If say for instance...

[Damaso Marte]

See, here is where a quantitative social scientist could really help advance Ripperology. It is often stated as a fact by posters on this site that facial mutilations mean the killer knew the victim. I hear this statement, and my immediate response obvious to me is "bullshit!", but other people just as intelligent as I hear this statement and it is obvious to them that it is true gospel.

Ultimately, both of us are having gut reactions that are unreliable even if one of us happens to be right. Until somebody brings actual rigor into this discussion, its all about what feels more plausible, and that's subjective.

[Fisherman]

See, here is where a quantitative social scientist could really help advance Ripperology. It is often stated as a fact by posters on this site that facial mutilations mean the killer knew the victim. I hear this statement, and my immediate response obvious to me is "bullshit!", but other people just as intelligent as I hear this statement and it is obvious to them that it is true gospel.

Ultimately, both of us are having gut reactions that are unreliable even if one of us happens to be right. Until somebody brings actual rigor into this discussion, its all about what feels more plausible, and that's subjective.

We donīt need any social scientist for this, Damaso. Personal deeds often involve an effort to obliterate the identity of the victim, and so facial damage belongs to this category in a very obvious way.
The trouble is that we are dealing with a killer that seemingly enjoyed his knifework, and therefore it becomes a lot harder to say whether the facial damage caused on Eddowes and Kelly was led on by a desire to obliterate their persons or by a lust to cut.

The personal element may be there, but it can never be proven as such. To me, carving the uterus out of a woman may well have deep personal implications too. But accepting that a killer had so profound personal issues with a considerable number of women at the same time is something I find a bit troublesome, which is why my money is on the killings probably not being personal.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

The personal element may be there, but it can never be proven as such. To me, carving the uterus out of a woman may well have deep personal implications too. But accepting that a killer had so profound personal issues with a considerable number of women at the same time is something I find a bit troublesome, which is why my money is on the killings probably not being personal.

All the murders were personal, but that doesn't mean he knew the victims. They may have all been mommy, or big sister.

Mike

[RavenDarkendale]

Ravenetc
Who's to say that Kelly's killer was expecting to be taken in doors?

No one. It happened that way. Evidence indicates tht she was murdered and cut up on that bed in that room. Expected or not, who knows? The answer would lie with what kind of deal Kelly usually made with clients--back to the room or off in an alley.

The guy probably allowed the women to choose where to go for the action they thought was to transpire, knowing they would choose somewhere where they would likely be undisturbed.

Fisherman:

He did slash Eddowes' face, yes. Not with the same degree of violence as Kelly. Was it very personal, or a slash or two in the dark that found her face as they struggled?

I concede that Eddowes' murder being personal has merit, and even probability. I just think Kelly's was much more personal. It wasn't just a face slash, it was total obliteration of her as a human being.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Fisherman]

He did slash Eddowes' face, yes. Not with the same degree of violence as Kelly. Was it very personal, or a slash or two in the dark that found her face as they struggled?
I concede that Eddowes' murder being personal has merit, and even probability. I just think Kelly's was much more personal. It wasn't just a face slash, it was total obliteration of her as a human being.
God Bless
Darkendale

Once again, it was not just a slash or two. Eddowes sustained a lot of damage to her face, including nicked eyelids. On BOTH eyes! That does not just come about in a struggle. Moreover, the exact same goes for the sliced-off nose. Itīs not a "whoops, slipped there"-thing.

And, of course, if there had been a struggle, Morris would arguably have heard it. And the PC staying in Mitre Square. But just like in all the Ripper cases, it seems that Eddowes too met with a silent death, perhaps being subdued by means of choking or by compression of the arteries. Whichever applies, there was no struggle. Can you imagine her fighting for her life, having her face cut, without screaming? I know I canīt.

So there you are - he must have subdued her - and probably killed her - BEFORE he cut away at her face. She is therefore just as much - or little - of a personal victim as Kelly is.

And I donīt believe in a killer engaging in a number of relationships over ten weeks that had him exact a personal vengeance on each of them. Just like Mike says, he may well have used the women as substitutes for some female in his past he was angry with, and in that context there may be a personal element involved. But the person it was directed against was not named Eddowes or Kelly in such a case.

All the best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

As for Kate, Dr. Brown stated "the face was very much mutilated."

c.d.

