Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
The 2 upside down v's
Collapse
X
-
-
Jon writes:
"if you agree with that, then you will agree that the longheld argument that 'Jack' inscribed two '^'s, incised with the point of a knife, one on each cheek, is a missinterpretation of the evidence, and resulted in the birth of a myth!"
I do agree. The problems I have been having here is that I found it hard to believe that the flaps were formed as the nose came off. Long as we connect them to the other "oblique" cut in the nose, that may well be a botched first attempt to cut the nose off, I think it all makes perfect sense.
Sam, you write:
"Why this should appeal is obvious, in that the hope of deciphering these alleged cryptic clues will somehow bring us closer to solving the crimes."
...and that is very true. Reading things into the murders is common practice (and hard to stay away from at times), although it fills the running track with a lot more hurdles than those that really belong there.
In the case of Eddowes, I dare say that there would probably have been significantly less talking about the "inverted V:s" if it had not been for the nicks to the eyelids - they sort of legitimize much of the theorizing on the V:s, I think.
The best,
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostSo if you agree with that, then you will agree that the longheld argument that 'Jack' inscribed two '^'s, incised with the point of a knife, one on each cheek, is a missinterpretation of the evidence, and resulted in the birth of a myth!
Why this should appeal is obvious, in that the hope of deciphering these alleged cryptic clues will somehow bring us closer to solving the crimes. A noble goal, but one based on the questionable premise that the killer deliberately set out to create such riddles in the first place.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostChris writes:
Contention: He tries to cut her nose off, fails to do so since he hits the bone structure at a level where the blade has cut into her flesh over the cheekbones, he retracts the knife, lowers it half an inch, and there he finds only cartilage and flesh, enabling him to cut the nose off.
I'm not suggesting he "just gotta have that nose", but the point is that there were two cuts to the nose, one hacked into the bridge inline with the cuts in the cheeks, the next cut off the tip of her nose.
The diagonal slash across her right cheek also terminates in the same gash through the bridge of the nose.
So if you agree with that, then you will agree that the longheld argument that 'Jack' inscribed two '^'s, incised with the point of a knife, one on each cheek, is a missinterpretation of the evidence, and resulted in the birth of a myth!
And thats all the original argument in Oct /04 was intended to demonstrate. Now, as for Gareth's more recent, but similar argument, only he can say.
Leave a comment:
-
Chris writes:
"I find it hard to accept that one stroke of the knife could have both removed the nose and caused the identical cuts to the cheeks often referred to as "V" cuts. I continue to believe that three cuts not one were involved."
Maybe it was two cuts, Chris. Just like you, I am having a hard time accepting that the cut that took her nose off was also the cut that resulted in the upside down V:s. I think these flaps are situated a bit too high in her face to have come about as the nose came off, and I also think that the flaps would not have been flaps in such a case - they would have been pieces of flesh cut away from the face.
The other cut, though, described by Brown as sitting higher up on the nose, may have been the one that caused the flaps. This cut is only described as oblique, just as the cut that took the nose off, but since it was possible to describe it´s direction, it could not have been all that shallow.
My guess is that this cut commenced in the cartilage, and had the purpose to cut the nose off. It may, though, have followed a direction that was a bit too steep to serve that purpose, ending up meeting the bone structure of the nose. That would have stopped the cut, and forced the killer to retract the knife. And a retracted knife is of course what we are looking for, since the flaps were never followed through - they were cuts that stopped before the flesh was cut away from Eddowes´face.
Contention: He tries to cut her nose off, fails to do so since he hits the bone structure at a level where the blade has cut into her flesh over the cheekbones, he retracts the knife, lowers it half an inch, and there he finds only cartilage and flesh, enabling him to cut the nose off.
The best,
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostHello 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
Just to clarify, I have never been persuaded by the mystical or magical theory of the murders. Rather, I find it hard to accept that one stroke of the knife could have both removed the nose and caused the identical cuts to the cheeks often referred to as "V" cuts. I continue to believe that three cuts not one were involved.
All the best
Chris
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks for helping out, Sam! I did remember that there were some oddities involved in the discussion, but I have noticed that it has all been revived and resurrected, and so Jon may take part of what has been said in the errand.
