Facial Mutilations

[Errata]

To Errata:

Thinking about the symbolism of eyes... If "the eyes are the windows to the soul", then what are the eyelids? Shutters?
A person with shut eyelids cannot see.
Slits in eyelids perhaps bring attention to someone who should have either not seen, or have pretended not to have seen... Something.

I think it is a sort of criminal code, just as the attempt to cut off her nose might refer to "keep your nose out of our business"...

There were various criminal gangs in the LVP, to say nothing of anarchists, Irish home-rule terrorists, socialists, and so forth. It was an era of turbulence and conflict, which would lead to widespread changes over several decades.

Why do the facial mutilations need to "mean" anything special to the murderer himself? Isn't it just as likely they are a message to the underclass of Whitechapel in general, perhaps a message to potential witnesses to "turn a blind eye" to Jack's activities? After all, wasn't Eddowes supposed to have said she "thought she knew who the Ripper was"?

Yes. To every one of those and more, which is why figuring out what the hell a killer is trying to say, or if he is saying anything at all is mostly impossible. We have very few clear symbols in the world as it is. But factor in that the symbols may be only known to small subsection of people, or to a pair, or simply means something only to the killer. Like he could tell us what he meant in detail, and it still might not make sense to us. Or it seems to complicated or too simple. Like the zodiac letters that are either nonsense and people are banging their heads against a wall, or they are so obscure the CIA hasn't been able to break it in 30 years even with computers.

Effective communication requires someone to understand what he's saying. But just because he thinks he's making something clear doesn't mean he actually is. And here we stand. Wondering what the hell THAT was all about in perpetuity. But just because we don't get it doesn't mean it wasn't a message. We just don't get it.

[Pcdunn]

To Errata:

Thinking about the symbolism of eyes... If "the eyes are the windows to the soul", then what are the eyelids? Shutters?
A person with shut eyelids cannot see.
Slits in eyelids perhaps bring attention to someone who should have either not seen, or have pretended not to have seen... Something.

I think it is a sort of criminal code, just as the attempt to cut off her nose might refer to "keep your nose out of our business"...

There were various criminal gangs in the LVP, to say nothing of anarchists, Irish home-rule terrorists, socialists, and so forth. It was an era of turbulence and conflict, which would lead to widespread changes over several decades.

Why do the facial mutilations need to "mean" anything special to the murderer himself? Isn't it just as likely they are a message to the underclass of Whitechapel in general, perhaps a message to potential witnesses to "turn a blind eye" to Jack's activities? After all, wasn't Eddowes supposed to have said she "thought she knew who the Ripper was"?

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Harry D;347153]Hello, Lynn.

What makes you think the assailant knew the times of the beats, and not Eddowes?

Why would any of the victims have concerned themselves with the times of the beats unless they were engaging in some criminal activity like prostitution?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

OK, so he did not know the time of the beats after all?

Not sure her assailant removed the kidney.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I am not quite sure of the point that you are trying to make here. It is certainly possible that he knew the time of the beats.

If her killer did not remove her kidney who do you think did?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Hello CD. Thanks.

OK, so he did not know the time of the beats after all?

Not sure her assailant removed the kidney.

Cheers.
LC

Hello, Lynn.

What makes you think the assailant knew the times of the beats, and not Eddowes?

Why do you doubt if the killer took the kidney? I see no reason to question this. Whoever killed Eddowes was a fast operator, not only to remove one internal organ but slice up her face, as well. Why wouldn't he have been able to cut out another trophy while he was at it? For what it's worth, I think the Lusk letter was probably genuine, and that might've been his motivation for stopping to take a second organ.

[lynn cates]

beats

Hello CD. Thanks.

OK, so he did not know the time of the beats after all?

Not sure her assailant removed the kidney.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Why not?"

Because I was assuming her assailant had some knowledge of beats and their times.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Well her assailant had the time to make the cuts to her eyes as well as remove two internal organs. We are also dealing with his perception of how much time he had versus the actual time before he could expect a PC to come by.

c.d.

