Eddowes V-shape wounds are scissors I think

[Batman]

Thanks, Trevor, but I've said all I need to say about the inverted "V" wounds in a Ripperologist article years ago, and I see no reason to revise my position on them. So, instead of elaborating in words, I'll let a picture do the talking for me:

[ATTACH]18829[/ATTACH]

That inverted "V" could obviously have been produced by a single downward slice, as it most certainly was.

The lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through. In that photo it looks like the ear is back. It's a bit hard to tell.

[Batman]

https://www.casebook.org/images/rip73-photo1.jpg

So basically the Vs come from the tip of the knife cutting through the nose? They are incidental.

But they are on both sides of her face, under each eye.

[Fisherman]

Well, it was all deliberate, I guess, in that he intended to inflict damage. But there was no "grand design" in any of it as far as I can see. I seem to remember writing that article in response to a number of discussions about the "clown's mask" and various attempts to read symbolism into the wounds - stuff which I refuted then, and still do now.

Well, then we can refute the clowns mask together, I guess! However, there are other inclusions that - taken together - form a very tantalizing suggestion of something else that was anything but accidental. More on that in the future...

[Fisherman]

https://www.casebook.org/images/rip73-photo1.jpg

So basically the Vs come from the tip of the knife cutting through the nose? They are incidental.

But they are on both sides of her face, under each eye.

They are - and a combination of a longish blade (keep in mind what Bagster Phillips suggested) and protruding cheek bones à la Eddowes forms a very good ground for that.

Incidental? Yes, entirely - which is always unexpected to some degree when we are dealing with symmetric wounds. But there you are.

[Batman]

They are - and a combination of a longish blade (keep in mind what Bagster Phillips suggested) and protruding cheek bones à la Eddowes forms a very good ground for that.

Incidental? Yes, entirely - which is always unexpected to some degree when we are dealing with symmetric wounds. But there you are.

Okay, I understand how the article writers believe its the tip of the knife making these incidentally as the nose is cut... but the Vs are on both sides.

So let's say the one under her left eye-lid was made by a knife tip traveling from the right side of her nose. How does the one under her right eye-lid get made?

[MrBarnett]

Jon and I arrived at our conclusions independently, although I didn't twig that the infliction of the wounds might have coincided with the attempted cutting off of the nose - that ingenious suggestion was entirely Jon's. However, we both maintained that the wounds were an accidental byproduct of a slicing action of the knife, and not deliberately written/drawn on the skin.

For those who haven't read it, my dissertation - which covers a lot more than the cheek wounds - can be found here on Casebook:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...or-design.html

I hadn't read that before. Nice work, Gareth.

It kicks my idea that two inverted Vs = W for Wolverhampton into touch, though.
😬

[Fisherman]

Okay, I understand how the article writers believe its the tip of the knife making these incidentally as the nose is cut... but the Vs are on both sides.

So let's say the one under her left eye-lid was made by a knife tip traveling from the right side of her nose. How does the one under her right eye-lid get made?

Have another look at Jons sketch, Batman. It´s all there.

[Fisherman]

I hadn't read that before. Nice work, Gareth.

It kicks my idea that two inverted Vs = W for Wolverhampton into touch, though.
��

What happened to them? Wolves?

[Batman]

Have another look at Jons sketch, Batman. It´s all there.

I saw how one side was made in the series of sketches. The one under her right eye. Did he do a sketch for the left also?

[MrBarnett]

What happened to them? Wolves?

There's a possible Wolverhampton connection between Kate Eddowes and Henry Tomkins - via a man named Jesse Croote. It's a long story, and there is actually a wolf in it.

[Fisherman]

I saw how one side was made in the series of sketches. The one under her right eye. Did he do a sketch for the left also?

You need to look again. Post 69, second sketch from the top. Both cheeks, both flaps. Promise!

[Fisherman]

There's a possible Wolverhampton connection between Kate Eddowes and Henry Tomkins - via a man named Jesse Croote. It's a long story, and there is actually a wolf in it.

You must treat me to it some time, Gary. It sounds very interesting. I somehow seem to remember the name Croote; have you discussed him before?

[MrBarnett]

You must treat me to it some time, Gary. It sounds very interesting. I somehow seem to remember the name Croote; have you discussed him before?

Yes, he was the boyfriend of Kate's cousin, Sarah Eddowes. It's a fairly tenuous connection.

Incidentally, there was also a Croot(e) living at the same address in Mary Ann Street as Ma Lechmere in 1871 (from memory). It's a fairly unusual name, so there may be a connection there, too, but probably not.

[Batman]

You need to look again. Post 69, second sketch from the top. Both cheeks, both flaps. Promise!

https://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3405&d=1223002499

Ah, okay I see now. I really didn't expect to see that both are being done in one movement. It is a nice illustration but I don't think this is how they were made.

I think the idea that both wounds were made in one movement is a bit unlikely given JtR made the wounds over each eye-lid by deliberately going to each part of the cheek under the eye. So he was going back and forth on them.

In the illustration, the edge (middle) of the knife is on the bridge of the nose first. The heel (blade near handle) and tip (blade near point) will not be making contact with either upper cheeks at the same time. It would be pivoting on the nose.

You would have to tip back towards the heel or upwards towards the point to touch either cheek. So the knife would be pointing either up or down to reach each side.

However, if they saw straight down, the focal point of pressure would be on the knife edge cutting down, sawing until it hit the bone. It would have to be a straight knife, not curved to be making contact with both checks.

Yet it is a sawing motion of the cut that makes this cut go down. The slice in the illustration is a chop rather than a sawing motion. It is hard to imagine how sawing motions could even 'peel' two u-shapes let alone v-shapes. Would slicing do this also? I think this could easily be replicated in a video if it were possible. I'd watch a demonstration.

[Batman]

BTW - I think it's not a bad explanation at all, but I would like to see it being done to know for sure. Plus it looks like this explanation can actually be demonstrated.