Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

[Fisherman]

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?

I am kind of thinking that if the facial damage came about as the result of Eddowes putting up a fight, then she would have screamed at the top of her voice and she would likely have had extensive defensive wounds on her arms and hands. Neither of these things were true, and that will owe to how she was incapacitated/dead as the killer set about cutting her abdomen open. Why he would repeatedly slip and accidentally cut her face in that process is something I am having a hard time to grasp; I think it is the first time I have seen it suggested, and with any luck, it is also the last time.

I think it was Gareth Williams who pointed out that there is no mentioning of any feces in the wounds of the face, and since we know that the killerīs knife cut Eddowes in a way that put feces into play, so to speak, this detail speaks in favour of the face having been cut after the abdominal cutting was over.

As for theories, I know that some will have it that cutting the face must point to the killer being aquainted with the victim. While this MAY be so, it is by no means a certain thing. I donīt think there was any deep personal connection at all between the killer and any of his victims. And even if there was such a connection, it does not change the fact that Eddowes was opened up from ribs to groin and eviscerated, and that is something the very fewest of killers will do.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am kind of thinking that if the facial damage came about as the result of Eddowes putting up a fight, then she would have screamed at the top of her voice and she would likely have had extensive defensive wounds on her arms and hands. Neither of these things were true, and that will owe to how she was incapacitated/dead as the killer set about cutting her abdomen open. Why he would repeatedly slip and accidentally cut her face in that process is something I am having a hard time to grasp; I think it is the first time I have seen it suggested, and with any luck, it is also the last time.

No, sorry to disappoint you it's not the last time, if the killer attacked the victim from behind then he would have had one hand over her mouth to prevent her crying out, and at the same time using his strength to restrain her and with the other hand attempting to cut her throat, and although she was being restrained she would have still had some movement in her head to try to evade the sweeps of the killer's knife.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No, sorry to disappoint you it's not the last time, if the killer attacked the victim from behind then he would have had one hand over her mouth to prevent her crying out, and at the same time using his strength to restrain her and with the other hand attempting to cut her throat, and although she was being restrained she would have still had some movement in her head to try to evade the sweeps of the killer's knife.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

... that, by way of pure accident, happened to nick both of her eyelids.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No, sorry to disappoint you it's not the last time, if the killer attacked the victim from behind then he would have had one hand over her mouth to prevent her crying out, and at the same time using his strength to restrain her and with the other hand attempting to cut her throat, and although she was being restrained she would have still had some movement in her head to try to evade the sweeps of the killer's knife.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Were the cuts to the eyelids, vertical or horizontal?

[Fisherman]

Were the cuts to the eyelids, vertical or horizontal?

Here you go:

https://photos.casebook.org/displayimage7d81.html?album=35&pos=9

[Trevor Marriott]

Here you go:
https://photos.casebook.org/displayi...album=35&pos=9

I am sure those cut to both the eyelids and the cheeks were not as precise as they have been recorded, and I believe they were recorded at the mortuary and not at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormariott.co.uk

[Prosector]

