Slicing Mary's Leg: An Act of Rage?

[c.d.]

Maybe by slicing her leg Joe was sending a clear message...that'll teach her to walk out on me. And by ripping out her intestines, he was saying I can't stomach what she did to me. And by...well, you get the point.

As Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

c.d.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Based on the locations of the killings and sightings, Dr Rossmo concluded that the Ripper was a resident of the square mile area in which he killed. He is most likely to have lived in Flower and Dean Street - where police in 1888 had conducted out door-to-door inquiries. In the year before the murders each of the victims had lived within 100 yards of the street.

"He's someone who's been overlooked by the virtue of the fact he's so ordinary and so mundane."

BW

The face is the person

Morning Sam,....well g'day anyway.

Thanks for posting that excerpt. One note on an earlier reply you gave, heartmeat may well be delicious....Ill have to trust you on that like I trust sources that tell me monkey brains are good too...... But he excises Liver and Kidneys too...and they stay behind. Is this sort of like the discriminating palate Dr Lecter had in your thinking? Sweetmeats over Liver?

You know that drinking heart blood from a hunting kill has for many cultures signified a bond between predator and prey...or a means to acquire the experiences, strengths or characteristics of the victim.

I can see that the evidence regarding her "defensive" wounds might be subject to different interpretations, but when coupled with the start point....when he slits her throat, she is near to the right side of the bed, POV is facing the fireplace.....and has sheets that appear to be cut and slashed in that particular area, I dont see the evidence suggesting she was semi-conscious or less than that. If she was not conscious and resisting, there would no real need to have a sheet over her face, if thats how that occurred.

And its not like her face was slashed as a result of him trying to flail at her throat through a sheet...the sheets didnt seem to have that severity of damage... to my reading eye anyway.

I thought about these cases off line last night, and theres the interesting facet that only 2 Canonical victims received wounds that had nothing to do with female sexuality, abdomens, organ removal, throat cutting or intestine severing. As you have pointed out, Catherine Eddowes chevron shaped facial cuts may just have been a result of how he used the knife to almost sever her nose......regardless its clear he was trying to cut her nose......and Mary also had disfiguring damage done to her face, much more severe.

In Kates case, this may have been done at the expense of other cuts he might have made based on his very short exposure to her while on the ground, so it seems he felt it was something that he wanted to do that time......because by no means were they cuts he had to make.

Marys face was probably not slashed solely as a result of him flailing at her throat...so it seems he took extra deliberate time to do that.

If this was Jack the Rippers work, what explanations might there be for the fact he begins on the 4th victim to disfigure the facial features ....a compulsion he evidently cant control at all with his 5th, Mary.

Might him having some thoughts about "recognition" have something to do with that?

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I ain't read Mary's bio on here in a while so you're gonna have to refresh my memory, but what is there to suggest that Mary was slashed when alive

You're quite right to raise the question, MP. Indeed, there's no evidence that Kelly's face was slashed whilst she was alive. However, Dr Bond reports that there was a small incision on her right thumb, and some abrasions to the back of her right hand, which showed extravasation of blood into the skin. The presence of extravasation has been taken to indicate that Kelly was alive when those wounds were inflicted, and I've always believed that to be the case, based on what I've read in various Ripper books. However, a quick Google will show that extravasation of blood isn't restricted to living persons, as the following abstract from a medical journal shows:

"Postmortem extravasation of blood potentially simulating antemortem bruising" - American Journal of Forensic and Medical Pathology (1998)

A case of florid postmortem extravasation of blood, potentially simulating antemortem bruising, is presented. A 98-year-old woman died in hospital, the cause of death being certified as congestive cardiac failure. After burial, it was apparent that the grave had been disturbed by crowbars and shovels. Exhumation was performed and autopsy revealed considerable apparent facial bruising as well as lacerations and fractures. There was no documentation by the medical or nursing staff of any injuries to the deceased preceding death. There was also no documentation of injury by the funeral directors. Subsequently, two men admitted to removing the body from the grave and mutilating it. Thus, what was apparently facial bruising was, in fact, postmortem extravasation of blood simulating antemortem bruising. The degree of extravasation was considered to be related to the severity of the injuries, loose subcutaneous tissues of the head and neck, and dependent position of the body upon return to the grave. This case demonstrates the degree of postmortem extravasation of blood that may occur in particular circumstances and may simulate antemortem bruising. In other circumstances, the postmortem extravasation of blood may well have led investigators to pursue inquiries regarding homicide.

(Authors: Burke, Olumbe and Opeskin, Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, Australia.)

So extravasation doesn't appear to be a concrete indicator of ante- or peri-mortem injury, and perhaps the cut/abrasions on Kelly's right thumb and hand needn't have been defense wounds after all. That notwithstanding, there's certainly no indication that Kelly's face was slashed whilst she was still alive.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Since it would appear that the Killer in Room 13...which might be my book title someday come to think of it....started the attack with a knife...for the first time if Jack....Marys face would be right close to her neck wouldnt it? The facial slashes were likely a part of the initial attack and while severing her throat arteries he slashes her face.

He attacks a conscious woman with a knife, attacks her with the knife while she resists, and before cutting anywhere else, he feels the need to ruin the face first.

Yep...thats Jacks established MO in a nutshell.

