The 2 upside down v's

[Jeff Leahy]

Having given this some consideration in various light conditions I do feel he could have seen the eyes which are quite reflective and noticable even in very low light conditions..

Perhaps he used the knife to close the eye lids before slashing the face?

Pirate

[halomanuk]

I just think that the nicks are not obvious enough.
If the Ripper was going to leave a clue/message/symbol then he would have done something instantly recognisable,not something that had a good chance of being misinterpreted or overlooked...but we will never know at the moment frustratingly !!

[Sam Flynn]

But there is no way knowing whether the message - if there ever was one - was to be read in the nicks under the eyes or in the cut -off nose ("She was nosy, so I finished her off) or the piece of ear that dropped to the ground as Eddowes´ body was lifted from the ground ("You´ll be hearing from me again").

If we read meaning into the facial wounds, Fish, then I presume we might conclude that Kelly's killer was commenting on her "chinniness", "lippiness" and "eyebrowiness" - as well as her "eariness" and "nosiness". Alternatively, perhaps she was attacked by a maniac who simply slashed her face, like Eddowes' before her.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"If we read meaning into the facial wounds, Fish, then I presume we might conclude that Kelly's killer was commenting on her "chinniness", "lippiness" and "eyebrowiness" - as well as her "eariness" and "nosiness". Alternatively, perhaps she was attacked by a maniac who simply slashed her face, like Eddowes' before her."

...which is exactly what I am saying, Sam - unless you´ve noticed it.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps he used the knife to close the eye lids before slashing the face?

That's a possible explanation I'm happy with, too, Jeff.

[Wickerman]

Hello 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

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jon,

If you wish to post some images, click on the arrow next to the paperclip symbol in the toolbar, which will pop up the "Upload file from your computer" dialog. You'll have gathered that I am of the same opinion as you on this matter, so upload away!

[Jeff Leahy]

That's a possible explanation I'm happy with, too, Jeff.

I've never plagerized anyone, nor has my wife

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

If you wish to post some images, click on the arrow next to the paperclip symbol in the toolbar, which will pop up the "Upload file from your computer" dialog. You'll have gathered that I am of the same opinion as you on this matter, so upload away!

Ok, lets see if this works..

[Fisherman]

These are truly gruesome and disturbing images, Jon. Still, they are of course helpful.
What I can´t help feeling when I look at them is that I would have expected one or two of them flaps of flesh to have come off her face if they were the result of the blade slicing her nose off. If they came about as a result of the cutting away of the nose, then we must assume that the cut travelled no further down her face than the borderline offered by the deep ends of the flaps. And to me, that deep end seems not to be deep enough. Moreover, the flesh and cartilage of the nose will have restrained the downward movement of the blade, up to the point where the nose came loose. After, that, the power in the movement of the hand that steered the blade, would have had the blade travelling on, further down her face. To my mind, after having taken a good look at these pictures, that movement would have taken the blade beyond the lower point of the two V:s, and they should have been cut either deeper or, perhaps more probably, have been cut off from the face altogether.
There is one more curiosity involved: the angle of the blade against the face. To produce these two V:s while slicing off the nose, we must accept that the blade was angled more or less exactly at ninety degrees to the bridge of the nose (if not, the V:s would not have sat at the same approximate height), PLUS the blade must also have been at more or less exactly ninety degrees to the side of Eddowes´face, if we imagine her head as a perfect cube for simplicitys sake (if not, the V:s would not have cut equally deep into her flesh).
Can these things really be overcome by using a scenario where the flaps come about as a bi-product of the nose cut? I am not so sure of it.
Any thoughts?

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Bailey]

I see Fish's point on this, and I'm inclined to wonder if...

a) they perhaps happened on a first, unsuccessful pass at removing the nose or

b) they were done individually and on purpose, but more in the manner illustrated - a quick slash across each cheekbone, rather than carving with the knife tip like a pencil.

I must say, that seeing the Eddowes pic at that size, I'd never really made out the V's so clearly before - they're much larger than I'd always imagined, especially since the crime scene sketches suggest something smaller and more pointed. They're less inverted V's than C's that have tipped forward.

B.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Jon.

The mechanism for producing the cheek-flaps themselves is precisely the way I see it, albeit whether they were produced simultaneously with the severing of the nose was not part of my thesis. I can see how it might work, however. I might add that I'd not seen your splendid drawings before today. Nicely done, and far better than the "montage" I produced earlier on this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

I see Fish's point on this, and I'm inclined to wonder if...

a) they perhaps happened on a first, unsuccessful pass at removing the nose

That seems likely to me, Bailey (see my post of the 30th here). As to the "pointedness" of the wounds, the mortuary photographs show them as distinctly more rounded and broader than the sketches (this may even be gimpsed, on the right cheek, in the photograph of Eddowes in her "shell", before stitching). The sketches are evidently, and self-avowedly, "rough" and don't fill one with much confidence.

[Fisherman]

But Sam, if he made a first (unwittnessed about by the report) attempt to cut at the bone structure, then the bone would have hindered the blade from travelling far enough to produce the upside down V:s in one single stroke. If the V:s came about at such a failed attempt, they would have come about as the results of two cuts by the knife, using the blade in different angles. And that seems odd to me - if he realized when cutting at the bone that it would not give way, then why would he angle the blade to reach into the other cheek and have another go at the very same bone structure?
Surely he must have noticed at the first attempt that it was a no-go?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

"Angling the blade" is partly the crux of the matter. Why would he bother to twist his hand (and/or Eddowes' head) to peel up another "triangular" flap on the side of her face opposite him, practically in line with the one on her right cheek? In defence of Jon's suggestion - which I still find plausible - there appears to be one hell of a mess on the bridge of Eddowes' nose. If not completely cut through at that point, it might briefly have served as an incidental fulcrum.