facial mutilations

[protohistorian]

Facial destruction has historically been thought of simply in terms of victim identification. There can be no arguement against this position launched from the perspective of serial murderers because a large subsection of serial killers do at some point kill a victim that is close to them, and consequently, use the behavior of facial mutilation as an oblique way of hiding their identity.

With that caveat aside, repeated exercise of this behavior is an indicator of murderer pathology. In extreme cases of mutilation, they point to an internal conflict within the killer. Facial mutilation becomes a methodology used by thr criminal to reinforce the "inhumanity" of his victim. This particular behavior is frequently present when the killer first is facing the reality that his victims are human. There is within the mind of the killer, a need to eliminate the victims humanity, to allow the killer to view himself as something other than what he is. This is a particularly widespread behavior because the incidents of truly profound mental disorders is rare, and the killer has enough contact to "reality" that he must distance himself from his actions.

In JtR's case, onset of this behavior is displayed on 30 September. This behavior strongly suggests that the killer is undergoing an internal struggle. It also strongly suggests that he knows his connection to "reality" is jeopardized by his behavior. Respectfully Dave

[c.d.]

Hi PH,

On the other hand, with respect to Kate, Jack was able to cut her face without having to get through clothes or go searching for it as say compared to a kidney. Time was of the essence.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Proto and CD,

Yes, time was of the essense, but there's more to the facial mutilations than that. This is evidenced by the fact that he took TWO organs with him, pilfered through her stuff, and took the time to cut the face. However, I imagine he was thinking of time and the risk of discovery when he absonded with her apron piece and left his message in Goulston Street instead of on the wall over her body as I imagine he originally intended.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

The evidence hints at a face first mutilation, a baring?

[Tom_Wescott]

I still think the neck came first.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

I was referring to post mortem.

[Tom_Wescott]

I know, Monty. I have a Ripperologist subscription, remember. Geez, lighten up.

In any event, I would agree that is very possible. And it tells us much about the killer that - above all else- he wanted to cut her face. That might be the only unquestionable communication we have from Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Seeing as a RN subscription is seemingly obsolete you have little option but to hold a Rip one. I agree...your comment about communication.

[Jon Guy]

This particular behavior is frequently present when the killer first is facing the reality that his victims are human. There is within the mind of the killer, a need to eliminate the victims humanity,
In JtR's case, onset of this behavior is displayed on 30 September. This behavior strongly suggests that the killer is undergoing an internal struggle. It also strongly suggests that he knows his connection to "reality" is jeopardized by his behavior.

Dave

Possibly due to my intellect, but I simply see it that our boy liked to cut and slash at flesh. He was cuting at whatever bare skin was available to him, as seen in the case of Kelly.

It was very dark in that corner of Mitre Sq which would have hidden Eddowes features, and as the guys state in the previous threads, he seems to have turned his knife to her face whilst he was positioned in that area after cutting her throat.

[protohistorian]

Dave

Possibly due to my intellect, but I simply see it that our boy liked to cut and slash at flesh. He was cuting at whatever bare skin was available to him, as seen in the case of Kelly.

It was very dark in that corner of Mitre Sq which would have hidden Eddowes features, and as the guys state in the previous threads, he seems to have turned his knife to her face whilst he was positioned in that area after cutting her throat.

Density of knife activity per square inch is orders of magnitude greater.
Respectfully Dave

[kensei]

I have raised this theory before, and it is a bit melodramatic and even a tad controversial, but I think that the increasing attractiveness of the victims is a factor here. I think that it happened as a matter of chance, but that Jack's reaction to it did not. I think that he had a hatred of women and did not like to think of them as beautiful, so if a particular victim's face struck him as being comely he had to destroy it. Polly and Annie were not considered attractive. With Liz, he was frightened off before it mattered. With Kate, she was aging but she was the first victim where you could see that she had been rather pretty once, and she was the first to have her face slashed. Yes the murder happened in the dark, but he had seen her face in the light first. (I think that an idea of what she looked like in life can be gleaned from the photos of her descendants in the book "The Victims of Jack the Ripper" by Neal Stubbings Shelden, especially her great granddaughter Catherine Sarah Hall on pages 87 & 88). Then came Mary, who was considered very pretty by the standards of the time, and her face was completely removed.

I wonder if some might reject this theory because it was espoused by Patricia Cornwell in her description of how Walter Sickert liked to use unattractive girls as artist's models, and I am not at all endorsing him as a suspect with this theory.

[protohistorian]

I have raised this theory before, and it is a bit melodramatic and even a tad controversial, but I think that the increasing attractiveness of the victims is a factor here. I think that it happened as a matter of chance, but that Jack's reaction to it did not. I think that he had a hatred of women and did not like to think of them as beautiful, so if a particular victim's face struck him as being comely he had to destroy it. Polly and Annie were not considered attractive. With Liz, he was frightened off before it mattered. With Kate, she was aging but she was the first victim where you could see that she had been rather pretty once, and she was the first to have her face slashed. Yes the murder happened in the dark, but he had seen her face in the light first. (I think that an idea of what she looked like in life can be gleaned from the photos of her descendants in the book "The Victims of Jack the Ripper" by Neal Stubbings Shelden, especially her great granddaughter Catherine Sarah Hall on pages 87 & 88). Then came Mary, who was considered very pretty by the standards of the time, and her face was completely removed.

I wonder if some might reject this theory because it was espoused by Patricia Cornwell in her description of how Walter Sickert liked to use unattractive girls as artist's models, and I am not at all endorsing him as a suspect with this theory.

I would not dismiss it as it is a viable evaluation. My concern is you have to view people as people before you evaluate their relative beauty. Given the corpus of evidence, there is a very strong possibillity that the killer could not even do that. He is leaving small clues in his behavior that suggest a profoundly self centered worldview. The bueaty of victims could easily what made him see them as humans. If he was targeting the class of prostitute as a whole, noticing their individual comliness could trigger mutilations. Equally possible is the recognition of the victims post mortem. If the killer had seen them before, say at the bar, on the street, his employment, wherever. If we except the later postulate, their is a good chance that the killer "knew" Eddows by sight. Their is a very good chance he knew MJK. Respectfully Dave

[DarkPassenger]

Well, in Whitechapel, it was suggested that the killer knew the victims who had their faces slashed. Seems pretty simple to me. Makes sense too. Occam's Razor?

[protohistorian]

Well, in Whitechapel, it was suggested that the killer knew the victims who had their faces slashed. Seems pretty simple to me. Makes sense too. Occam's Razor?

It is just as valid to conclude mutilations are the result in evolving pathology. Respectfully Dave

[Baron Von Chambers]

What about when he killed Eddowes and removed her nose.
Isn't it that in the advance stages of syphliss your nose falls off and he saw the women as syphilitic degenerates?
I could be wrong, bit of insight anyone?