Striking after being seen?

[Malcolm X]

we have no idea what JTR was up to with his knife and this will never reveal the killer, so there you go, or even give you any leads, we only need to know are these last 3 murders committed by JTR..... YES!

i'm afraid that R D ONSTON tainted many of us it's part and parcel of being on Ivors forum, all those years ago.

[Phil H]

Thank you, Monty. Much appreciated.

Ooooohhh! I have a warm feeling inside!!

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

Horns have been locked but the wounds arent deep. All part of the cut and thrust, bluff and bluster and never with claws fully exposed.

Motives? Common sense, simple as that.

Monty

[Phil H]

Not that you'll be bothered Phil, but I'm begining to like you.

Monty! My heart is warmed. I'm not certain of the motives behind this road to damascus event, but my aim in life is to be without malice to anyone - so thank you.

Phil

[tji]

[QUOTE]

Wow, that's a new idea. It would seem absurd to us today, but as doctors and educated men of the time humored the notion that our eyes record the last thing we see, like a photo, why wouldn't a killer think it possible?

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.

Tj

[Monty]

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?

We have NO IDEA whether the Ripper was communicating something to the police - let alone US.

"Jack" may not have had the first idea what he was doing - other than that it was "fun", he could do it, and he had never done it before. Spontaneous, not consciously motivated, perverse...

Not that you'll be bothered Phil, but I'm begining to like you.

Monty

[mariab]

However, it is possible that the killer knew of the police interest in photographing the eyes of the deceased so he slit her eyes vertically.

Wow, that's a new idea. It would seem absurd to us today, but as doctors and educated men of the time humored the notion that our eyes record the last thing we see, like a photo, why wouldn't a killer think it possible?

Now that could make sense, really.

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

Tom - how and why do you convert likelihoods, possibilities and perhapses into such unwarranted certainty?
We have NO IDEA whether the Ripper was communicating something to the police - let alone US. "Jack" may not have had the first idea what he was doing - other than that it was "fun", he could do it, and he had never done it before. Spontaneous, not consciously motivated, perverse...

Precisely, I'm with Phil H. here. I think Tom's previous interest in D'Onston and in the horror genre gets a bit in the way here, making him seek an “explanation“ or a “message“, like if this were a movie script.
Such facial postmortem disfigurement also sounds medieval and perhaps reminiscent of war (with bayonettes and stuff).
The same about collecting the organs. It doesn't make any “sense“ whatsoever to a sane person either, though it could be explained as collecting trophies, cannibalism, whatnot.

[Phil H]

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?

We have NO IDEA whether the Ripper was communicating something to the police - let alone US.

"Jack" may not have had the first idea what he was doing - other than that it was "fun", he could do it, and he had never done it before. Spontaneous, not consciously motivated, perverse...

[Tom_Wescott]

However, it is possible that the killer knew of the police interest in photographing the eyes of the deceased so he slit her eyes vertically.

Wow, that's a new idea. It would seem absurd to us today, but as doctors and educated men of the time humored the notion that our eyes record the last thing we see, like a photo, why wouldn't a killer think it possible? 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. And again, that doesn't explain the smaller, clearly intentional inverted V's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The cuts to Eddowes cheek were discussed way back in 2004, long before Gareth published his version of the same argument.

This is the right-side flap of cheek highlited in red...



Created, in my opinion by one sweep of the knife which cut both cheeks and also passed through the bridge of the nose...



At the time I had no idea why the killer would slit the upper & lower eyelids and my argument was not considered all inclusive because of this. However, it is possible that the killer knew of the police interest in photographing the eyes of the deceased so he slit her eyes vertically.

The killer may have assumed he had also slit the eyeballs but Eddowes eyes were closed at the time so he was not to know that he had only slit the eyelids.
That is one possible solution without entertaining 'messages' or strange 'occult designs'.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Want to know what he put on Eddowes face?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Now you're getting all Freudian, Tom! :-) If someone draws random shapes on the sand with their fingers or a stick, or randomly carves shapes on a bank with a knife, it doesn't necessarily contain a message. Unless someone ends up writing a message – like the GSG. Most plausibly he was simply moving his knife upwards from left and right, or possibly the inverted V shapes appealed to him. There's no Vesica Piscis or a satanic pentagram on Eddowes's face (or on MJK's wall).

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a form of communication, Maria. If the cuts were intentional, then they meant something to the killer and say something about him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

{...} other, smaller inverted V’s, made intentionally on her face with the tip of the knife blade. On Eddowes’ left cheek, there is a cut, not too deep. I think this may be the only wound inflicted that was not intentional. The Ripper was communicating something to the police, and us, but that’s not to say it was occult by any means.

Now you're getting all D'Onstonian on us. :-) There was no communication or “secret message“ in the cuts. Most plausibly he was playing with his knife, like drawing random shapes on sand. Even people that cut themselves draw random shapes on their skin. (Or so I've seen.)

[Tom_Wescott]

IT has been VERY plausibly suggested that the V shaped cuts on the cheeks were a side-effect of a simpler attempt - to cut off the nose. There is an excellent post with convincing illustrations somewhere on casebook.

It convinced me and - other than the slits to the eye-lids, don't concern me anymore. Not occult, just accidental.

I’m surprised none of the newer posters noticed this and replied. The work Phil is referring to was published some years ago in Ripperologist magazine by Gareth (Sam Flynn) Williams, if I remember correctly, and largely endorsed by Monty and others. It was subsequently discussed on the boards. If only taking the V’s on the cheeks into the equation, I agree with Phil that it’s a compelling argument. However, the theory overlooks the other, smaller inverted V’s, made intentionally on her face with the tip of the knife blade. On Eddowes’ left cheek, there is a cut, not too deep. I think this may be the only wound inflicted that was not intentional. The Ripper was communicating something to the police, and us, but that’s not to say it was occult by any means.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott