Faecal matter on apron piece

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Damaso.

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

Of course, "copycats" are ALWAYS difficult to determine. If I recall properly, the LaBianca murders were thought a copycat of the Tate murders. But that was a mistake.

On the other hand, many ripper students think that McKenzie and Coles were copycats.

"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."

Quite. And it was this that Wynne Baxter used to guide his thinking in Liz's case. But, too, the killer/s of McKenzie and Coles did precisely this.

And these issues are what keep ripper students up at night.

Cheers.
LC

At times I've been tempted to think of McKenzie and Coles as the work of a washed-up, past his prime serial killer who tries but can no longer get excited about mutilation, and goes home cursing how much skill he has lost.

[Errata]

The ear is actually really easy to cut through. I'm not saying I accidentally cut through my sister's ear once when I was about 10 and trying to retrieve a pair of earrings she was wearing or anything... but if I had I would say that it was akin to cutting through a stick of butter. (I still feel really bad about that)

We know he used a long knife on the face. The triangular flaps on the cheeks were made when cutting the nose. It's possible that he cut the ear during the facial mutilations, and then just decided to lop it off. Or he could have cut it purposefully, but there is nothing particularly disfiguring about cutting the ear, so I can't really put it in the same category as the facial mutilations. Or it could have just been an accident he took advantage of. It all has to do with the positioning of the head. If he was at that side of her head, or her head was tilted so that the ear was more exposed, that could indicate an accident. If her head was tilted the other way or he was on the other side, then it would have to be purposeful. I will say that one of more common ways an ear is cut is when cutting hair. A person holds up a lock of hair, slices through and the tip of the blade cuts the ear. I don't think he took a lock of her hair, and if he did that would be more significant than almost any other aspect of the crime. But the idea should be tossed out there for the sake of fairness.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Tom. Thanks for that. I did not realise it was in line with that wound. I must check that out.

Thanks again.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Copcats R Us

Hello Damaso.

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

Of course, "copycats" are ALWAYS difficult to determine. If I recall properly, the LaBianca murders were thought a copycat of the Tate murders. But that was a mistake.

On the other hand, many ripper students think that McKenzie and Coles were copycats.

"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."

Quite. And it was this that Wynne Baxter used to guide his thinking in Liz's case. But, too, the killer/s of McKenzie and Coles did precisely this.

And these issues are what keep ripper students up at night.

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.