The 2 upside down v's

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Going by the post-mortem picture it looks as though Eddowes had cheekbones and the blade going across them would probably make the upside-down 'v' shape. It don't seem intentional to me at all. Maybe he scraped the blade downwards in order to cut off her nose?

[RavenDarkendale]

Hummmmm. Convincing drawings. That would mean the cut to the nose that produced the "flaps" was an aborted attempt to cut off the nose. I agree with those who say if it actually cut the nose off, it would have peeled the flaps off the cheeks as well. Apparently there was a second attempt that succeeded, on a much more diagonal. Good catch. Definitely food for thought.

[Fisherman]

Raven Darkendale:

" That would mean the cut to the nose that produced the "flaps" was an aborted attempt to cut off the nose."

Yes. And there WAS a botched effort, just as you have spotted, that struck the bone, after which the killer moved further down the bridge of the nose, found cartilage - and cut the tip clean off.

The best,
Fisherman

[RavenDarkendale]

This would also mean that the two marks being left by James Maybrick as deliberate clues is all just so much moonshine. As the drawing indicates, the nose injury and flaps (reversed v cuts) are perfectly in line for one cut to do all three. Were Maybrick actually JtR, then the "mark" mentioned in the diary is something besides these two flaps making a subtle m when placed together.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I agree that Sam Flynn makes a food argument for the flaps to have been caused by the slicing of the nose. What that would mean is that the V's were collateral damage to the near severing of the nose. Seems reasonable.

What people then forget is that the killer sought to cut the nose in the first place, and that he was content leaving it still attached to her face. In other words, dismissing the cuts as being inadvertent does not dismiss the fact that Kate killer sought only to "deface" her with that action, he apparently did not intend to take her nose.

That superfluous cutting is also seen with the colon section, placed between her body and arm.

Point being....the V's themselves are not important and they indicate nothing about the killers obvious desire to waste valuable time mutilating Kates face.

As in Marys case, there are wounds made to Kate that are inconsistent with a focused rapidly cutting killer, like the one that killed Annie.

[Hunter]

Taking out a uterus and a kidney the way they were excised seems pretty focused to me. There just wasn't one purpose here... that's obvious.

Even the removal of the section of colon was more of a reactionary measure to accidentally cutting it at the sigmoid flexure, which was also tucked back toward the rectum. This killer was working fast.

While Sam's theory is intriguing, I do not agree with it. The clipping of the eyelids were deliberate; the inverted V's could have been also. If you look closely at Foster's drawing, you will see this done below the lips as well.

[Michael W Richards]

Taking out a uterus and a kidney the way they were excised seems pretty focused to me. There just wasn't one purpose here... that's obvious.

Even the removal of the section of colon was more of a reactionary measure to accidentally cutting it at the sigmoid flexure, which was also tucked back toward the rectum. This killer was working fast.

While Sam's theory is intriguing, I do not agree with it. The clipping of the eyelids were deliberate; the inverted V's could have been also. If you look closely at Foster's drawing, you will see this done below the lips as well.

Hi Hunter,

On the first paragraph, if before the kill he intended to remove the uterus intact he botched that, Annies killer didnt, and if he intended to remove a kidney, he chose a poor path to it.

On the second paragraph, attempts at explaining why he cut the section, which is something we do not know, does not explain why it was placed where it was...in the same vein as Marys uterus being placed under her head.

On the last bit....I personally believe that the nose and the facial marks were both done deliberately, because it seems to me Kates facial mutilations were warnings to other potential "nosey" song-birds.


Cheers mate

[Wickerman]

While Sam's theory is intriguing, I do not agree with it.

The connection between the cut across the bridge of the nose and the elliptical cuts across the cheeks was first advanced (2004) on Casebook about 18 months before Sam's article was published (2006). Perhaps Sam advanced a theory as to their cause?, that I cannot remember.

The clipping of the eyelids were deliberate;

A suitable explanation for the eyelids being 'nicked' could be the recently published opinion that the last thing a victim saw was captured on the retina. Therefore slicing both eyes may have been his way of eliminating potential evidence.

The diagonal cut across her right cheek could have been as a consequence of the killer pulling the apron up and across her face with his left hand while he sliced through it with the knife in his right hand.
Being so close to the face the tip of the knife could have sliced through her cheek, an inadvertent injury.

People are still drawn to look for some mystical or mysterious reasons for the facial cuts, natural explanations should be more appealing.

Regards, Jon S.

[RavenDarkendale]

A suitable explanation for the eyelids being 'nicked' could be the recently published opinion that the last thing a victim saw was captured on the retina. Therefore slicing both eyes may have been his way of eliminating potential evidence.

I have read about the eye thing, and mentioned it I believe on the Elizabeth Stride photo cleanup thread. (I thought the original picture looked like a long exposure with eyes first open, then shut before the shutter was finally closed.

But an even simpler explanation is available for the eye nicks. With all of the slashing and cutting about the face, the wounds could just be inadvertent.

RD

[Hunter]

On the first paragraph, if before the kill he intended to remove the uterus intact he botched that, Annies killer didnt, and if he intended to remove a kidney, he chose a poor path to it.

Botched in what way? Annie's uterus was cored out along with parts of the vagina and bladder; not very precise. You are thinking in terms of Wynn Baxter instead of what the evidence really presents.

On the second paragraph, attempts at explaining why he cut the section, which is something we do not know, does not explain why it was placed where it was...in the same vein as Marys uterus being placed under her head.

If he was just setting it aside, where he put it makes sense.

On the last bit....I personally believe that the nose and the facial marks were both done deliberately, because it seems to me Kates facial mutilations were warnings to other potential "nosey" song-birds.

Since we don't know the motive for why the killer did the facial mutilations, I'll go along with what Gordon Brown said.


Cheers mate[/QUOTE]