[Errata]

Eddowes' facial wounds appear to be largely random, Harry, and even the (apparently) non-random ones were far from meticulously executed. They were also in the minority; two nicks to the eyelids (or one-and-a-half nicks to be more accurate) and two peeled up flaps on the cheeks are rather outnumbered by a lopped-off nose, a chunk of earlobe and any number of random cuts slashed across her features.

Largely, but not wholly. Which makes it frustrating, because random slashes to obscure the face does not include apparently two efforts to cut off the nose. But there are at least a couple of apparently random slashes, one from the nose, one from the mouth so it's not entirely deliberate either like the process was precious to him. If it was symbolic or meaningful, we would expect tight symmetry, a pattern even. If for no other reason than serial killers are obsessive. We don't have that. But if it was totally random, he wouldn't cut off the nose, he wouldn't try it twice, he would not make meticulous cuts to the lips and eyes, even if those meticulous cuts are in no discernible pattern. It's purposeful but not patterned. Which doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with you that if 'Jack' had simply wanted to destroy her face because she reminded him of someone or other, then the wounds probably would've been more random and less meticulous.

Eddowes' facial wounds appear to be largely random, Harry, and even the (apparently) non-random ones were far from meticulously executed. They were also in the minority; two nicks to the eyelids (or one-and-a-half nicks to be more accurate) and two peeled up flaps on the cheeks are rather outnumbered by a lopped-off nose, a chunk of earlobe and any number of random cuts slashed across her features.

[Harry D]

Thanks, Errata. Insightful, as always. I agree with you that if 'Jack' had simply wanted to destroy her face because she reminded him of someone or other, then the wounds probably would've been more random and less meticulous. When it came to Mary Kelly, the ritual went out of the window and he hacked her face beyond recognition, with the eyes left open this time. Does that mean we should attach some special significance to Eddowes' facial mutilations?

[Wickerman]

No, Jon.
Dr Phillips described the wound as jagged, which means the killer sawed his way round the neck, hence incisions.

Agreed, in so far as I think the doctor was unable to identify any point around the neck where the knife had been withdrawn, then reinserted, due to the killer needing to reposition himself. The skin around the neck will be loose in an older person, so will ruffle up when a knife is drawn across, which presents an obstacle to the blade, giving the jagged appearance.

[Errata]

If you had to guess, why do you THINK he performed the facial mutilations, Errata?

I honestly have no idea. It's a significant departure from earlier murders, and on the face of it this would not be the murder to start getting creative because there was so little time. If he had done it to Chapman then certain things would make sense, but he didn't.

And it depends on where in the order he did it, because I think it would have to be one of the first things he did, not the last. I think he took the apron because he sprayed himself with fecal matter when he severed the colon. So after that it doesn't make a lot of sense to mutilate the face, even if he was pissed off. He had two organs and his knife would have been pretty dull. It's a natural place to end, grab the apron, clean up on the run. Inserting facial mutilations somewhere in there is not really the most organic thing. So he had to do it right after the throat mutilations, but before the abdominal mutilations.

And that's sort of an odd thing too. It makes it seem like he needed to mutilate the face in order to go on, like maybe Eddowes looked like his beloved sister, and he didn't want that face looking at him while he worked. but it isn't random slashing a person might use to just obscure the face with blood. It's specific. And mutilating the face is personal. It's not necessarily personal to the victim, like they know each other, it's personal to the killer. But it could be a reminder or a representative of someone else, not that specific person. The best I can come up with is that Eddowes meant something to the killer in a way no other victim did. It could have been a resemblance, it could have been the voice, it could have been a phrase she said... but she then embodied something he despised enough to take it personally. Something he couldn't get past, and had to deal with before he got to removing the organs..

I think that the decision to target the eyes nose and mouth may be illustrative, if not symbolic. I think with blood pooling in the eyes, the missing nose and the blanched lips that her face likely looked like a skull (And the largest blood vessels in the eyelid are in the inner corners). Which is sort of interesting because it means it's not the cuts themselves that matter, it's the overall effect. Which would mean that he had the ability it the middle of committing a brutal murder to plan and see the big picture. Which is scary because most serial killers don't have that ability.

