The 2 upside down v's

[Sam Flynn]

The nose is the only bit of the face that sticks out, so if anything's gonna be lopped off, it's that - irrespective of any symbolism. The eyes are recessed into the skull, so less likely to be damaged by a "slashing" attack.

But we shouldn't focus on the nose or eyes at the expense of the other facial mutilations, for the Ripper also inflicted several deep cuts to her cheek and lip. Was he saying: "Less of your cheek... less of your lip", perhaps? (Just to show how easy it is to read too much into this )

[perrymason]

The nose is the only bit of the face that sticks out, so if anything's gonna be lopped off, it's that - irrespective of any symbolism. The eyes are recessed into the skull, so less likely to be damaged by a "slashing" attack.

But we shouldn't focus on the nose or eyes at the expense of the other facial mutilations, for the Ripper also inflicted several deep cuts to her cheek and lip. Was he saying: "Less of your cheek... less of your lip", perhaps? (Just to show how easy it is to read too much into this )

Hi Sam,

I know that when dealing with you, Im dealing with a master deflator and master debater, ....but the cuts to other areas of her face do not eliminate the possibility that the nose was cut off for more specific reasons. There are cuts on all these women that are just to stab, cut, or slice....but some may have a residual component that others dont have,...that of a warning to others perhaps.

We do agree Harry, and although Sam mentions the eyes being recessed and therefore harder to attack with slices and slashes, he could easily have just poked his knife into them had he wanted to destroy all the facial features. But he didnt. And in Marys case, with the helter skelter method of ruining her face, he would almost have to consciously miss them.

Ive recently been considering something about the body positioning in room 13, and Id be interested to hear what y'all think.

If you can erase the graphic horror of the corpse for a moment, and in your minds eye, picture a woman intact and healthy....in that exact same pose.....left arm draped across, legs splayed but not forced as wide apart as they could have been, the fact he left her chemise on...what was left of it anyway...and facing the windows, or people coming in through the door,......I think she is posed artistically, and the various organs about were to slightly modify her position, so as to look as if naturally posed on a day bed for an artist. He may have kept her hair looking nice too.

Best regards Harry, Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

...and facing the windows, or people coming in through the door,......I think she is posed artistically, and the various organs about were to slightly modify her position, so as to look as if naturally posed on a day bed for an artist.

There was a bed in Mitre Square?!! For a minute, I thought this was a Kelly thread... until I checked. Nope - it's an Eddowes thread alright

[perrymason]

There was a bed in Mitre Square?!! For a minute, I thought this was a Kelly thread... until I checked. Nope - it's an Eddowes thread alright

Hi Sam,

I did realize that, but we had, at least Harry and I had, mentioned the issue of the eyes, to which I naturally addressed Mary Jane....being the only other canonical with any facial cuts at all caused by a knife, and who did not...as Kate did not, have their eyes themselves damaged.

I then through in the posing, as a natural tangent from intentionally purposefully marking or disfiguring the face, be it nose, eyes, cheeks...whatever. Its quite possible I think that Kates facial wounds were a "branding" of her, showing clearly that anyone sticking their nose "where it dont belong" might just get it cut off. I believe in similar fashion, what was done in Millers Court was done for the viewers.

Best regards Gareth.

I didnt intend for anything "Millers Court" to be continued beyond this point.

[Sam Flynn]

Its quite possible I think that Kates facial wounds were a "branding" of her, showing clearly that anyone sticking their nose "where it dont belong" might just get it cut off.

It's just as likely that no allegory was intended, Mike, and what we see is simply a cut-off nose. Because, if anything on the face might get lopped off, it's the bit that sticks out the most - as I alluded to earlier.

Besides, for the sake of consistency, one has to account for the other dozen or so facial wounds. Kate suffered markedly more injuries to her face than the severed nose, and her ear-lobe was cut through too. It has all the hallmarks of a "slashing-attack", rather than a deliberate effort to leave a message behind.

[harry]

While there may appear to be random slashes and cuts around the facial area,I think the arrow marks seem to be of a more calculated and definate shape.While the body mutilations seem to point to a desire to extract body parts,there is no indication that parts of the face were meant to be taken.That is why I detect a different thought process on the part of the killer regarding the face.A disturbed mind the killer surely had,but there was a meaning behind everything he did.So why the face at all?

[Sam Flynn]

A disturbed mind the killer surely had,but there was a meaning behind everything he did.

An extremely dangerous - and unnecessary - assumption from which to start. Furthermore, it's unprovable.

So why the face at all?

Why not the face? Seems a natural enough area to target, and not as much fun as, say, the shins or the wrists.

