The 2 upside down v's

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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

[perrymason]

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.....".

[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.[/

[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".

[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]

It is considered both improper and insulting to hang the American flag upside down, and that's probably true for British flags as well.

I'm sure you're right, Bunny, but I never knew that. If I never knew it, chances are that Klosowski never did either. Thanks for enlightening me, though.

Back to Eddowes and the triangular flaps of flesh... sorry, "inverted V's"

[miss_anna]

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".

I feel the sword crossing is too high to form an X. I don't really see your n because it's slanted more like an upside down V. The flags seem to complement each other and we could envision an upside down V connecting them. I admit it's easy to image things in this discussion, but Klosowski/Chapman did seem to base his display on a triangular or ^ shaped geometric pattern. No i'm not on the freemason bandwagon! However for an egoist psychopath like Chapman we could speculate that some kind of "king of the mountain" or "power pyramid" is implied with this display.

Just speculation and nothing that would stand up in court of course!

[The Good Michael]

From this site:

"The face was very much mutilated. There was a cut about a quarter of an inch through the lower left eyelid, dividing the structures completely through. The upper eyelid on that side, there was a scratch through the skin on the left upper eyelid, near to the angle of the nose. The right eyelid was cut through to about half an inch.

There was a deep cut over the bridge of the nose, extending from the left border of the nasal bone down near the angle of the jaw on the right side of the cheek. This cut went into the bone and divided all the structures of the cheek except the mucous membrane of the mouth.

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. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.

About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut. There was a cut on the right angle of the mouth as if the cut of a point of a knife. The cut extended an inch and a half, parallel with the lower lip.

There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear. "

With all this going on, who in their right mind would choose two small cuts on the cheeks as an area to fixate? This is like taking Kelly's death and saying that the wounds on the fingers were Jack's goal. Excuse me if I find it somewhat red herringesque.

Cheers,

Mike

[miss_anna]

The one minute mark of this YouTube video shows a post mortem picture of Catherine Eddowes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Z5IVgKCXU

I disagree with the freemasonic tangent that the video is on, but if the picture of Catherine Eddowes wounds at the one minute mark are accurately presented it seems highly unlikely they would have been formed by chance when the ripper was cutting the nose.

[Sam Flynn]

I feel the sword crossing is too high to form an X. I don't really see your n because it's slanted more like an upside down V. !

They're just criss-crossed, Anna - that's all, and as I said, that's a typical means of hanging such items. And it does look like an "X". The crossed pistols beneath might look a (wee bit) like an "n" or, if you insist, a (wee bit) like an inverted "v", but - again - that's not an unusual way of displaying such items on a wall.