The best, Sam, Jon!
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Fish,Originally posted by Fisherman View Post"Do you have a quote which states the apron was cut vertically?"
No, I don´t have it at hand, but I will try and find it. It´s been up on these boards
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 as well as a vertical one (perhaps already present - see my first paragraph), in order to free it.
Leave a comment:
-
Jon writes:
"the small cuts and bruises may have been there already"
They would have been fresh when examined, and thus they would all have belonged to the deed, I think.
"There was a slit in her lower lip, did the killer punch her to knock her out? Can you see any point in the killer cutting her lip like that intentionally?"
No, I can´t. The only cuts that may be intentional when it comes to the ones in her face, are the ones to the eyelids and the two flaps, as far as I am concerned.
"Many of the little cuts and slices to her face are difficult to explain regardless what theory you subscribe to. There's no point in building a theory on points that can't be explained. That only serves to expose a theory to ridicule.
Theories are supposed to be built on evidence that can be explained."
The theory I subscribe to is one that tells me that the Ripper cut away at her face with no apparent design in mind. I have sometimes speculated that if the encounter between Eddowes and her killer was one of suggested paid-for sex, she may have said something along the lines of "Don´t you think I´m beautiful?" or something like that, and he may have denied her that proposed beauty afterwards by cutting it away.
As for being ridiculed, such things more often than not say more about the joker than it does about the one at who´s cost the jokes are made.
"Was this the waist string or the neck string?, assuming it had the usual bib"
It did not, if I remember correctly.
"Do you have a quote which states the apron was cut vertically?"
No, I don´t have it at hand, but I will try and find it. It´s been up on these boards.
The best,
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Dan NorderPerhaps Sam, seeing that you are not only a real person but still around and supporting the theory, will finally do the right thing and get the dissertation here amended to give you credit so as not to mislead people into thinking that he came up with it
(a) I made no claim that I was the first person to come up with the idea, so I have no need to amend anything, or apologise to anyone.
(b) The thinking, and writing, was entirely mine, from the "ground up". That I came to a similar¹ conclusion independently of Jon doesn't alter that fact.
(c) If, like me, people weren't aware of Jon's original post in 2004, and read my dissertation first before Jon kindly reposted his diagrams here, that's not my fault.
(d) The dissertation remains my OWN analysis of Eddowes' wounds, irrespective of what has happened since I wrote it, or what may have happened without my knowing previously.
(e) The dissertation was about more than just the upside-down "V" shapes, although one might be forgiven for thinking that they were all I wrote about. That is not the case.
¹ I say "similar", because my dissertation made no claim that the "V" wounds were made concurrently, neither did I claim that they may have been due to collateral damage as the nose was removed. I wish I had thought of that, because I see merit in what Jon is arguing in that regard.Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-04-2008, 09:30 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostThe 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.
I'm glad to see you back. I mentioned your theory a number of times over the years while you were gone, as I believe it's very plausible. I'm glad that you can see it gaining more widespread acceptance than it got originally.
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostAt the time I remember Ivor Edwards, Chris George & Tom Wescott did not agree with my re-evaluation.
One of the fundamentals of professional and responsible academic research and writing is giving credit where credit is due. Perhaps Sam, seeing that you are not only a real person but still around and supporting the theory, will finally do the right thing and get the dissertation here amended to give you credit so as not to mislead people into thinking that he came up with it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostHi Jon!
Am I right in interpreting you as saying that the cuts to Eddowes face could have come about as the result of the killer trying to sever her apron, the apron covering her face in the process? If so, do you count all the wounds in here - the one to the lower lip, the big gash in her right cheek, the cut that took her nose off, the one that sat some way over it...?
As I explained previously the small cuts and bruises may have been there already. There was a slit in her lower lip, did the killer punch her to knock her out? Can you see any point in the killer cutting her lip like that intentionally?
Many of the little cuts and slices to her face are difficult to explain regardless what theory you subscribe to. There's no point in building a theory on points that can't be explained. That only serves to expose a theory to ridicule.
Theories are supposed to be built on evidence that can be explained.
