"Facial Mutilations = the killer knew the victim"

[Damaso Marte]

Let's talk about this assumption. Does it have a good empirical basis? Are there known counter-examples?

[Errata]

Let's talk about this assumption. Does it have a good empirical basis? Are there known counter-examples?

I don't think it at all means that he knew them. I think it means his victim reminded him of someone. Or even represented someone. I mean, Kate Eddowes could have vaguely looked like his abusive mother. But that doesn't mean he actually knew Kate Eddowes.

[Steve S]

According to Laura Richards at the York Conference,modern cases support the idea that facial mutilations indicate personal knowledge.......

[lynn cates]

disfigurement

Hello Damaso. I wonder if it's possible that facial mutilations indicate a desire to disfigure and hence make it difficult to recognise the decedent?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

According to Laura Richards at the York Conference,modern cases support the idea that facial mutilations indicate personal knowledge.......

There is a correlation between facial mutilations and close relationships. For example, a guy killing his ex girlfriend. There is no real correlation between facial mutilations and tangential relationships, like if a guy kills the barista he gets coffee from every morning.

But because of the wide variety of fantasy behaviors involved with mutilation killings, it's impossible to say that one indicates the other. From an investigation standpoint, it would make perfect sense to pay more attention to the people close to the victim, but ruling out a stranger because the face was obliterated would be a very bad decision.

The correlation was picked up on when someone looked at the victims abusive spouses and parents. Even in situations where abused kids kill their abuser. The majority of facial mutilations fall into this category, but it's not a huge majority. Nor do the majority of these killers touch their victims faces at all. And then you have to look at things like, shooting someone in the face. Was that an attempt to mutilate the face (which works) or simply aiming at the part of the body most likely to cause death. It's not easy to qualify any kind of mutilation. Usually there are just too many factors.

[Hunter]

Good points, Errata... especially when there are other mutilations that that can be linked to previous murders that have recently occurred.

But because of the wide variety of fantasy behaviors involved with mutilation killings, it's impossible to say that one indicates the other. From an investigation standpoint, it would make perfect sense to pay more attention to the people close to the victim, but ruling out a stranger because the face was obliterated would be a very bad decision.

[c.d.]

If we accept this premise, then what does it mean that Mary had her breasts cut off? What does it mean that the flesh was removed from her leg? It seems that if you want to go down that road, you will have to make a lot of stops.

I think her face was cut because her killer had a knife and her face was available for cutting.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If we accept this premise, then what does it mean that Mary had her breasts cut off? What does it mean that the flesh was removed from her leg? It seems that if you want to go down that road, you will have to make a lot of stops.

I think her face was cut because her killer had a knife and her face was available for cutting.

c.d.

The above damage cd could very well represent an amateurs representation of a Ripper kill.

As stated, the mutilation of a face, as concluded by students of these types of crimes, OFTEN if not ALWAYS signals a connection of some sort between victim and prey.

And her face wasnt cut, it was deliberately slashed from both directions multiple times.

Ad to that the choice he makes by taking a heart, instead of any of the organs Jack extracted and the few that were taken from other women.

If the killer had taken her uterus, which was extracted and available, I would look at this scene as people like yourself do. But he didnt.

Instead of reinventing the killers targets each murder based upon what specifically was done, perhaps a more logical perspective is to question adding kills to an unknown murderer based upon those differences.

I do not see any evidence with the first 2 murders that the killer sought anything but abdominal mutilations and abdominal extractions myself.

Cheers cd

[bolo]

Hi Damaso, all,

the facial mutilations may be one of several indications that MJK and her killer knew eachother. However, I don't rate them as a sure-fire way to determine whether or not a personal relationship exists between a killer and his victim.

The obliteration of the front of MJK's body was so over-the-top that the facial mutilations seem more like a logical consequence than a prominent feature to me.

Regards,

Boris

[Hunter]

Kelly's uterus still was extracted. Whether he took it with him or placed it under her head is not as significant as the fact that her killer did target it, knew where to find it and did something with it.

Like it or not, in theorizing who may have killed her, that is a discernible link to two of the other murders. That can't even be said about Nichols and Chapman.

People can mix and match various aspects of all of these murders to suit any prognosis; pick all of this apart in every detail, but the bottom line is that a series of unique murders were committed on several women of the same class, in a certain area of a large metropolis and not even one person was brought to justice for any of them.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I don't doubt that a mutilation of a face can represent some sort of personal connection. But in these instances that you site, were breasts cut off and intestines pulled out as well? Why focus on just one body part? Is it so hard to believe that someone who cuts a woman's throat and removes her uterus and kidney would somehow balk at cutting a face as though that were crossing a line?

