Striking after being seen?

[Abby Normal]

Want to know what he put on Eddowes face?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

IWES?

[Wickerman]

...As for the cheek/nose theory, unless the Ripper went to work with a sword and made very long strokes, I don't see it as feasible.

Tom, Eddowes did have a small face & features, not a broad face like Chapman or Turner. An 8in blade would be sufficient and the knife would have been dragged across the face to produce such damage.

Don't forget Tom, the doctor described the "triangular" cut's on each cheek as "flaps of skin". Stabbing the face with the point of a knife to produce a 'V' will not make that cut into a flap of skin. The knife must slice the skin behind the "triangle" to separate the skin from the face thereby producing a flap of skin.
However you look at the cuts across the cheeks they were produced by a slicing action.

And again, that doesn't explain the smaller, clearly intentional inverted V's.

The point of a knife with a dagger-blade could produce small 'V' impressions/cuts in the skin. The smaller 'V's could quite easily be small stabs, I'll have to enlarge another photo to get a clearer look-see.

Hi Tom, no offense to Wicker, but I don't think this is a that new an idea, I have definitely heard it before, even Andre Chikatilo

tji, not intending to answer for Tom, but I think Tom was meaning "new in Ripperology", not "new to the mind of any killer" - though you must admit Jack did preceed Chikatilo

Someone may have suggested that the killer stabbed at her eyes for the same reason I have, but I don't remember anyone specifically.

In the past the damage to the eyes has always been described as "nics to the eyelids", which leaves the reader to ponder why the killer would only mark the eyelids, "to make her look like a clown", was one suggestion.

In being very specific about the damage which was done we obscure the possible intent which may not have been to just lightly mark the eyelides but actually to slice the eyes. Being soft the eyeballs would respond to the pressure of the knife blade by flattening or deforming leaving the eyeball undamaged, dependent on the pressure applied.
So the puzzle has always been, "why did he mark the eyelids?", when his intent might have been to do greater damage. Certainly he could have thrust the knife deep into her eyes, that would have resolved the question, but he didn't so once again we are left with a host of possibilities.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

closing time

Hello Jon. Frequently, people die with their eyelids open. What if her assailant merely wished to close her eyelids and did so with the tip of his knife?

Cheers.
LC

[tji]

Hi Wicker

tji, not intending to answer for Tom, but I think Tom was meaning "new in Ripperology", not "new to the mind of any killer" - though you must admit Jack did preceed Chikatilo

I will admit nothing!!! Oh ok since it's you, I will admit to that
It goes to show though that it wasn't just an old fashioned misconception, even into the 1990's it was still believed by some.

Someone may have suggested that the killer stabbed at her eyes for the same reason I have, but I don't remember anyone specifically.

I am almost sure it has been mentioned on the boards before, I have definitley had a conversation with someone about it! I also remember it being asked if they tried to take a photo of Mary Kelly's eyes for that reason..and also something about a rabbit...anyone else remember, maybe an experiment with a rabbit or something?!?

I know Jimi put forward the eyes may have been knicked by the knife when they were cutting the face, but I am not sure if it had been brought forward before that. my memory isn't what it used to be no more.


Tj

[Wickerman]

I am almost sure it has been mentioned on the boards before, I have definitley had a conversation with someone about it!

I'm inclined to agree with you, the probability is more likely that it (attempted damage to the eyes) has been suggested before considering the often returning debates of 'Photographing the eyes'.

I also remember it being asked if they tried to take a photo of Mary Kelly's eyes for that reason..

Though if Jack did murder Kelly, it begs the question why he didn't then intentionally damage her eyes.

A frequent dilemma, one proposed solution might fit one murder, but apparently not the next. And some may ask why do we love this case so much....


Regards, Jon S.

[tji]

Hi Wicker

Though if Jack did murder Kelly, it begs the question why he didn't then intentionally damage her eyes.

Good point, I guess the logical answer to that would be if you believed Jtr killed them both that the damage he did do to the eyes wasn't intentional and meant nothing to him either way.

A frequent dilemma, one proposed solution might fit one murder, but apparently not the next. And some may ask why do we love this case so much....

Oh I think we will all be keeping each other company in the loony bins in a few years times, babbling away about grafitti and aprons and photos of eyes!

Tracy

[mariab]

closing time
Frequently, people die with their eyelids open. What if her assailant merely wished to close her eyelids and did so with the tip of his knife?

Should have put coins on them, like in From Hell. :-)
Lynn, aren't we disrespectful of the deceased here? Apologies.

[Tom_Wescott]

The Ripper was communicating something to the police, and us, but that’s not to say it was occult by any means.

Tom - how and why do you convert likelihoods, possibilities and perhapses into such unwarranted certainty

Hi Phil. I explained what I meant to Maria. I believe the cuts were intentional, and that being the case, they were a form of expression, whether they were conscious or not (and I would imagine they were). I do not mean to suggest anything Masonic, although surely you’d applaud me for my imagination if I did? Anyway, you seem to paint Jack as a simpleton flying by the seat of his pants. I don’t think someone like that could have gotten away with two murders, let alone five or more.

Hi Tom, no offense to Wicker, but I don't think this is a that new an idea, I have definitely heard it before, even Andre Chikatilo (was shot by firing squad in 1994) mutilated his first few victims and stabbed them in the eyes, it did puzzle the detectives at the time the change in MO when the bodies stopped turning up with their eyes stabbed, however when questioned Chikatilo said at first he believed that you could see the killer in the victims eyes, then he just stopped believing it, (doesn't say why) so he stopped. So even upto modern day times there was that belief there for some.

Thanks for that, Teej. I didn’t know that.

IWES?

