The 2 upside down v's

[Sara]

Speaking of ripping, posters seem to assume that the v (or rather c) marks were made by a downward movement. Is it possible though, that they were made by stabbing into the side of the top cheekbone with the knifetip, and then ripping upwards, which could produce a flap effect?

That to me would fit better with the speed at which an attack was probably made - and impulsive gesture, and if it worked on one side and he liked the effect, may he not have repeated it?

[Sam Flynn]

The particular mutilations on the face do seem to have some "meaning", if only a sense of playfulness rather than just angry stabbing. Jack was a ripper, not a stabber.

The knife penetrated bone and gum, which suggests that for at least part of the time it was used point-downwards.

[Pippin Joan]

The particular mutilations on the face do seem to have some "meaning", if only a sense of playfulness rather than just angry stabbing. Jack was a ripper, not a stabber. As far as the "keep your nose out of this" idea, it feels right. I am reminded of the Black Dahlia case, where the killer cut each corner of Elizabeth Short's mouth to make a grotesque smile. I don't think that was accidental. The killer was sending a message there.

[Sam Flynn]

A disturbed mind the killer surely had,but there was a meaning behind everything he did.

An extremely dangerous - and unnecessary - assumption from which to start. Furthermore, it's unprovable.

So why the face at all?

Why not the face? Seems a natural enough area to target, and not as much fun as, say, the shins or the wrists.

[harry]

While there may appear to be random slashes and cuts around the facial area,I think the arrow marks seem to be of a more calculated and definate shape.While the body mutilations seem to point to a desire to extract body parts,there is no indication that parts of the face were meant to be taken.That is why I detect a different thought process on the part of the killer regarding the face.A disturbed mind the killer surely had,but there was a meaning behind everything he did.So why the face at all?

[Sam Flynn]

Its quite possible I think that Kates facial wounds were a "branding" of her, showing clearly that anyone sticking their nose "where it dont belong" might just get it cut off.

It's just as likely that no allegory was intended, Mike, and what we see is simply a cut-off nose. Because, if anything on the face might get lopped off, it's the bit that sticks out the most - as I alluded to earlier.

Besides, for the sake of consistency, one has to account for the other dozen or so facial wounds. Kate suffered markedly more injuries to her face than the severed nose, and her ear-lobe was cut through too. It has all the hallmarks of a "slashing-attack", rather than a deliberate effort to leave a message behind.

There was a bed in Mitre Square?!! For a minute, I thought this was a Kelly thread... until I checked. Nope - it's an Eddowes thread alright

Hi Sam,

I did realize that, but we had, at least Harry and I had, mentioned the issue of the eyes, to which I naturally addressed Mary Jane....being the only other canonical with any facial cuts at all caused by a knife, and who did not...as Kate did not, have their eyes themselves damaged.

I then through in the posing, as a natural tangent from intentionally purposefully marking or disfiguring the face, be it nose, eyes, cheeks...whatever. Its quite possible I think that Kates facial wounds were a "branding" of her, showing clearly that anyone sticking their nose "where it dont belong" might just get it cut off. I believe in similar fashion, what was done in Millers Court was done for the viewers.

Best regards Gareth.

I didnt intend for anything "Millers Court" to be continued beyond this point.

[Sam Flynn]

...and facing the windows, or people coming in through the door,......I think she is posed artistically, and the various organs about were to slightly modify her position, so as to look as if naturally posed on a day bed for an artist.

There was a bed in Mitre Square?!! For a minute, I thought this was a Kelly thread... until I checked. Nope - it's an Eddowes thread alright

The nose is the only bit of the face that sticks out, so if anything's gonna be lopped off, it's that - irrespective of any symbolism. The eyes are recessed into the skull, so less likely to be damaged by a "slashing" attack.

But we shouldn't focus on the nose or eyes at the expense of the other facial mutilations, for the Ripper also inflicted several deep cuts to her cheek and lip. Was he saying: "Less of your cheek... less of your lip", perhaps? (Just to show how easy it is to read too much into this )

Hi Sam,

I know that when dealing with you, Im dealing with a master deflator and master debater, ....but the cuts to other areas of her face do not eliminate the possibility that the nose was cut off for more specific reasons. There are cuts on all these women that are just to stab, cut, or slice....but some may have a residual component that others dont have,...that of a warning to others perhaps.

We do agree Harry, and although Sam mentions the eyes being recessed and therefore harder to attack with slices and slashes, he could easily have just poked his knife into them had he wanted to destroy all the facial features. But he didnt. And in Marys case, with the helter skelter method of ruining her face, he would almost have to consciously miss them.

Ive recently been considering something about the body positioning in room 13, and Id be interested to hear what y'all think.