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostWould that not have produced damage to the apron to such an extent that it would have been recorded? Also - and I am not sure here - was the apron not cut from top to bottom, instead of from side to side? That does not seem to tally with the wounds to her face.
As a part of the apron was found on the body only at the mortuary, the part must not have been large. The largest portion was cut away.
How could you cut the apron from top to bottom if she was still wearing it?
The loose part, the portion of greatest untied length is that which hangs from the waist to the ankles.
Do you have a quote which states the apron was cut vertically? (I've been away from the boards a long time, this may be some recent news).
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI noticed that in your drawing with Eddowes´ face and the knife cutting into it (the drawing where you can see the handle of the knife), that cut commences in a spot lower down on the face than what is evidenced by the photo where you highlighted the flap in red. It sort of makes better sense there.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI cannot free myself from a nagging feeling that the flaps are a bit too similar in position and shape to satisfy me.
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Jon!
Am I right in interpreting you as saying that the cuts to Eddowes face could have come about as the result of the killer trying to sever her apron, the apron covering her face in the process? If so, do you count all the wounds in here - the one to the lower lip, the big gash in her right cheek, the cut that took her nose off, the one that sat some way over it...?
Would that not have produced damage to the apron to such an extent that it would have been recorded? Also - and I am not sure here - was the apron not cut from top to bottom, instead of from side to side? That does not seem to tally with the wounds to her face.
It is interesting, though, since we have Bonds assumption that Kelly had her face covered with the bedlinen before the killer cut away at her face. But I really don´t think that the damage that would have been produced in the apron fabric would have gone unnoticed. I have not heard of any other cuts to it than the one that split it in two.
On your point that the flaps under the eyes would have come about as collateral damage, unintended by the killer, it makes good sense. But I cannot free myself from a nagging feeling that the flaps are a bit too similar in position and shape to satisfy me. And when I look at the flap under her right eye, it is evident that the cut that opened it up commenced VERY close to the eye. I would have felt a lot more certain that it was all made by accident if that cut sat lower down on the face. If it came about as the result of a swooping movement of the blade, it ought to have commenced half an inch or an inch lower down to keep me happy.
I noticed that in your drawing with Eddowes´ face and the knife cutting into it (the drawing where you can see the handle of the knife), that cut commences in a spot lower down on the face than what is evidenced by the photo where you highlighted the flap in red. It sort of makes better sense there.
The best!
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by j.r-ahde View Post
I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly).
I have to seriously question a number of the facial cuts to Eddowes. I'm not so convinced any of them were by design. The verticle 'nicks' to the eyelids are difficult to explain away as anything else, but most of the rest of the cuts and bruises may be of no real consequence.
All the small cuts & abraisions may have been just the result of her way of life, these were rough times afterall.
The diagonal slice across her right cheek may never have been intentional. Consider this, the killer is supposed to have positioned himself around her right shoulder to perform some of the mutilations. Her left cheek was facing the pavement, right facing cheek up. The killer being right-handed might well have raised her apron up with his left hand, pulling it over her head while slashing through the apron with the knife in his right hand.
Obviously he was not standing upright while doing this, he may have been crouched down low enough that his long-bladed knife caught her cheek as he sliced through the apron. Part of her apron was found still attached to her body. Of course I'm assuming her apron had a bib portion that looped around her neck, the standard fitting for the time.
All this is conjecture I know, but these circumstances might have contributed to her right cheek being slashed in such a fashion. If this is anything close to the truth then who is to say that the horizontal 'hack' into her face (causing both '^', one on each cheek) was not the result of a similar slashing to sever the apron from her torso. Pulling the lower portion of the apron up over her head with his left hand could mean her face was directly under his blade as he slashed the portion of apron from her body.
Lastly, we do know there was a current belief among the public that the eyes retained the last impressions the victim saw. This is not the only murder to show attacks to the eyes of a victim. That erroneous belief may be all that is behind the 'nicks' to the eyelids. Afterall, we have no record of how deep those cuts were. The killer, operating in the dark, may have assumed he sliced both eyeballs when in actual fact he barely cut the eyelids.
People tend to make too much of questionable evidence.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: