Facial Mutilations

[Errata]

Thankyou!

I've had a bit more of a look and apparently he caught syphilis when he was 15 from a prostitute. So if untreated it would have been advanced. BUT so far there has been nothing about whether he had facial deformities himself.

The facial deformities in syphilis come into play at two points. The first is during tertiary syphilis if you have the kind with gummas. There are places on the body those usually form, and the nose is not one of the usual places. I'm sure that people have lost their nose to a gumma, and I'm sure others had them and were terrified they were going to lose their nose, but it was by no means common. But the nose is mostly soft tissue and in the middle of the face, so it's vulnerable. It got a lot of play for two reasons. Firstly, at various points in history surgeons have developed procedures to rebuild the nose. Also patents were given to people who made nose substitutes. The surgical procedure was the grandfather of plastic surgery, it was difficult, it was generally a rock star doctor thing, and rock star doctors got press back then. There would have been illustrations, those would have gotten readers. The fact that the procedure existed didn't make it common. It didn't even mean it was ever used at all. But it creates the illusion of need. As do 150 patents for stunt noses. It makes it sound like there is a need. There really wasn't one.

Of course losing a nose it turns out is a remarkably good threat for good behavior. If getting syphilis means you get a terrible deformity in the middle of your face, it makes you pause. It was quite possibly the best deterrent to risky sexual behavior they have ever come up with. And in places it still is. There was a general sense that this was a common side effect of syphilis. It was never corrected because of it's deterrent effect. If you think about it, how many photos have you seen where a person lost a nose to syphilis? I think there are two men between the advent of photography and the prevalence of antibiotics who were ever photographed with this deformity. There are reports of others, but not a lot of others. And clearly that was enough to sear the idea into our brains for 150 years. But it's very very rare. Rare enough that those it did happen to are preserved in places like the Mutter Museum.

The other time you get nasal deformities is with congenital syphilis. A saddle nose deformity can be severe enough to mimic the loss of the entire nose. Of course there is no risk behavior associated with congenital syphilis other than having the bad luck of being born to syphilitic parents. Which may actually be more relevant than actually contracting syphilis. Someone who whores around and catches syphilis has some ownership in the problem. Yes they may very well blame a prostitute for giving them the disease, but they also know in their hearts that they could have avoided contracted it by not having sex with a prostitute. It's a specific kind of anger that's wrapped around shame. And it can easily be deadly, but it informs victim selection differently.

Someone with congenital syphilis did nothing wrong. His parents did. Had his mother not contracted syphilis, he wouldn't have these problems. And there are major problems associated with congenital syphilis. But not necessarily anything that would preclude him from being a killer. The blame would be different than that of a pissed of customer, who one would think would be content with more obvious kinds of violence than serial killing.

If we imagine that the facial mutilations have something to do with syphilis, and we imagine that it is because the killer actually was facing this problem, then it is far more likely that deformity was caused by congenital syphilis, not gummas from tertiary syphilis. One is textbook, the other is rare. If we are looking at someone with congenital syphilis, then a sexual motivation becomes less likely. Now if the killer was removing the uterus in order to sterilize the victim, and send a message to others to not reproduce, that might be something that a man with a congenital illness might do. There would be a certain sick poetry in that. Nor would the killer necessarily be the one infected. An older sibling who watched an infected sibling have problems, watched other siblings die in the first month of life because their deformities were so severe, that could create a killer as well. It is not out of line to say that Jack was a mission oriented killer, and this may have been his mission. To prevent women like his mother from giving birth to deformed and doomed children.

-----

And his actions may have changed because of the press. If he had a mission and he thought it was clear what his message was, by reading the news he would have discovered that his message was not getting through. He may have added the facial mutilations to make it more clear. Mission oriented killers are not as locked into a certain pattern as sexual sadists are. MO killers are not recreating a fantasy, they are not engaged in the murder to the same degree, it is more intellectual that emotional, they are more concerned with the result than the method. It means they can change. And they do.

Jack was not a sadist. He had no interest in the death. It wasn't personal. For MO killers who are choosing representatives of a kind of victim, but have no specific victim in mind, that's pretty common, though they are mostly bombers. And that's what you would expect to see in a man punishing a wrong, as opposed to a person. It's why I never thought an avenging clap patient fit. Because that's personal. That's rage. That doesn't translate into relatively painless deaths. If I look at the injuries, it doesn't look like the problem is the person at all. It looks like the uterus and the organs of generation are the problem. That's the target. The woman has to die for him to get to his target, but it's not about her. It's about what she carries. That's not revenge stuff. At all.

