Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

[Fisherman]

I agree with Trevor that the Eddowes's facial wounds were probably accidental and incurred during the killing or the dissection that followed although I wouldn't totally exclude them being deliberate.

You´re a medico, right? Any idea how two nicks to the eyelids could possibly be accidental? How does a knife accidentally jump from dissecting the abdomen to nicking both eyelids? I cannot for the life of me see that happening.

[DJA]

[Trevor Marriott]

Youre talking about Kate right? Not Mary?

Yes Kate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You´re a medico, right? Any idea how two nicks to the eyelids could possibly be accidental? How does a knife accidentally jump from dissecting the abdomen to nicking both eyelids? I cannot for the life of me see that happening.

The throat was clearly cut first and so the cuts to the eyelids formed part of the killers attempt to immobilise the victims who could have been throwing her head about to avoid the knife

Of course, there is another explanation that is the body was tampered with at the mortuary and the eyelid cuts inflicted by those who removed the organs as I do not see of any record of the nicked eyelids being seen at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Primary biliary cholangitis - Wikipedia

The first report of the disease dates back 1851 by Addison and Gull who described a clinical picture of progressive jaundice in the absence of mechanical obstruction of the large bile ducts.


Xanthelasma - Wikipedia

[Aelric]

I could more easily accept the idea that the facial wounds inflicted upon Catherine Eddowes were accidental if it weren't for the fact that the two cuts to her eyelids were done without damaging the eyeballs beneath them. That isn't to say it would be impossible, because of course it isn't, but I would have expected one or both eyeballs to have been nicked or outright popped by the blade if they were entirely accidentally done.

As to them signifying something or meaning something, does it have to have a meaning that we can discern? The killer wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders, no matter who he was, else he wouldn't have been cutting up women in the first place. Perhaps it just amused him?

[caz]

As to them signifying something or meaning something, does it have to have a meaning that we can discern? The killer wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders, no matter who he was, else he wouldn't have been cutting up women in the first place. Perhaps it just amused him?

Quite so, Aelric. It's like trying to find meaning in the GSG, in the event that the killer wrote it, above where he dropped the apron piece. Maybe that amused him too. A private joke alluding to Leather Apron?

Who knows what went on in the mind of someone who could do what was done to Eddowes that night? He wasn't exactly right in the head.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

The throat was clearly cut first and so the cuts to the eyelids formed part of the killers attempt to immobilise the victims who could have been throwing her head about to avoid the knife

Of course, there is another explanation that is the body was tampered with at the mortuary and the eyelid cuts inflicted by those who removed the organs as I do not see of any record of the nicked eyelids being seen at the crime scene.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It would be the first time I ever heard about somebody immobilizing a victim by nicking both of her eyelids. Of course, they say there´s a fist time to everything, but I didn´t see this one coming ...

[Fisherman]

I could more easily accept the idea that the facial wounds inflicted upon Catherine Eddowes were accidental if it weren't for the fact that the two cuts to her eyelids were done without damaging the eyeballs beneath them. That isn't to say it would be impossible, because of course it isn't, but I would have expected one or both eyeballs to have been nicked or outright popped by the blade if they were entirely accidentally done.

As to them signifying something or meaning something, does it have to have a meaning that we can discern? The killer wasn't exactly firing on all cylinders, no matter who he was, else he wouldn't have been cutting up women in the first place. Perhaps it just amused him?

What´s this? Sense? How nice!!

[Prosector]

Whilst I tend to think that most if not all the facial wounds were accidental rather than deliberate I do not have any strong grounds for saying that, nor do I think that it is particularly relevant except insofar as it might indicate a rehearsal for what he knew would come next with MJK. We know he was a psycopath and facial mutilations are what psychopaths do (at least some of them). As a matter of fact I think that the eyelid nicks were the most likely to be accidental because the eyelids being extremely soft, it would only take momentary contact with the pointed tip of a sharp knife to cause them as opposed to the nasal wounds which penetrated right into the bone indicating a fair amount of force. But does it matter? The man was a psychopath building up to his grand finale so why should these wounds surprise us? Unlike the abdominal dissection or the throat cutting they do not display any surgical skill or anatomical knowledge.