[Fisherman]

As for Kate, Dr. Brown stated "the face was very much mutilated."

c.d.

True enough, c.d! Of course, one may perhaps reason that rather severe mutilation can be collateral damage, as per Raven here.

But carefully nicked eyelids, and a sliced off nose cannot be. So arguing that Eddowes must be less "personal" than Kelly holds no water.

God to see you around, by the way!

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

True enough, c.d! Of course, one may perhaps reason that rather severe mutilation can be collateral damage, as per Raven here.

But carefully nicked eyelids, and a sliced off nose cannot be. So arguing that Eddowes must be less "personal" than Kelly holds no water.

God to see you around, by the way!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

It is an easy mistake to make based on the stunning quality of my posts but sadly I am not God. Thanks for the compliment though.

c.d.

P.S. ...and good to see you posting too, Fish.

[Fisherman]

sadly I am not God.

c.d.

Never mind - we canīt all be.

Fisherman

[Barnaby]

See, here is where a quantitative social scientist could really help advance Ripperology. It is often stated as a fact by posters on this site that facial mutilations mean the killer knew the victim. I hear this statement, and my immediate response obvious to me is "bullshit!", but other people just as intelligent as I hear this statement and it is obvious to them that it is true gospel.

Ultimately, both of us are having gut reactions that are unreliable even if one of us happens to be right. Until somebody brings actual rigor into this discussion, its all about what feels more plausible, and that's subjective.

Excellent idea. As an experimental psychologist, I suppose I could be classified as a quantitative social scientist and certainly have the interest to take up this challenge. Of course, any knucklehead who knows a bit about statistics could answer this question if they had access to a data set of sufficient size, but how do you easily get access to these data? Also, this contention must come from somewhere. Perhaps Quantico has already done this analysis?

[Barnaby]

To clarify:

1. Limit data set to SOLVED CASES involving male on female murder (not necessary, but this would arguably make it most relevant to the Ripper murders) in which a knife (or similar object) was used as either the murder weapon or for mutilations.

2. What percentage of the cases involving unmutilated faces did the killer know the victim?

3. What percentage of the cases involving mutilated faces did the killer know the victim?

Compare #3 versus #2. Of course we would expect that there will be a base rate probability much greater than chance that the killer would know the victim regardless. The question is if #3 is significantly greater than #2. Would that answer the question? As stated above, the question is easy enough to address quantitatively provided access to a data set.

[RavenDarkendale]

Fisherman: The mortuary shots of Kate's body show her face injuries did not completely obliterate her features. You can still tell that she was most likely a pretty woman. That's all I'm saying. The Miller's Court murder obliterated both face and body.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman: The mortuary shots of Kate's body show her face injuries did not completely obliterate her features. You can still tell that she was most likely a pretty woman. That's all I'm saying. The Miller's Court murder obliterated both face and body.

Yes, Raven, I am well aware of this.

I am also aware that cutting a persons face is sometimes tied to a personal deed, since the perpetrator wants to obliterate - to a smaller or lesser degree - the facial features of a person tho whom he has a personal relationship.

That is why I am saying that we cannot go around claiming that Kelly was personal, whereas there was nothing personal involved in the Eddowes deed, as proven by the lesser cuts.

Nor can we say that Eddowes was twenty per cent as personal a deed as Kelly was, since Eddowes only sustained around twenty per cent of the facial damage that Kelly did.

The killer probably had much less time with Eddowes, and he went about his business in a place where anybody could stumble upon him at any time. The mere fact that he STILL took the time to make a number of cuts to her face, including the meticulous nicks to the eyelids, should count for the exact same thing as the cuts to Kellys face, if we want to speak of personal deeds or not. That is all very simple - if cutting Kellys face must have been personal (which it must NOT have), then the EXACT same thing applies in Eddowes case.

End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

There's only so much flesh on a human body. If a killer who delights in slashing flesh is given enough time with a body eventually he will get to the face.

If you start getting into the symbolism of slashing the face, then it only seems logical to ask what cutting the flesh from the thigh represents as well as slicing off the breasts. It would seem if you start down the symbolism road, your journey will be a long one.

c.d.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Fishy Fishy.

Y

....*That is all very simple - if cutting Kellys face must have been personal (which it must NOT have), then the EXACT same thing applies in Eddowes case....



The best,
Fisherman

Thank you Fisherman. Quite nice.