But if that's true then there is no need for him to have any emotional reaction at all to Eddowes. It could mean it wasn't personal, and it could mean there was absolutely no reason for him to do it when he did, other than it occurred to him. Which is unheard of. Serial killers expand upon a theme all the time. Taking a kidney with a uterus is a perfect example. He was already there, it makes sense to get something else. But to suddenly go off script and do something completely new doesn't happen, certainly not without a major shift in the killer's life, and even that is quite rare. Bundy in Florida is the best I can come up with, and even then he wasn't doing anything new, just highly abbreviated. This is new. It is not a natural extension of anything he was doing. This is changing the signature, and they don't do that.

And it may signal why he was never caught. We don't know a lot of killers like that, and the ones we do know of have never been caught. Zodiac was like that. The Dali Killer. Big picture killers who could think and plan even while in the middle of a massacre. Serial killers are obsessive and myopic. They don't go off script, they don't improvise well. It's why they get caught. And we talk to the ones who get caught and we make rules. But there is a type that doesn't get caught. The non obsessive non myopic types. We don't have rules on them because we don't catch them. Except for Son of Sam. And he was obsessive and myopic, just not about the murders. And Jack is not Son of Sam. So there's no help there.

The "rules" say that the facial mutilations should have started with Chapman, or never made an appearance. He broke the rules. And the rules can't tell me why. And they can't tell me what it meant to him. The rules say he either did it because it was personal or because part of his fantasy involved destroying the faces of those he killed as some lesson he was teaching people. But that would have been there from the beginning, and he had time with Chapman. He didn't want it. Until he did, and I have no idea why.

My gut says he was sending a message to someone using Kate's face. That's not a serial killer thing. That's a hit man thing. Someone would see her or read about her and know who it was, why it was happening. Maybe he was trying to clarify his message. Maybe he was threatening someone. Or maybe he thought he was but no one ever got it. That's my gut feeling. But I have no facts to back me up on it. I think it was a rational decision, not a fetish, not a need. But I don't know why it happened.

[Harry D]

If you had to guess, why do you THINK he performed the facial mutilations, Errata?

[Errata]

I didn't say it was the suggestion, Fish. I took the suggestion, which wasn't representative of the Eddowes scenario, and extended it so that it was. A pair of pierced pinkies on their own is one thing, a pair of such piercings in a sea of cuts to both hands is quite another. Eddowes' eyelid-nicks sit in a sea of vicious slashes across her entire features.
As far as we can tell... indeed. But what is your source for the "carefully and meticulously inflicted" bit? God forbid that you've fallen into the trap of mistaking imagination for evidence!

We'll be reading symbolism into the "delicately dissected earlobe" next

There is a difference between purposeful and significant, and symbolic. Cutting out a tongue is almost always symbolic, especially if the victim has mob ties. Cutting out a uterus is probably symbolic, the whole throat overkill is probably symbolic.

The fact that the face is disfigured is probably even symbolic, but that doesn't mean the individual cuts are. But they are purposeful. And they are significant. The cheek cuts are significant. Not because they mean something to the killer, but because they mean something to us. We now see that as unintentional cuts from sawing the nose off. Twice apparently. So those cheek cuts tell us that this was not precious to him, because if it was, he would have been more careful. It would tell us something else if we thought they were deliberate. But the eye cuts are deliberate. It is possible that a vertical slash up the cheek (which didn't happen) could slash the upper eyelid. But not the lower. And the lower lids were divided. so he did that on purpose. And that is significant, even if it is in no way symbolic. And without actually obliterating the eyes I can't even think of anything that would symbolize.

It's not even the cuts on her face that are mysterious in any way. He clearly cut her up on purpose, and what those purposes might be we'll never know. But how the hell did she get abrasions to the hollows of her cheeks? How did both sides of her face get scraped up, but not the front? It might be from the throat cuts if for some bizarre reason her turned her on each side and ground her face into the pavement. But he certainly didn't need to do that, so why would he? And I'm still pretty sure that even doing that would mean the scrapes would be higher up, the apples of her cheeks and the orbit. Did he find her like that? What does that? Bruises, sure. Cuts, fine. But scrapes? That's actually really odd.

[Jon Guy]

This is what Dr Phillips had to say at the inquest: " The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck."

Thanks John, just catching up !!

Yes, the above is what I am trying to convey.
A wrap around throat cut ... absolutely nothing like Nichols throat cut.