The 2 upside down v's

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Harry

My point was not that it would necessarily be impossible to draw a V in the dark. More that Jack couldn't really see the result of his work.

I think what Sam is suggesting is that Jack worked very quickly, slashing at the face with his knife and that the V shapes were just accidental consequence of the slashing motion rather than deliberate shapes. Which as I beleive he could not have seen.

However in the MJK murder he clearly had light from the fire and a better idea of what he was producing.

Pirate

[harry]

My belief is that the cuts formed arrow heads pointing to the eyes.Perhaps a message to say that she had seen him and knew who he was.In Kelly's case the eyelashes had been partly removed.Perhaps a message of the same kind,in this case a meaning that she could not close her eyes to who he was.Someone they both knew,to Kelly someone close.
In the deep gloom of Mitre square,there may only have been a very faint luminence.Enough to make an arrow head but no more.Try drawing a pencil shape arrow head in almost complete darkness.It can be done.Substitute a pencil with a knife,and it's possible to cut the shape also.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just a quick observation why I agree with Sam's conclusion (not that I'm licking *** or nothin')

But the problem has tax me what 'Jack' could see of his work.

It was very dark in Mitre sq..the lamp that iluminated the sq was not working correctly.

I dont believe he could have seen very much... (I've been trying this out of a night working in ow light levels)

So Sams idea of quick agressive slashes of the knife, just make more sense than drawing on the face with a knife.

OK prehaps he closed the eyes..the eyes reflect and are more visable..but the rest of the face is in shadow..you cant see very much..

So again the idea that the wounds were an incidental of Jacks slashing action..in the gloom..rather than creating something he can see..

like a letter

it just makes more sense to me

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

The problem with focusing our attention on the two triangular flaps is that it detracts somewhat from the other facial wounds - which were primarily jagged and asymmetric, more deeply-wrought, and more numerous. Eddowes' other facial injuries may be the "elephant in the room" here, which may be especially relevant when comparing these mutilations to those of Mary Kelly.

As to whether Jack made off with Eddowes' nose, Steve - Brown only says that the "tip of the nose was quite detached", but doesn't record it as missing. Whether Brown meant "quite detached" as in "almost detached", or "quite detached" as in "definitely detached" isn't clear - I favour the former interpretation - but it's apparent to me from the photos of Kate's face (lying in her "shell" and afterwards) that the tip of the nose was still available to be sewn back.

[stevebaker25]

well you can speculate on this forever and ever but maybe he just had two faltering attempts to dehumanise her but his brain just wouldn't let him do it. Almost like he's fighting with two personalities? I duno, that is a minefield. However if he was struggling with his "need" to deface her he obviously succeeded in the end with Mary Kelly (if you take her as victim of JTR, and I do)
If you were to look at it that way it would give a new insight into the kind of man he was and what sort of mental decline he was on.
What he started with Catherine he finished with Mary in terms of obliterating her.
It's my thought that the 'v' cuts aren't collateral from the removal of the nose but separate incisions in an attempt to remove her face which for one reason or another he couldn't complete at that time. This was after all the first time he'd attempted anything on the face right? Or maybe he knew her? And this made it harder? hmmm?
Anyway, does anyone know if he took the nose away with him or not? I don't remember reading if he did and I can't really tell from the mortuary photos whether it was stitched back on...

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Steve - good points. However, Jack may at first have tried to remove the nose too high up, near the bridge, where it's bony, approaching the nose by angling the knife from both sides, before settling for removing just the cartilaginous tip, lower down the nose.

Whatever mechanism he employed, the triangular flaps were just that, and not "V" shapes or arrows "written" onto the face. Using the knife point-first (like a pen) would have been a more obvious, and better, means of drawing a deliberate shape or letter - but Jack didn't do that. He used the blade, and the ensuing peeled-up flaps would quite naturally have looked like "V"s.

Maybe he was in two minds about cutting her face off?

You may well be correct, there - although that would beg the question of why he "gave up" on both sides? One would expect at least one of the flaps to have been followed through to completion.