If you can erase the graphic horror of the corpse for a moment, and in your minds eye, picture a woman intact and healthy....in that exact same pose.....left arm draped across, legs splayed but not forced as wide apart as they could have been, the fact he left her chemise on...what was left of it anyway...and facing the windows, or people coming in through the door,......I think she is posed artistically, and the various organs about were to slightly modify her position, so as to look as if naturally posed on a day bed for an artist. He may have kept her hair looking nice too.

Best regards Harry, Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

The nose is the only bit of the face that sticks out, so if anything's gonna be lopped off, it's that - irrespective of any symbolism. The eyes are recessed into the skull, so less likely to be damaged by a "slashing" attack.

But we shouldn't focus on the nose or eyes at the expense of the other facial mutilations, for the Ripper also inflicted several deep cuts to her cheek and lip. Was he saying: "Less of your cheek... less of your lip", perhaps? (Just to show how easy it is to read too much into this )

[harry]

Michael,
Like you I think the facial mutilations have a different meaning than the body ones.As with Kelly the eyes themselves appear untouched,but the mutilations around those organs seem to indicate some message as to the eyes importance,in the mind of the killer that is.Perhaps a suggestion of the victims seeing and knowing him.

Hi All,

Eddowes' two inverted Vs under her eyes are easily explained.

Look at the Masonic symbol—

[ATTACH]3701[/ATTACH]

The two cuts under her eyes were masonic compasses, and the right-angled mitre square was the location of her death.

G=God or Goulston Street? Only a Freemason would know.

Eddowes' murderers sure had a sense of humour.

Regards,

Simon

You have a warped sense of humour as well Mr Wood.

Heres a thought.....since Kate's facial wounds were post mortem, they were obviously to please the killer, frighten the police and the public, or both. The point being, he didnt hold her down while alive and slice her nose off. In which case the act could have been for the recipients education, like....."this will remind you to keep your nose out of other peoples business".

But its done when she is dead, so that leaves the first two options. Or just a collateral effect from the nose being sliced in the first place, as one of our esteemed members Mr Flynn has put forward.

The nose...not an ear, or slicing her cheek, her nose.

Theres "being nosey",.... "cutting ones nose to spite their face"...a good contender in my mind,.... "looking down your nose at someone",... "keep your nose out of my business"..."stop nosing around", ..."Nose news is good news",......a stretch, granted......the point being that there are many ways to insinuate she could have been branded a snoop or a snitch, or a busybody.

Just what was she saying, before the fire siren rang in her head, to the gents who done imbibed her that afternoon and eve?

Cheery bye.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Eddowes' two inverted Vs under her eyes are easily explained.

Look at the Masonic symbol—



The two cuts under her eyes were masonic compasses, and the right-angled mitre square was the location of her death.

G=God or Goulston Street? Only a Freemason would know.

Eddowes' murderers sure had a sense of humour.

Regards,

Simon

[Pippin Joan]

When I've studied the photos and coroners' sketches, it seems that Jack was doing some rough slashing in dim light, but with a few more artistic touches. He obviously wanted the nose gone and there are some great comments on that in previous posts. One thing that struck me eons ago about the ^ marks is that they looked to be made by pinching the cheek flesh and nipping at the top with the knife. I try to put myself in the place of JTR and think how I would go about doing the job. My thought was that he pinched the nose and cut it off/hacked at it, as long as he was careful not to cut himself. Either before or after that, he did the same to the cheeks and then nicked the lower eyelids. I doubt if there was any particular meaning to the cuts, but a sick urge to "play" with her face. This action required a certain level of light. I wonder how much ambient light would be in that spot, assuming JTR didn't have his own light source. The thorough inventory of CE's belongings didn't include any spent matches.

[Wickerman]

Hi Fish,Several layers of outer clothing, including skirts and chemise, had been cut down the middle, some through the waistband. Although it's not definitively stated, it's possible that her apron had already been cut at least partway, and in similar fashion, to these.

Ah, so thats where the idea came from. What were we saying about how myths get started?

We can all understand the need for the killer to cut open the front of her clothing, quick access, no time to pull & tug her clothing apart, of course!

All her clothing is wrapped around her so obviously he would slice through the front of her garments.
This is not the case with an apron. An apron does not wrap around her, she's not laying on it, it doesn't even tie at the back below the waist. So, the same argument which applies to the clothing doesn't apply to the apron.

The apron is only laid over her front, he pulls up the lower half and throws it aside, presumably over her head and shoulders. Neither you nor me would waist time trying to cut through a loose apron when all we have to do is pull it aside.

Against that, we have the snippet of inquest reportage that states that the liberated apron piece was married up to a piece of apron that was still attached by strings to Eddowes' body. This rather suggests that the Goulston Street fragment was taken from the lower part of the apron, and that a horizontal cut was required ....[edit].....

Correct, that was all you needed to write (the bit about a vertical cut I deleted, not required). The apron was presumably sliced through horizontally (or thereabouts), somewhere just below the tied waistband leaving "a portion still attached by the string".
And there we have it!

All the best..