The 2 upside down v's

[Bailey]

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.

You've prompted me here to nip over to the Casebook photo archives and look at the photos again with a fresh eye - you know how it is, we've seen these photos so many times over the years, they barely register anymore. Certainly upon close examination (and especially with the large scale version posted by Jon - cheers for that) there's a significant difference between the reality and the image I'd had in my head, which was clearly based on Foster's - as you say - extremely rough sketches, plus the standard description as per the subject thread. The actual wounds appear to be more semi-circular.

At this point I'm inclined to hedge my bets on collateral damage versus intentional attack on the cheeks, but nonetheless, what I see certainly seems consistent with the way a knife would move over Eddowes' very pronounced cheekbones while it was intended to be drawing a straight line.

My one question would be whether - as per Fisherman just previously - if it was a collateral damage situation, the course of the stroke would be disturbed by the contact between blade and bone? Surely the tip end of the knife would be expected to go a bit askew - with more stability and force coming from the handle end, the tip end would, I should think, deflect off the cheekbone, with a very uneven result. I suppose this would depend on the speed and strength applied to the stroke. I would also wonder if this would leave any marks on the cheekbones, which would surely have been mentioned in post-mortem reports.

It's ridiculously impossible, of course, to determine any of this from the rough sketches and poor quality photos we have to work with. I often think of the old time machine fantasy with this case - I don't think I'd want to go back and spy to see who Jack was, but I'd love to go back and get some better evidence! Give me five minutes with each corpse and my camera... On second thoughts, maybe we should send someone with a stronger stomach.

B.

Time for bed, thanks for sending me off with such lovely images, folks!

[Bailey]

I see you guys are carrying on while I was typing away... Sam, the fulcrum idea makes a lot of sense to me. It would need to be a pretty long blade though, which of course we know was the case.

Anyhoo, bed. I'll pick up again in the morning when you more knowledgable folks have had a chance to ruminate further.

B.

[Sam Flynn]

Give me five minutes with each corpse and my camera...

...your mission, should you wish to accept it...

[Fisherman]

Sam asks:
"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?"

Exactly, Sam - it would be an odd thing to do.

"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."

Maybe that is the best interpretation of it all. But it still does not add up to a really good explanation, I feel. To allow for the V:s, he must have cut a significant stretch of the nose. And if he did so, it was beacuse he could do it - there was no bone structure stopping him. Meaning that he could have cut the nose clean off, had he wanted to, even at this botched attempt we are speculating about.
Then, why did he stop, only to cut the nose off anyway moments later? Could have been before too, actually.

Also, though the bridge of Eddowes´nose looks much damaged, surely a cut, carried as significant a stretch into the tissues as we are talking about, would have been mentioned in Brown´s report...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Should have read up a little better on Brown´s report. It seems there ARE two more or less parallel cuts into the nose:
"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...About half an inch from the top of the nose was another oblique cut."

Maybe this second cut is the one that provides the best explanation to the flaps.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

"Maybe this second cut is the one that provides the best explanation to the flaps."

Indeed - although Brown doesn't give much detail as to the extent or trajectory of this particular wound, unfortunately. It might conceivably be part of the "fulcrum" I referred to earlier.

[Wickerman]

Just to clarify, up to 2004 there was a common belief among enthusiasts and researchers that the '^'s on Eddowes cheeks were performed by the point of a knife as part of some Black Magic ritual.
The medical report clearly describes the cuts as 'flaps' not two separate cuts that meet at an apex.
My sketches were provided with an intent to demonstrate how both cheeks could have been sliced in such a fashion to create two almost parallel flaps of skin, and yes the bridge of the nose would also have been cut deeply.

As everyone can see, the deep diagonal slice across the right cheek seems to start at the same point on the bridge of the nose. The tip of her nose is described as removed in a separate operation, nothing to do with the horizontal 'hack' into her face, nor with the diagonal slice to her cheek.
I'm not entirely following Fishermans point.

When we look at the contemporary sketches of the wounds to her face it is easy to see how the public commonly believed the '^'s to have a pointed apex, the drawings are poor.
The reality of the mortuary photo's tell the truth, the 'flaps' of skin are more curved than shown in the drawings of the time.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Wickerman!

And welcome aboard.

I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly).

I think, it is possible, too, that he tried to get some new kicks with this trick to his "funny little games"!

All the best
Jukka

[Scott Nelson]

I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly)

If the Ripper went on to make V-cuts in Kelly, he eventually obliterated his artwork with Van Gogh-like zest.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Scott!

If we think, that after four middle-aged drunkards he finally found a kind of young girl he was looking for, he naturally got more excited than ever before!

All the best
Jukka

[Wickerman]

I find it believable, that the Ripper was rehearsing with his v-cuts for the next act (that is: Mary Jane Kelly).

Hello Jukka.
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.

[Fisherman]

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

[Sam Flynn]

I cannot free myself from a nagging feeling that the flaps are a bit too similar in position and shape to satisfy me.

That very similarity in position and shape tends to lend more weight to the "collateral" argument, Fish, as far as I see it. The cheekbones' symmetric disposition in relation to the longitudinal axis of the nose lends itself readily to such an explanation. In contrast, a Ripper working on a (wobbly) head severed at the neck, whilst crouching in a more-or-less fixed position to the right of the corpse, would find it comparatively difficult to produce such an effect, especially in the semi-darkness of Mitre Square.

[Wickerman]

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...?

Hi Fisherman.
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.

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.

No need for the apron to be otherwise damaged. From what I remember there was one tie string still attached. Was this the waist string or the neck string?, assuming it had the usual bib. If you can picture the normal apron of her class for the period you will see it tied in two places, around the neck and around the waist.
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).

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 mortuary picture shows the face a little distorted, the stiches are pulling the skin of her face unnaturally. The corner of the flap on her right cheek shows a dark almost triangular feature, this may suggest the flap is being stretched by the stiches holding the 'gash on her cheek' together.

[Dan Norder]

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.

Hi Jon,

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.

At the time I remember Ivor Edwards, Chris George & Tom Wescott did not agree with my re-evaluation.

Oh, that's right. Chris George was there. Forgot about him. There's yet another editor at Ripperologist (the other being Don Souden) who absolutely knew that Sam's argument was not original and yet didn't acknowledge the extensive prior discussions or give due credit to you for originally raising it either at the time or even after the oversight was later pointed out.

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.