[Pippin Joan]

The particular mutilations on the face do seem to have some "meaning", if only a sense of playfulness rather than just angry stabbing. Jack was a ripper, not a stabber. As far as the "keep your nose out of this" idea, it feels right. I am reminded of the Black Dahlia case, where the killer cut each corner of Elizabeth Short's mouth to make a grotesque smile. I don't think that was accidental. The killer was sending a message there.

[Sam Flynn]

The particular mutilations on the face do seem to have some "meaning", if only a sense of playfulness rather than just angry stabbing. Jack was a ripper, not a stabber.

The knife penetrated bone and gum, which suggests that for at least part of the time it was used point-downwards.

[Sara]

Speaking of ripping, posters seem to assume that the v (or rather c) marks were made by a downward movement. Is it possible though, that they were made by stabbing into the side of the top cheekbone with the knifetip, and then ripping upwards, which could produce a flap effect?

That to me would fit better with the speed at which an attack was probably made - and impulsive gesture, and if it worked on one side and he liked the effect, may he not have repeated it?

[harry]

Surely Sam there was meaning to those murders,in the mind of the killer,though we may not be able to fathom it.The choice of victim,the awareness of danger,the ability to avoid suspicion,seem to suggest some thought process in evidence.Unless his thoughts were centred on the face at the time of attacking that part of the body,it is hard to imagine how the injuries came to be there.Attacking the abdomen,and cutting the throat, was unlikelyto have caused the injuries up higher.So I see a significance in his attacking the face,that was not of a random nature,and was different in meaning to the other injuries.
A disturbed mind surely,if only occasionly.

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking of ripping, posters seem to assume that the v (or rather c) marks were made by a downward movement. Is it possible though, that they were made by stabbing into the side of the top cheekbone with the knifetip, and then ripping upwards, which could produce a flap effect?

Slicing downwards would easily produce the inverted "V" shapes, Sara - ripping upwards, after inserting the knife into the cheek, would produce a (right-side-up) "V" (or even "U") shape, if anything. Dr Brown's detailed description shows that the inverted "Vs" comprised peeled up triangular flaps of skin, rather than a cut "/" and "\" joined at the apex.

It might be worth your while reading through the earlier posts in this thread

[Sam Flynn]

Surely Sam there was meaning to those murders,in the mind of the killer,though we may not be able to fathom it.

Quite possible, Harry, however even if there were such a meaning (a) we could speculate until the cows come home and still never be able to know for certain - so what's the use?; and (b) people get their faces mutilated with Stanley-knives, machetes or broken bottles every day, and it's put down to nothing more "mysterious" than plain viciousness - can't see why that explanation can't "do" for Jack as well.

It's not as if we're short of genuine mysteries in the Ripper case as it is, without going out of our way to create unprovable mysteries of our own.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;53220]Quite possible, Harry, however even if there were such a meaning (a) we could speculate until the cows come home and still never be able to know for certain - so what's the use?; and (b) people get their faces mutilated with Stanley-knives, machetes or broken bottles every day, and it's put down to nothing more "mysterious" than plain viciousness - can't see why that explanation can't "do" for Jack as well.

QUOTE]

Hi Sam,

There is a huge difference between maliciously cutting someones face while fighting with them, or to maintain a dominant role in the society the knife wielder lives in, leaving them alive but maimed....and cutting a face of a human after or while in the process of killing them.

Although I dont think case studies of serial killers is something that should be used to evaluate why Jack the Ripper existed, since we possibly dont have more than two or three victims by one man, and we dont know that he didnt know them,...I do see value in some specific data regarding type of wounds inflicted by such people, and in many violent criminal profiles, wounds to the face were very often an indication of some kind of a personal relationship between killer and prey.

Since we do know that Kate had her hand on the chest of the man she is believed to be killed by, witnessed by the Three Wise Men, a gesture of intimacy and familiarity.....not totally uncommon for street whores, but suggestive, when considering the facial wounds she is later found to have.

The killer did a few things in Mitre Square that were not required for taking abdominal organs or killing, including the facial wounds, each act taking precious time that we know he had very little of. My conclusion about that is that he evidently felt marking her face, and cutting off her nose....perhaps in the same motions, was something worth his precious time.

Based on that fact alone, they are signifigant, because they were to him.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

in many violent criminal profiles, wounds to the face were very often an indication of some kind of a personal relationship between killer and prey.

I keep hearing that, Mike, but I can't recall anyone responding to requests for empirical evidence/statistics to that effect. We should be wary of trotting out old chestnuts without a second thought - that sort of thing is best left to the likes of Mrs Paumier