there is no way of knowing whether the message - if there ever was one - was to be read in the nicks under the eyes or in the cut-off nose ("She was nosy, so I finished her off) or the piece of ear that dropped to the ground as Eddowes´ body was lifted from the ground ("You´ll be hearing from me again").
The deduction that we are dealing with just another mango here is a tempting one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

And though we can not reach any certainty what lay behind them nicks under the eyes, there is no denying that the time was there to produce them.

...all of four or five seconds, Fish - that's all that would have been required.

..but the fact of the matter is that he had time enough to turn Mitre Square into a butcher´s shop

A child will spend minutes on end carefully arranging his blocks into a meaningful shape, yet it only takes seconds for him to scatter the contents of his toybox all over the nursery floor in order to get at the blocks in the first place.

[halomanuk]

I feel,the way his madness was escalating that if he was going to leave some kind of symbol or clue then he would have done something more than just nicking under her eyes,after all the butchery he did to her.
It still seems too vague to be a message etc...IMO of course..

[Fisherman]

Halomanuk writes:

"So i dont think he would have had time to make any kind of symbolism"

...but the fact of the matter is that he had time enough to turn Mitre Square into a butcher´s shop. And though we can not reach any certainty what lay behind them nicks under the eyes, there is no denying that the time was there to produce them.

The best,
Fisherman

[halomanuk]

We have to realise here as well that the police were around in force, due to the earlier murder of Liz Stride,so the Ripper would have had to work very fast,and in the dark as well.
So i dont think he would have had time to make any kind of symbolism before the return of the constable on the beat,which was very soon after Eddowes murder.