LOL. No. I have a radical theory regarding the cuts to Eddowes’ face. It’s almost too radical for me to be convinced by it myself, but so plausible and simple it would shock you. I will NOT be putting it in my book, but plan to save it for an article or talk someday. And incidentally, my graffiti theory is that it says ‘IWMES’. Have you tried writing that fast by cursif, followed by ‘Juwes’ yet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott 

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, Eddowes did have a small face & features, not a broad face like Chapman or Turner. An 8in blade would be sufficient and the knife would have been dragged across the face to produce such damage.

Don't forget Tom, the doctor described the "triangular" cut's on each cheek as "flaps of skin". Stabbing the face with the point of a knife to produce a 'V' will not make that cut into a flap of skin. The knife must slice the skin behind the "triangle" to separate the skin from the face thereby producing a flap of skin.
However you look at the cuts across the cheeks they were produced by a slicing action.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. I don’t think this is a crazy idea at all. What I rail against is the notion that the cuts were accidental and not intentional on the killer’s part. Maybe you’re exactly correct in how they got here. When Sam published his essay, he had Jane Coram draw up a half-assed version of the cuts on Eddowes’ face, omitting some of the wounds, and that got my knickers up because it meant either he hadn’t paid good attention to the evidence, or he DID and just chose not to give it all to his readers, which is not like Sam. I spent a lot of time comparing blow ups of Eddowes mortuary pics (received from Robert MacLaughlin, so top quality), the in situ and mortuary drawings, etc to arrive at an exact replica of Eddowes face, and what became apparent is that all the wounds were put there intentionally. Like the graffiti, this is yet another clue the minimalists want to strike from the records. It seems to want to strip the case bare of any and all evidence. Buncha Macnaghtens, they are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
 

[K-453]

He aimed at the facial features – eyes, nose, mouth, ear. The cuts were irregular and “shaky”, but basically aimed.

About the “communication” theory: He must at least have known the mutilations would be seen by other people after his victim was found, and, as everybody was crazy over him now, by many people, and newspapers would write about it.
Unless he did not commit his murders in a totally “switched off” state in which he was not aware of that.

About the eyes: Maybe he wanted to “cross them out”, but did not dare to hurt them really bad. Maybe eyes were something untouchable for him, for what reasons ever. When Mary Jane Kelly’s eyes were still intact, that is remarkable, thinking of the state in which the rest of her body was.

[Wickerman]

Jon - Lawende's inquest testimony wasn't merely "cut short". It was deliberately suppressed, only to appear later in the Police Gazette,

Ben, my point was that we never heard Lawende's story from his mouth. Yes, his story was suppressed, but thats the reason he was cut short, I was not questioning the reason, just the fact we do not have his story in his own words.

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of its content.

No, it is not the accuracy we are talking about. Whatever Lawende saw I am sure he was telling the truth. The question is not so much accuracy as content.
By his own words Lawende did not see too much at all. In the days between the murder & the Inquest (Oct. 11) Mr Lawende had been sequestered & a pledge of secrecy imposed on him, but not apparently on Levy or Harris.

According to the Evening News, Harris is the one who was talking to the press, and therefore the first description of the suspect which appeared in the Times, Oct. 2nd, may have come from Harris.

"...of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

The above differ's a little from Swanson's version published, as you noted, in the Police Gazette, Oct. 19th.

"...A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

Notice that the inquest testimony suggests that the woman obscured the view of the man, who was but a few inches taller than the woman. This might suggest that all which could be seen of the man was that which was above her shoulders, that is to say, his neck, face & head.

Interestingly, this is just what the description in the Times (Oct. 2nd, above) offers us, his height, complexion, cap, face, moustache & cravat, but nothing below the neck, obviously because the woman was standing in the way.

So where does the rest of the description come from?

Lawende's version, or that attributed to Lawende, was held back for three weeks, and when we do read it we have the added details including his build, his jacket & it's colour, the colour of his cap, and his overall appearance, ie; a sailor.

Considering Lawende's own admission that he would not know the man again, but that the man looked rather rough & shabby, we are then on Oct. 19th presented with an almost complete description.

By contrast, the police already had the description given by Schwartz, which caused me to pose the question, "...did the interviewer of Lawende already 'know' what he was looking for by way of a 'complete' description?".

Schwartz:
"...age about 30, ht. 5ft 5in. Comp. Fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands."

The discussion has only dealt with the facts of the case as we know them, there is nothing 'spurious' included here.
The question is a reasonable one.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

"...of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

The above differ's a little from Swanson's version published, as you noted, in the Police Gazette, Oct. 19th.

"...A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

Sound like similar descriptions given by two different witnesses to anyone else?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

I knew Glenn, actually met him once when he was living and working in the UK. He knew a lot about the Ripper and was much more of a criminologist than I.

I thought he was still around a few months back. No idea what he is doing now though. (His last post on here was 25 April 2010.

Phil

yes us two went back a long way, i notice quite a few of the old crew missing, i hate to see this because it always makes me fear the worst

[Malcolm X]

Glenn believed that MJK was a copycat killer and he got a lot of stick for this, we argued quite a lot, i think he favoured Joe Barnett, if my memory servs me right.

it wouldn't be hard to copycat Eddowes, so he was right with regards to this, it's just that everything fits that this is JTR.

The most likely scenario of all if you favour this route, is that STRIDE, EDDOWES AND KELLY belong to one killer and all the rest someone else....but it is very hard to argue that KELLY AND EDDOWES are 2 different people, in fact, almost impossible.

because the link between this trio is simply way too strong, they're chained together in high tensile steel

.

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Malcolm. But surely the mutilations on these 3 vary widely?

If you look at Baxter's summation at the Stride inquest, he sums that notion up admirably.

Cheers.
LC