The 2 upside down v's

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sam,

I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you. My feelings on this matter shouldn't be a shock for you since we've been down this road before when your essay came out.

By 'incomplete research' I mean you chose not to use any of the diagrams prepared by Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips. Since they were presumably prepared so that other people could look at them and learn from them, I found this an extremely odd choice on your behalf. A simple study of them will prove your thesis of the wounds being accidental to be totally false. But again, we're trodding over old ground again. It would be nice to see acknowledge that the Ripper was intentional in his facials cuts though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

Sam Flynn has not plaguirized my work, and I find this highly offensive.

Actually, Tom, I published a piece on this very subject in 1948, it was well received but did not attract the plaudits that my previous article on Aaron Kosminski attracted, entitled "The Pleasure of the Palm".

[Sam Flynn]

But suffice it to say that his conclusions in this instance are flawed and his research incomplete.

As I said earler, Tom, it's hard to see how much more "complete" one can get outside of an analysis of Dr Gordon Brown's detailed notes. It's not as if quoting medical notes on Tabram or Kelly are going to enlighten us on the inverted "V" shapes notched in Eddowes' face. Any flaws in the interpretation of Brown's notes are, of course, purely my own - or at least I think they are.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam Flynn has not plaguirized my work, and I find this highly offensive. I'd like to know what makes my work so damn unplaguirizable. And now I see him taking a page out of Cornwell's book (figuritively, not literally) and cutting up innocent statues. Sam Flynn has much to answer for.

I don't wish to debate Sam's essay, because I can see his fan club is out in full force ready to rip any skull that challenges it, as has been done with Dan Norder. But suffice it to say that his conclusions in this instance are flawed and his research incomplete. Normally, I'm as big a fan of Sam's work as anyone else, but not in this case. I hope this doesn't get me compared to crap that won't go down when flushed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe that sounds crazy but as someone sculpts or paints they turn their hand to create differing effects. Do you think he was doing this, cutting and experimenting not just hacking randomly.

There was no need for him to do so, Norm, and I see nothing definitive to suggest any deliberate "sculpting" of Eddowes' face. The major facial wounds were deep and vicious in the main, penetrating lip, cartilage, gum and bone, and not symmetrically distributed across the features. The exceptions may be the wounds to the cheeks and the eyelids, but even they aren't consistently wrought. Even if they were, any wounds to the cheeks and eyes would have a tendency to appear symmetrical, owing to where they lie on the face.

[Bailey]

Bloody sharp knife you've got there, Sam, carving up that statue like that.

In all seriousness, thanks for the image - it makes a great deal of sense. I'd never seriously thought about the actual process of making those cuts before. It would seem that making inverted V's on purpose - i.e. making two diagonal strokes that meet at a point - would actually be fairly tricky with the cheekbones underneath. I'd assume you'd use the tip of the knife, which would probably result in a fairly untidy cut, guide by the shape of the bone.

In Eddowes' morgue shots she seems to have extremely prominent cheekbones, which I would thing adds further weight to what you've demonstrated with your photo.

Cheers,
B.

[Normy]

Hi Sam and Fisherman
Do you think it's possible that during the attacks that he could have rotated the knife in his hand or turned his wrist at all to accomodate the shape of the face or body just to experiment?
I wonder if it's fair to say his cutting was in a way (as destructive as it was) was his creativity?
Maybe that sounds crazy but as someone sculpts or paints they turn their hand to create differing effects. Do you think he was doing this, cutting and experimenting not just hacking randomly.

He was certainly expressing himself!
I'm not trying to lead us to Sickert by the way.

Normy

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Norm,

The diagram above shows that I believe the Ripper to have inflicted the cheek-wounds from Eddowes' right side, with the "axis" of the knife extending pretty much horizontally across her features, from right to left.

[Fisherman]

Normy writes:

"Hope that's clear"

Absolutely, Normy. My remark came about since you omitted to write an upside down v in your initial post. It seemed that you did not realize that such a shape could have been brought about by changing the direction of the knife-stroke.

The best!
Fisherman

[Normy]

Hi Sam
Nice illustrations.
I mean't (and this is only if one thinks the marks are meant to mean something other than just cutting the skin).
The marks could represent anything depending how you face the victim and that also means how the ripper faced the victim when he made the marks.

Normy

[Sam Flynn]

The idea is this...

Follow the sequence from drawing 1 → 6



As the knife moves downwards over the angular, hard part of the cheekbone, it cuts through an increasingly wider amount of flesh (2-5). When the knife is removed, an inverted "V" shaped flap of skin is left behind quite naturally (6).

The perspective isn't exactly right, but that's the gist of it.

[Normy]

Hi Fisherman
I wouldn't have thought so, for example: if he wanted to create a > on one cheek and > on the cheek below so they are one above the other to his squatting position one side of her head, it wouldn't matter how the blade ran as long as the marks were where he wanted them.
>
> and not ^^ which is what we get when we are face on with the victim and not necessarily his positon.

Hope that's clear.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Normy writes:
"If he did and he was positioned above the head or to one side of the body the shapes to him would be v < or >"

Would that not to a major extend depend on in which direction he moved the blade, Normy; either towards himself or away from him...?

The best!
Fisherman

[Normy]

Hi all
Sorry I thought I posted this but now can't find it! Too much tea maybe.
We don't know the position of the ripper when he made these marks, and if he intentionally wanted to create a particular shape.
If he did and he was positioned above the head or to one side of the body the shapes to him would be v < or >

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

I am therefore withdrawing my statement that the article is plagiarism and am now stating instead that it shows an dramatic lack of knowledge on the topic coupled with extremely incompetent research by both the author and editor

To "ripwankery" (a good, recent, Norder neologism - credit where it's due), I submit "slurpology". That is, to half-apologise with one face whilst continuing to insult the victim of the original slander with the other.

There was no more "research" involved than my own interpretation of Eddowes' wounds based on Dr Brown's detailed description of the wounds, and I have no qualms for having focused on that report. I said as much in the opening section of the article. What further research was needed, pray? Perhaps I should have quoted some newspaper articles ad nauseam - would that have made it better?