Fisherman,
I was just saying that I have no strong feelings (or way of knowing) whether all or most or some of the facial wounds were accidental and personally I find it a bit fruitless to speculate any further (I'm not saying other people shouldn't if they feel so inclined, it's just that I personally don't feel moved to spend time pondering on something that can't be proved one way or the other). We know the guy was a psychopath and therefore capable of such things. The one aspect that does interest me is the fact that he apparently spared MJK's eyes although doing a very thorough job on the rest of her face. That is partly why I think that the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids may have been accidental rather than deliberate. When I was an active surgeon the only part of the body that I ever felt in the slightest bit squeamish about operating on were the eyes and that is a feeling shared by a lot of other (non ophthalmic) surgeons. It is the sensation of having them apparently looking at you whilst you stick a knife or a needle into them that I found disconcerting. Maybe, just maybe, Jack had that tiny bit of humanity left?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I was just saying that I have no strong feelings (or way of knowing) whether all or most or some of the facial wounds were accidental and personally I find it a bit fruitless to speculate any further (I'm not saying other people shouldn't if they feel so inclined, it's just that I personally don't feel moved to spend time pondering on something that can't be proved one way or the other). We know the guy was a psychopath and therefore capable of such things. The one aspect that does interest me is the fact that he apparently spared MJK's eyes although doing a very thorough job on the rest of her face. That is partly why I think that the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids may have been accidental rather than deliberate. When I was an active surgeon the only part of the body that I ever felt in the slightest bit squeamish about operating on were the eyes and that is a feeling shared by a lot of other (non ophthalmic) surgeons. It is the sensation of having them apparently looking at you whilst you stick a knife or a needle into them that I found disconcerting. Maybe, just maybe, Jack had that tiny bit of humanity left?

It is a possible line of reasoning, and it would of course be welcome if there was a little heartwarming something about him.

Sadly, I donīt think there is. I think he had another reason altogether for not damaging the eyes in the Kelly and Eddowes cases. I see the nicks not as something that risked the eyes but instead as a parallel to Kelly: damage done that seemingly should have involved the eyeballs - but they were miraculously left undamaged in both cases. Of course, we donīt have it in black and white that there was no such damage at all, but it certainly seems to be the case.

A psychopath? Yes, you and I are agreed about that, and so you can write that "we" know it. But I can tell you that the last time I told people out here that the killer was a psychopath, the reaction was to tell me that there is no evidence for it. I think there is such evidence, and although you donīt think that it can be proven either way if the facial damage was accidental or deliberate, Iīd say that the character of some of the cuts puts it beyond reasonable doubt that they were deliberate. If thatīs just me, then so be it.

[Joshua Rogan]

Fisherman,
I was just saying that I have no strong feelings (or way of knowing) whether all or most or some of the facial wounds were accidental and personally I find it a bit fruitless to speculate any further (I'm not saying other people shouldn't if they feel so inclined, it's just that I personally don't feel moved to spend time pondering on something that can't be proved one way or the other). We know the guy was a psychopath and therefore capable of such things. The one aspect that does interest me is the fact that he apparently spared MJK's eyes although doing a very thorough job on the rest of her face. That is partly why I think that the nicks on Eddowes's eyelids may have been accidental rather than deliberate. When I was an active surgeon the only part of the body that I ever felt in the slightest bit squeamish about operating on were the eyes and that is a feeling shared by a lot of other (non ophthalmic) surgeons. It is the sensation of having them apparently looking at you whilst you stick a knife or a needle into them that I found disconcerting. Maybe, just maybe, Jack had that tiny bit of humanity left?

Do you think the nicks to the eyelids are consistent with the killer closing her eyes with the tip of his knife.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Are you suggesting that the cut to the bridge of her nose was accidental? Or that peripheral wounds were?

Kates killer didnt show any particular knife skills or knowledge, in fact the 2 foot colon section, her face, and some other wounds made indicate he did not share the skill set of Annies killer. Then you add the fact that its probable that the reason he cut and tore the apron section was to carry off bits,...so...if thats why he kills, cause it is why Annies killer killed, then why is he unprepared for it? Why would he use up precious seconds doing something he could have been ready to do when he first entered the square?

[Fisherman]

I am sure those cut to both the eyelids and the cheeks were not as precise as they have been recorded, and I believe they were recorded at the mortuary and not at the crime scene.

www.trevormariott.co.uk

Do you have any reason for the claim that the damage was not faithfully recorded, Trevor? And any suggestion how it would actually have looked? And a reason for why we should not trust the material other than the usual one: that it does not fit our own conceptions? Was it common practice to make a sloppy job of these things or to intentionally misrepresent matters? Any (substantiable) ideas on those questions?