The autopsy report for Kate stated that her face was horribly mutilated. So if you want to go the face route, you have to include Kate as well.

If her killer had time and a desire to cut flesh, there was only so much flesh to go around.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

I don't doubt that a mutilation of a face can represent some sort of personal connection. But in these instances that you site, were breasts cut off and intestines pulled out as well? Why focus on just one body part? Is it so hard to believe that someone who cuts a woman's throat and removes her uterus and kidney would somehow balk at cutting a face as though that were crossing a line?

The autopsy report for Kate stated that her face was horribly mutilated. So if you want to go the face route, you have to include Kate as well.

If her killer had time and a desire to cut flesh, there was only so much flesh to go around.

c.d.

Hi cd,

As I have said many, many times....the absolute best way to conceal a motive for murder in November in London in 1888 was to cut up the body afterward. Since many people still believe to this day a "Ripper" killed all 5 women, it would appear that if someone concocted that scene to blend in better with the prior murders, they did a bang up job.

The facial mutilations coupled with the taking of a heart suggests a potential symbolism that does not exist with the other Canonicals. Add to the the location, the state of dress of the deceased, and you have a murder that is anything but a random acquisition on the streets. Which is what happened to Polly and Annie.

As for Kates face, this gives me a good opportunity to illustrate what I mean.....I do believe the cuts on Kates face signify a connection between killer and prey, but I believe the whole of the evidence suggests perhaps another motive for her murder.

So...yes, you can have facial mutilations indicating different motivations, but its more probable that some connection between prey and predator existed.

Cheers again cd

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

We certainly see things differently (and that is okay). I simply cannot look at what happened to Mary as the work of a sane, rational killer trying to cover his tracks.

As for the heart, if her killer was collecting organs, wouldn't it be natural to take one that he had not taken before? Collectors always want to acquire something that they don't already have. Another expanation could be that for whatever reason he decided he needed to make a fast exit. He wants to take a souvenir. He grabs her heart simply by chance.

Even if we accept the facial mutilations as evidence of the murder being personal, does it necessarily have to come from a relationship? What if Mary reminded him of someone or perhaps she said or did something that enraged him? Now it is personal but there is no relationship as we are using the term.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

We certainly see things differently (and that is okay). I simply cannot look at what happened to Mary as the work of a sane, rational killer trying to cover his tracks.

As for the heart, if her killer was collecting organs, wouldn't it be natural to take one that he had not taken before? Collectors always want to acquire something that they don't already have. Another expanation could be that for whatever reason he decided he needed to make a fast exit. He wants to take a souvenir. He grabs her heart simply by chance.

Even if we accept the facial mutilations as evidence of the murder being personal, does it necessarily have to come from a relationship? What if Mary reminded him of someone or perhaps she said or did something that enraged him? Now it is personal but there is no relationship as we are using the term.

c.d.

Hey,....I never claimed for a minute that her killer was sane and rational cd. The man was a killer for sure. And I suppose the best way I can get you to see why I think people can do horrifying acts in self preservation is to point out that in Toronto last summer we had 2...unrelated..... torsos found. One would think that cutting up the victim was an afterthought or an accepted part of the initial murder strategy, but pretty clearly the second murder and torso creation was influenced by the information via the press related to the first. The second actually belonged to a victim in a Buffalo murder.

If as I suggest Mary had information that people sought to silence forever then it must have been some pretty important info, on either side of the law.

I believe the mutilations done to Mary Kelly had nothing to do with why her killer murdered her, that they were simply attempts to replicate atrocities that had been highly publicized in the previous months. They were part of his exit strategy.....leave the room looking like this ripper fellow would have.

If his motive for killing Mary had nothing to do with anything postmortem, then he was a clever fellow making it look as if it did. But as I say, he essentially had blueprints for the acts by the press accounts.

All the best cd

[GregBaron]

Is it really necessary to denude the thighs...

I believe the mutilations done to Mary Kelly had nothing to do with why her killer murdered her, that they were simply attempts to replicate atrocities that had been highly publicized in the previous months. They were part of his exit strategy.....leave the room looking like this ripper fellow would have.

This theory has its proponents and it's not a bad one. Where I struggle is with the level of OVERkill. I just can't see multiple people having the stomach to spent a great deal of time carving up a human being like a prized turkey. He certainly went well beyond what any paper reported and rather than copycatting, it looks to me like whoever was in there, was in fact enjoying themselves. This would have to be one sick dude, hard for me to see a boyfriend or Fenian spending so much time to obscure his tracks....Just my thought...


Greg