Faecal matter on apron piece

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. So you are a two cut man?

That is my cue for you and Cris Malone to start a thread on the number of cuts to Kate's throat. Might be great to get a consensus.

Cheers.
LC

Is there a Physician in the house?

Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Doctor, Doctor!

Hello Jon. That reminds me of the old joke, "I asked, 'Is there a doctor in the house?' and 2 PhD's and an EdD showed up." (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

Lynn: if no previous Whitechapel killing had facial mutilations, why would a copycat perform facial mutilations?

[lynn cates]

nosing about

Hello Damaso. Thanks. Excellent question.

Two quick questions in reply.

1. Which part of her face was specifically targeted? (Ie, it took two goes to properly mutilate.)

2. With what activity/ies is that prominent part associated--I mean colloquially?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Damaso. Thanks. Excellent question.

Two quick questions in reply.

1. Which part of her face was specifically targeted? (Ie, it took two goes to properly mutilate.)

2. With what activity/ies is that prominent part associated--I mean colloquially?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,

If I can be permitted to answer ahead of Damaso.
(1) Eyelids and nose.
(2) Nose - colloquially - involving oneself in business which is not one's own concern? If the suggestion is that she was an informer of some sort, why was her mouth not also targetted?

What happened to her nose btw? Was it found at the scene? I don't recall reading that it was.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Back to some proper debating, as opposed to the mire I've been treading in lately....

Colin,

There's a news report in which Watkins describes her nose as being open and laying upon her cheek.

I seems it was stitched back in place.

Monty

[lynn cates]

facial anatomy

Hello Colin. Right. Nose seems to be main target. Eyes, certainly. Mouth? I believe so. Look at that horizontal cut near her mouth. (Actually, I believe it may be John S. who agrees with this.) Finally, an ear.

Yes, "Keep your nose out." Informant? Don't think so.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn: if no previous Whitechapel killing had facial mutilations, why would a copycat perform facial mutilations?

Hi Damasa. That is an excellent question, and a very sensible point that proponents of the copycat theory will have to contend with. I am not such a proponent, but do recall that an excellent article published in Ripper Notes some years ago, written by Dan Norder, noted that a woman killed outside of London around that time, named Jane Beadmore (or something similar), was thought for a while to have possibly been a Ripper victim. Her face was cut, and a newspaper illustration of the cuts greatly resembled what would soon happen to Eddowes. The theory here would be that the copycat killer of Eddowes was influenced by the coverage of the Beadmore slaying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Hello Colin. Right. Nose seems to be main target. Eyes, certainly. Mouth? I believe so. Look at that horizontal cut near her mouth. (Actually, I believe it may be John S. who agrees with this.) Finally, an ear.

Yes, "Keep your nose out." Informant? Don't think so.

Cheers.
LC

The cuts on Eddowes face would result in two things. The first is that the most recognizable features would have been obliterated. By most recognizable, I mean the features that people focus on first. I mean, you never hear someone say "Wow her cheekbones look really familiar". You do recognize similarities in eyes nose and mouth. "She has my mother's eyes" for example. The second result would be that her face would have been completely covered in blood.

But while the nose and ear were cut off, (though I tend to think the ear was either accidental or unrelated) the eyes and mouth were intact. And it in fact would have been easier to simply remove the eyes and cut off the lips. If I'm going to spitball as to the reason why, I would say the nose had to go. For some reason, an intact nose was untenable. Given the likelihood that this was done first thing, it could be that he could not continue until the nose was gone.

The nose is a funny thing. Alter your eyes, wear colored contact lenses, people recognize you. Alter your mouth, get collagen, new lipstick, people recognize you. Get a nose job, and there are some problems. I speak from personal experience. Now it's not like my friends had clue who I was, but people I didn't interact with on a regular basis just could not place me.

So if there was a glimmer of recognition, removing the nose would eliminate that. As for the cuts to the eyes and mouth, It could be a method of punishment. It could have been an effort to generate blood to obscure the face. It could be symbolically significant. It could be an attack on sight and speech.

Personally, I think she looked like someone he didn't want to watch him murder. But that's me.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a couple of points worth considering.

Had "The Killer" 'wiped his hands or knife on/carried away the organs in' one of the many readily available "pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained" found on Eddowes at the mortuary [and do not let us forget that "The Killer" had apparently taken the time to rummage through her possessions and conveniently leave a mustard tin containing pawnbroker tickets in plain sight], PC Long's fortuitous discovery in Goulston Street would not have been directly traceable back to her and thus rendered worthless as evidence.

However, miraculously the "seams of the borders" of the two pieces of apron "which had a new piece of material on it" actually corresponded.

On the morning of the "double-event" somebody appears to have been most considerate in [a] providing a tentative identity to an allegedly unidentifiable victim and [b] a clue as big as the Ritz to the seemingly prescient PC Alfred Long.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Birtley Fell

Hi Damasa. That is an excellent question, and a very sensible point that proponents of the copycat theory will have to contend with. I am not such a proponent, but do recall that an excellent article published in Ripper Notes some years ago, written by Dan Norder, noted that a woman killed outside of London around that time, named Jane Beadmore (or something similar), was thought for a while to have possibly been a Ripper victim. Her face was cut, and a newspaper illustration of the cuts greatly resembled what would soon happen to Eddowes. The theory here would be that the copycat killer of Eddowes was influenced by the coverage of the Beadmore slaying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi, Tom,

Good point. I believe Jane Beadmoor was killed on 22nd September, so hers would have been the most recent "Ripper-type" murder in the press reports. That would make the Eddowes murder a copycat of another alleged copycat (William Waddell). Either that or (less likely) JtR included facial mutilation to give the impression that he was responsible for the Birtley Fell murder also.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Damaso Marte]

Fascinating. I had never of the Beadmoor murder before. I have to admit that the copycat theory is now a lot more plausible to me.

However, it is one thing to mutilate the face and sling the intestines over the shoulder just because you read about it in the paper. It is another thing entirely to successfully copy the ability to strike quietly and work quickly.

[lynn cates]

nose

Hello Errata. Thanks. So to make her unregognisable? Interesting.

I am curious about your notion that the ear was, or could have been, accidental. Could you elaborate?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Jane

Hello Tom, Colin. Jane Beadmore (Beetmore, Savage) is indeed a fascinating case.

Tom, I never considered her facial mutilations as a possible impetus--not bad.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn,

It's long been considered the the mutilation of Eddowes ear was accideintal as it falls within the line of her deep neck wound. Sam Flynn wrote about it at length years ago in Ripperologist. What might NOT be accidental is how this portion of ear ended up in the folds of her clothing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott