Facial Mutilations

[Penhalion]

It could indicate a narcissistic personality who always had to be the center of attention. Even while he was destroying them, he wanted to be the center of their world.

[Natasha]

If he was motivated by blind anger, why not stab at the eyes? All I can think is that he wanted Eddowes and Kelly to look at him. Does that indicate that even unfortunate women of the lower class wouldn't even give him a second glance?

[Rosella]

Yes, Jack was just enjoying himself with random slashes and cuts all over Kate's face, IMO. In a horrible sort of way it was a little like a toddler with a red crayon scribbling meaninglessly on a piece of paper. I suppose in the obliteration of her face Kate could have been standing proxy for a female Jack hated (mother?) I suppose, but of course we'll never know.

[Harry D]

What makes Kelly's murder even more incongruous is that, being indoors, the killer would surely have been under nothing like the pressure, i.e time restraints, that applied to Chapman's and Eddowes' murders; you would therefore have expected an even more clinically precise approach. However, the opposite happens.

Hello, John G.

Just because he demonstrated skilled precision in one murder doesn't mean he would do it again under different circumstances. In the preceding murders the killer was never afforded the chance to indulge himself as he was in Miller's Court. They were snatch n' grabs, he had to get in and get out because every second he remained with the victim was a second closer to getting caught. In a private, enclosed location he doesn't have that problem. He was like a kid in a candy store.

[John G]

I wonder if a personal relationship with Kelly, imagined or otherwise, could explain the frenzied nature of the attack. I mean, Chapman and Eddowes appear to have been eviscerated with surgical precision, at least according to experts engaged by Trevor Marriott: see Marriott, 2013. On the other hand, Drs Bond and Phillips seem to agree that Kelly's murderer exhibited no skill whatsoever.

What makes Kelly's murder even more incongruous is that, being indoors, the killer would surely have been under nothing like the pressure, i.e time restraints, that applied to Chapman's and Eddowes' murders; you would therefore have expected an even more clinically precise approach. However, the opposite happens.

In fact, if anything Kelly's murder has more in common with Tabram's murder, i.e a frenzied, uncontrolled assault, than the other C5 murders. Very confusing.

[Harry D]

I remember someone positing that it could have something to do with Eddowes & Kelly being the more attractive among the victims, compared to the likes of Tabram, Nichols & Chapman, who with all due respect had seen better days.

[Sib]

Or it could be that if you like cutting flesh sooner or later you will get to the face. There is only so much flesh on a body to go around.

Also the flesh on the face is exposed making it much easier to get to than trying to remove clothing.

c.d.

Still think it is personal....knowing the Vic or not....it dehumanizes...it takes away our individuality....it takes away that that can define us....you can kill....and then you can attempt to absolutely wipe out or irradiate
...I think he saw something in the faces of each Vic that pulled at a hurtful personal memory...just a thought....see ya
Sib

[Errata]

Also, it doesn't mean that the killer knew the victim, it means that the killer had a relationship with the victim, real or perceived. So thinking that the victim was a commie spy or choosing a victim based on how much they resemble your awful mother also counts.

[Natasha]

In an attack driven by rage or anger...directing your attack to the face and genitals would be expected. You destroy that person...you leave her now as a horrid sight...something less than human. Adding insult to injury. Much like some our modern day serial killers would pose their victim..to be "exposed and degraded". In the end it still comes down to having ultimate control over the victim...
Sib

Profilers claim that facial mutilations indicate some kind of close relationship between killer and victim, or at the very least they knew each other.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I must say that was also my understanding. Of course, in the case of Kelly he may simply have known her as client, so it doesn't really narrow the suspect list, I.e. we can have no real idea who may have known her in that capacity.

When I started this thread we already covered the fact (in other older threads) that destroying someone's face could be a sign the killer knew the victim, but as John points out we have no way of narrowing down the suspects. So I was looking at why someone would inflict these wounds, in the hope of finding the motive for these killings. Like what could have angered the killer, was it a sign of a disorganised killer, I have suggested that in another older thread, when I thought that Eddowes & Kelly were connected and the others were not.
Also the killer had such little time to kill the victims, but still took the risk of cutting their faces, made me want to investigate further.

[John G]

Profilers claim that facial mutilations indicate some kind of close relationship between killer and victim, or at the very least they knew each other.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I must say that was also my understanding. Of course, in the case of Kelly he may simply have known her as client, so it doesn't really narrow the suspect list, I.e. we can have no real idea who may have known her in that capacity.

[Harry D]

Profilers claim that facial mutilations indicate some kind of close relationship between killer and victim, or at the very least they knew each other.

[c.d.]

In an attack driven by rage or anger...directing your attack to the face and genitals would be expected. You destroy that person...you leave her now as a horrid sight...something less than human. Adding insult to injury. Much like some our modern day serial killers would pose their victim..to be "exposed and degraded". In the end it still comes down to having ultimate control over the victim...
Sib

Or it could be that if you like cutting flesh sooner or later you will get to the face. There is only so much flesh on a body to go around.

Also the flesh on the face is exposed making it much easier to get to than trying to remove clothing.

c.d.

[Sib]

Hi All,

Why did the ripper mutilate the victims faces?

It has been mentioned before on here, but was the reason for attacking the nose maybe a message saying Eddowes stuck her nose into someones business?

In medieval times the nose being cut had association with betrayal, the eyes are the window to the soul and slitting/cutting someones lips was a punishment for blasphemy.

I also discovered that nose amputations had happened to women by jealous vengeful women in 18th century Paris.

In the 9h century nuns at St Cyr Monastry in Marseilles, had cut of their own noses to avoid sexual attacks by the Saracens who did indeed spare sexual attacks at the cost of the nun's lives.

What do you lot think, why did he inflict facial mutilations?

In an attack driven by rage or anger...directing your attack to the face and genitals would be expected. You destroy that person...you leave her now as a horrid sight...something less than human. Adding insult to injury. Much like some our modern day serial killers would pose their victim..to be "exposed and degraded". In the end it still comes down to having ultimate control over the victim...
Sib

[Natasha]

Hi All,

Whist looking at some of the ripper stuff online, I came across a mock up of Eddowes face and the injuries. When seeing this it reminded me of clown makeup. It's the slits in the eyes and the nose being cut off that makes me think this.

[Batman]

Your opinion though is consistent with the contemporary expert witness testimonies of the lead investigators. The only modern modification that warrants inclusion is the death of Tabram.