The 2 upside down v's

[Sam Flynn]

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

I will do no such thing, Dan, because:

(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.

[Fisherman]

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

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

"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

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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

[Chris George]

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

Hello Jon

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

[Fisherman]

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

[Wickerman]

Chris 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.

A bit dramamtic but essentially, yes!
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.

[Sam Flynn]

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!

That was - and is - precisely my interpretation of the matter also, Jon. Talk of "clown's masks", "pierrots" and "arrows pointing to the eyes" belong, perhaps, to the romantic era of ripper studies. Whilst undoubtedly compelling, they have unfortunately sustained the age-old idea of Jack as some sort of criminal mastermind, wilfully leaving behind cryptic symbols designed to mock the authorities.

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.

[Fisherman]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

You're absolutely correct, Fish - but even there, I feel, the fact that both nicks aren't equally distributed in relation to the axis of the face, and don't penetrate either eyelid to the same degree (whether in terms of the depth or length of the wounds) may have been overlooked in deference to some "fearful symmetry" that just isn't there.

[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..

[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.

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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.