I ain't read Mary's bio on here in a while so you're gonna have to refresh my memory, but what is there to suggest that Mary was slashed when alive and that her face was first to go? Is that what the doctors/coronors concluded? I never understood where that scenario came from. If that is how she died, then surely she would've screamed a bit more than 'oh, murder!' (which I'm kind of of the opinion that that was fabricated). Even if so, wasn't Eddowes' face mutilated first too? And there's more proof to indicate that was the case with her murder than Mary's, due to how 'messy' Jack's hands would've been. There were no traces of that on Eddowes' face, so unless Jack wiped his hands clean on her clothes before slashing away at her facial features, then it's a safe bet to assume that that's the first mutilation he performed on her corpse.

As for Jack's change in M.O. in Room 13, well, do you really think that he would get her standing up in her room, strangle her to the floor and cut her throat and then carry out the mutilations in that spot? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to have at it with her on the bed?

[Sam Flynn]

Summation is that there at indications a "killed by a lover" scenario might well be supportable.

Or a hungry killer. Heart meat is delicious.

Hi Wizzard,

If cutting Mary's face signified a personal relationship, what is the significance of slicing her leg and pulling out her intestines?

c.d.

Interesting that you ask....because he only pulls intestines out of former victims when he is seeking to obtain abdominal organs that will be easier to access by doing so. And slicing her leg to her ankle....or defleshing the other thigh would have no significance at all to Pollys, Annie and Kates killer(s) by his, or their, actions taken.

Ruining a face when killed by a former lover isnt rare or even odd in those kinds of crimes, and taking a heart has symbolic significance...the kind that you just dont get from a kidney.

Summation is that there at indications a "killed by a lover" scenario might well be supportable.

Cheers cd

[Sam Flynn]

So....whats your version of how he gets them to lie down voluntarily Sam?

I really don't know, Mike. I'm not even sure that he didn't cut their throats whilst they were standing up - let's face it, it's tricky to use a 6" or longer knife to cut a throat if the head is close to a hard floor without also blunting the point of the blade. It's doubly difficult to continue that cut around the neck to any appreciable depth if you're standing or crouching over the surface you're cutting into, with your wrist cocked down. Give it a try - although obviously not on a real person - it's not as easy as it sounds.

We don't know that, Mike. Only Chapman appears to have shown possible signs of asphyxia, and even that's not been established beyond doubt.

Polly, Annie, and Kate had their throats slit while they lay on the ground, according to evidence and opinion. Without obvious struggle to get them there. They were not drugged.

So....whats your version of how he gets them to lie down voluntarily Sam?

And interestingly enough.... the 2 most suspect inclusions in the Canonical Group may have not been compliant or laying down semi or unconscious when he uses his knife on them. In all 3 others, the knife comes out only when they are down and not fighting back.

That would mean in practical terms he uses one type of method with the first, the same with the second, he deviates on the third in a few ways, returns to his old MO but adds a twist with the 4th, then throws away almost all of his former methodolgy used on 1, 2 and 4 and moves on to 5, opting to begin with the knife as in #3, but add some mutilations never seen before or after by him "just for the jolly".

Youd think he would have recognized one of those methods worked better than the other...even flawlessly it seems, the others end with no mutilations at all, or a meaningless blood bath.

Cheers Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

Since it would appear that the Killer in Room 13 started the attack with a knife...for the first time if Jack

We don't know that, Mike. Only Chapman appears to have shown possible signs of asphyxia, and even that's not been established beyond doubt.

Since it would appear that the Killer in Room 13...which might be my book title someday come to think of it....started the attack with a knife...for the first time if Jack....Marys face would be right close to her neck wouldnt it? The facial slashes were likely a part of the initial attack and while severing her throat arteries he slashes her face.

He attacks a conscious woman with a knife, attacks her with the knife while she resists, and before cutting anywhere else, he feels the need to ruin the face first.

Yep...thats Jacks established MO in a nutshell.

Since he abandons almost every aspect of his former attacks, must have confused the hell of him after...like the suppositions that facial injuries caused by a knife while killing.. when connected with what may well be romantic involvement... are not almost expected confuse me.

Best regards all.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

But, Wizzard, going by that argument you must believe that Eddowes' murder was also personal, regarding the facial mutilations.

To me, MJK's death seems like the 'natural' progression/escalation of Jack's rippings.

Yes you are correct about Eddowes.

As to MJK because I believe Jack did not do it, the only Progression for the killer was the follow up of the rage.

BW

[BLUE WIZZARD]

... not to mention completely removing the flesh from her abdomen in panels, cutting the muscles from between her stripped ribs, and scoring a deep gash down the inside of her left calf. Compared to the carnage wrought elsewhere on her body, her face really fared no worse.

Sam,

He was not satisfied with just cutting her face up, the rest was simply a follow up of his anger and rage.

Sam,

Kein Nachdenken auf Ihnen, aber einigen der Leute auf dieser Seite ist einfach im Verstehen der Wut, zwischen Ihnen und mir ungebildet, es treibt mich das verrückte Versuchen zu erklären, was ein grundlegendes Verstehen dessen sein sollte, über welches persönliche Wut alles ist.

BW

[Sam Flynn]

If cutting Mary's face signified a personal relationship, what is the significance of slicing her leg and pulling out her intestines?

... not to mention completely removing the flesh from her abdomen in panels, cutting the muscles from between her stripped ribs, and scoring a deep gash down the inside of her left calf. Compared to the carnage wrought elsewhere on her body, her face really fared no worse.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

But, Wizzard, going by that argument you must believe that Eddowes' murder was also personal, regarding the facial mutilations.

To me, MJK's death seems like the 'natural' progression/escalation of Jack's rippings.