[Fisherman]

Whilst I tend to think that most if not all the facial wounds were accidental rather than deliberate I do not have any strong grounds for saying that, nor do I think that it is particularly relevant except insofar as it might indicate a rehearsal for what he knew would come next with MJK. We know he was a psycopath and facial mutilations are what psychopaths do (at least some of them). As a matter of fact I think that the eyelid nicks were the most likely to be accidental because the eyelids being extremely soft, it would only take momentary contact with the pointed tip of a sharp knife to cause them as opposed to the nasal wounds which penetrated right into the bone indicating a fair amount of force. But does it matter? The man was a psychopath building up to his grand finale so why should these wounds surprise us? Unlike the abdominal dissection or the throat cutting they do not display any surgical skill or anatomical knowledge.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I believe Eddowes' facial wounds were deliberately made, just as I think Kelly´s wounds to the face were. And I don´t think it is even remotely likely that a killer will accidentally nick both eyelids of a victim in as delicate a fashion as was the case here.
You say that psychopaths are likely to mutilate faces and that our man was a psychopath. How that combination of suggestions takes you to a stance where Eddowes´ facial wounds were accidental is something I find a tad strange.

[Prosector]

Please read what I said. My own opinion is that some if not all of the wounds could have been accidental but I have no strong feelings about it. MJK's were clearly deliberate but I just don't see where splitting hairs about whether the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids were deliberate or accidental gets us. There have been many different opinions about that over the years. As I said, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the Eddowe's facial mutilations may have been a rehearsal for MJK.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Please read what I said. My own opinion is that some if not all of the wounds could have been accidental but I have no strong feelings about it. MJK's were clearly deliberate but I just don't see where splitting hairs about whether the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids were deliberate or accidental gets us. There have been many different opinions about that over the years. As I said, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the Eddowe's facial mutilations may have been a rehearsal for MJK.

I suppose the relevance is dependent on particular theories, as I'm sure we're all aware Michael Richards places much relevance on them because it could indicate a specific type of attack, which in turn relates to providing evidence of Eddowes not being killed by 'Jack'. So in that regard, it would be very relevant.

Likewise, although I consider Kate as another victim of the same killer, the move to facial injury, if deliberate, gives us a bit of a glimpse into the psychology of the killer, so its worth some thought at any rate.

I'd always imagined defensive/unintentional injury would be more horizontal, given the sideways movement of the head in trying to get away from the blade?

[DJA]

Likewise, although I consider Kate as another victim of the same killer, the move to facial injury, if deliberate, gives us a bit of a glimpse into the psychology of the killer, so its worth some thought at any rate.

We await this glimpse with bated breath, Dr Shoe.

[Fisherman]

Please read what I said. My own opinion is that some if not all of the wounds could have been accidental but I have no strong feelings about it. MJK's were clearly deliberate but I just don't see where splitting hairs about whether the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids were deliberate or accidental gets us. There have been many different opinions about that over the years. As I said, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the Eddowe's facial mutilations may have been a rehearsal for MJK.

I actually did read what you said. You said - and you now reiterate - "Whilst I tend to think that most if not all the facial wounds were accidental rather than deliberate..."

You also said that "As a matter of fact I think that the eyelid nicks were the most likely to be accidental because the eyelids being extremely soft, it would only take momentary contact with the pointed tip of a sharp knife to cause them..."

All in all, this was what I disagre with: generally, that yu are thinbking that the wounds are more likely to be accidental than deliberate, and specifically that the nicks to the eyelids are the wounds MOST likely to be accidental.

I simply disagree very much with the suggestion that the facial wounds - any of them - were accidental, because if they were, then we have a killer who specifically targetted the abdominal area and it´s organs, and who - accidentally - happened to nick the eyelids of his victim as he was taking her kidney and womb out.

I´m glad you accept the possibility that he did what he did with an underlying intention, however. That may well be so, you know.