[stevebaker25]

strikes me that the 'v' shapes are a little bit too far up the face to be collateral damage from removing the nose. I would have thought that if they were made at the same time as removing the nose the flaps would not stop where they do but would become wider and maybe even slice the cheek meat right off by the time the nose becomes detached


I don't think they contain any meaning, like stupid upside down M theory...but I don't think it was accidental either. Maybe he was in two minds about cutting her face off?

[Sam Flynn]

Re. the "measure of balance", Mike - my contention is that this could be explained due to the natural symmetry of the face. If you refer to the diagrams I posted a while back on this thread, all you have to do is imagine the blade of the knife extending across the line of the nose.

Hi all,

Just for my two penny offering.....I think it cannot be excluded that the markings were indeed that and intentional, rather than just collateral damage. They are referred to as nicks, which makes the collateral idea sound, but there is some measure of balance in the cuts as well,...utilizing the rough sketch.

The next supposed victim in the series shows an exagerated version of "marking" the face, but she was made virtually unrecognizable....whereas Kates wounds seem like some sort of a branding to me. Like a Scarlett "A"...only maybe something for Blabbermouth or Snitch in Kates case. Cut off her nose to spite her face.

Best regards all.

[george chapman]

Are we all done with the plagarisms?? have i spelt it correctly. Can we move on as its all rather dull......................

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"I'd like to know what makes my work so damn unplaguirizable"

No you dont, Tom....!

The best!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

PS

This may sound a little sick but having just gone to bed I couldn't help studying my partner laying in bed...the curtons are drawn..only the light from the LCD on the CD/Radio, door open light from computer spill..but very dark..

My eyes can only make out silhouettes...no detail of my partners features?

If the ligtht level was this low I don't believe Jack could have seen the results of the cuts he makes to the face...unless he turns and angles the head towards light...

I better go back to bed now

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Sam

Just a couple of questions?

Firstly, for some reason I've been unable to find your original disertation on casebook..probably stupidity on my part but if anyone can supply a link so I can refresh my memory i'd be grateful?

However what has been going through my mind is Mikes lecture at conferance about the gas lamp in Mitre Sq.

It was bloody dark where Eddows was murdered and that's no mistake.

A candle in a window and a faulty gas lamp. I've studied Jakes 'Excellent' reconstructions..but surely 'to bright?' in that corner?

So my question to you is not how Jack cut the 'V's on Eddows face..

But how, did he perceive them..By Site? or by touch?

Did he feel and hold the face and cut?...or could he have seen what he was doing?

If that question makes sense?

Yours Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam, I hope you don't feel I'm attacking you.

Not in the least, Tom - and I mean that sincerely.

By 'incomplete research' I mean you chose not to use any of the diagrams prepared by Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips. Since they were presumably prepared so that other people could look at them and learn from them, I found this an extremely odd choice on your behalf. A simple study of them will prove your thesis of the wounds being accidental to be totally false.

"False" would not have been the word I'd have chosen, Tom - "Erroneous", maybe... but I quibble.

Whether "false" or "erroneous", I'd disagree either way. The sketches have very little bearing on the matter, in my view. Had they been drawn by an accomplished artist intending to reproduce the facial wounds in realistic detail it would be a different matter, but they weren't. On the contrary, they are but rough sketches and add little to the info provided by Brown's rather detailed description of the wounds. Besides, I honestly don't see that the drawings - or the photos - contradict my interpretation anyway.

Sometimes a thousand words are better than a picture, you know - especially when the pictures concerned are merely crude sketches such as these.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't wish to debate Sam's essay, because I can see his fan club is out in full force ready to rip any skull that challenges it, as has been done with Dan Norder.

I think you'll find, Tom, that it wasn't Dan's challenging my essay per se that was the issue, rather it was the way he went about it. As to fan-clubs, if there were one called "Rational Thought" I'd certainly aspire to be a member, but certainly not as its Grand Poohbah. It's evident that others would qualify to become members too, your good self included.

Meetings held on Saturdays and Sundays at Dutfield's Yard or the Imperial Club, whichever is nearer. Yidden, goyim, anarchists and royalists welcome in equal measure.