[Fisherman]

Do you think the nicks to the eyelids are consistent with the killer closing her eyes with the tip of his knife.

Iīve seen that suggestion before, Joshua. Would not such a thing have been done with the broad side of the blade facing the eyes, and not with the edge of it doing so? And would not the tip of the knife have "locked" to the lid with little or no cutting effect as he did it?

Hereīs a weird suggestion: What if her eyes were already closed, and the killer used the thumb and forefinger of his free hand to lift the eyelids from the surface of the eyeball and then cut the eyelid open, with the intention to make the eyes visible? A long shot, I know, but I feel it could perhaps fit the strange damage done.

[Fisherman]

Can Prosector tell us whether it would be possible to apply the pressure with a blade needed to cut through the eyelids and then NOT damage the underlying eyeball as the blade passed through the eyelid?
Not being a medico, my gut feeling is that the blade would have travelled into the eye with such an operation, unless the surface of the eye is tougher than the skin of the eyelid.
Of course, a razor sharp knife would perhaps be more likely to do the job than a dull one - but is it even possible?

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you have any reason for the claim that the damage was not faithfully recorded, Trevor? And any suggestion how it would actually have looked? And a reason for why we should not trust the material other than the usual one: that it does not fit our own conceptions? Was it common practice to make a sloppy job of these things or to intentionally misrepresent matters? Any (substantiable) ideas on those questions?

If the drawing was taken many hours after, then the body goes through a change, things that were visible at the time become less visible and as the body goes through the rigor mortis process.

There is also the question that these nicks to the eyelids were not seen or recorded at the crime scene, they were only seen at the post mortem stage many hours later and if as has been suggested that medical student could have been responsible for the removal of the organs then who is to say that they did not as a prank make the cuts to the eyelids, these are equally plausible explanations as is the belief that the killer did them at the scene.

And of course, more importantly, there is no evidence of this taking place in any of the other victims a point which should not be ignored!!

We have a killer who we can firmly say kills by cutting the throats and mutilates the victims in secluded quiet locations these are the main common factors, the removal of the organs, the so-called cutting of the apron and all the other insignificant aspects of these murders are secondary because they are not apparent in all the other murders and leaves us asking the question were they attributable to the killer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If the drawing was taken many hours after, then the body goes through a change, things that were visible at the time become less visible and as the body goes through the rigor mortis process.

There is also the question that these nicks to the eyelids were not seen or recorded at the crime scene, they were only seen at the post mortem stage many hours later and if as has been suggested that medical student could have been responsible for the removal of the organs then who is to say that they did not as a prank make the cuts to the eyelids, these are equally plausible explanations as is the belief that the killer did them at the scene.

And of course, more importantly, there is no evidence of this taking place in any of the other victims a point which should not be ignored!!

We have a killer who we can firmly say kills by cutting the throats and mutilates the victims in secluded quiet locations these are the main common factors, the removal of the organs, the so-called cutting of the apron and all the other insignificant aspects of these murders are secondary because they are not apparent in all the other murders and leaves us asking the question were they attributable to the killer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, it is not "equally plausible" that a prankster made the cuts to the eyelids. Thatīs not how it works. If we have a murder victim we know has been subjected to sharp violence, then each and every damage caused by sharp damage to the body is very much more likely to have been caused at the murder site than by some prankster. And in this case, we KNOW that the killer cut the face - unless you are suggesting that all the facial cuts were the result of a merry prankster cutting away at the morgue...?

I find it hard to believe that you must have things like these explained to you.

The fact that the damage was not noticed at the site is not very strange, is it? Her face would have been bloodied and small nicks are very easily hidden in such a case.

The fact of the matter is that the representation we have is with great certainty faithful to what was noted, and in the eyelid case, we have vertical cuts to the lids. How that would have changed due to a rigor we donīt even know had set in when the sketch was made is something you need to explain to us. Were the wounds horizontal before the rigor? Or circle shaped?