Nor is it particularly sexual. Sex comes with guilt and shame and all kinds of negative emotions, especially then. Jack would have to have been a partialist. And partialists kill, I won't lie, but I have never heard of one who managed to dissociate the part from the person to the point that there was no guilt of shame associated with the death. There is no shame. There is no guilt. He did not cover their faces, he did not close their eyes, he did not shield what he was doing from their dead faces (which sounds strange but actually happens a lot). He did not try to cover up what he did. This isn't a sex thing. They didn't matter. If this was revenge, they would matter. They would have been killed painfully, because that's what angry people do. If this had been sexual, then even if the victim didn't matter the judgement of those who found them would have mattered. The sexual sadist still knows that what he wants is wrong. It's why they move bodies. Bundy originally said he did it in order to not get caught, but he eventually confessed that he did it because he could bear the idea of people judging what he did. It's why even to his death he barely confessed to what he did. He knew how bad it was. There are so few sexual sadists who abandon their victims that I can't even think of one off the top of my head, though I'm sure someone else can. But it's not the norm.

[Sam Flynn]

Infirmary Records

Hello Avvie. Thanks.

Then perhaps various infirmary lists could be consulted?

Bob Anderson give a talk on syphilis etc at the Salisbury Ripper Conference last year. I regret that I couldn't make it for the occasion, but knowing Bob it would have been brilliant. He may be able to help with any info on that score.

Also, I compiled a detailed spreadsheet of Whitechapel Infirmary Records (in tandem with the late, great Chris Scott), which I shared with Bob Anderson, and which I'll happily consider making more widely available if you'd like.

PM me if so, and I'll see what I can do.

[lynn cates]

work

Hello Avvie, Gareth. Thanks.

To work, then.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello John. Thanks.

"Ah, but is the Eddowes murder the black swan?"

Certainly not. It merely--in conjunction with the stark similarities in Polly and Annie (eg, parallel neck cuts)--beats the devil out of it. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

The cuts to the throats of Chapman and Nichols were quite different

Chapman had one jagged cut right around her throat and over lapping.
Nichols had one long cut, and a shorter one below it.

[Harry D]

So we have the same killer for Polly & Annie.
A different killer for Liz.
A different killer for Kate (on the same night as Liz)
A different killer for MJK.

Now you can claim that there were other vicious murders at this time to give credence to the multi-killer hypothesis. I would ask how many of those had the same MO and signature removal of internal organs? None, that's the answer. With the canonicals you have a bunch of murders quite similar in execution and signature, in a short space of time, within a small neighbourhood. The most logical and parsimonious explanation is that it was the work of one man. That's the consensus and it was the belief at the time. I don't know why some people want to fixate on the slightest discrepancies between murders instead of looking at the obvious parallels. It's already been established that some serial killers deviate radically in their methodology, whereas others are creatures of habit. The Ripper leans mostly to the latter. He dispatched his victims in the same way, he mutilated the remains and stole their innards in lightning-quick fashion. Just how many sickos do you think there were capable of doing that? And why did they all choose to come out of the woodwork in the autumn of 1888?

[lynn cates]

exceptions

Hello Harry.

Well IF the signature is removal of internal organs, Polly and Liz are exceptions.

I am happy to place Polly and Annie together with their parallel double cuts. But the rest . . . ?

May need a new definition of signature.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Well IF the signature is removal of internal organs, Polly and Liz are exceptions.

Not so sure about Polly, Lynn. The intention to remove organs may be indicated by the deep cuts inflicted on her abdomen.

[lynn cates]

intentions

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

Hard to read intentions. But the twin cuts on Polly and Annie are clear enough to see.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

But the difficulty is even if the parallel cuts were not incidental, we don't know what they may signify. Moreover, the ritualistic behaviour of serial killers is apt to change, I.e by evolving or becoming more elaborate. In other words, even if a killer inflicted identical cuts on a dozen victims we cannot predict, with any degree of certainly, that the same ritual will be repeated on the next victim. Put simply, if we don't know the killer's intentions we cannot predict whether he would be apt to repeat rituals ad infinitum. And, of course, intentions/objectives are susceptible to change.

[Jon Guy]

But the difficulty is even if the parallel cuts were not incidental, we don't know what they may signify.

There were no twin cuts on Chapman, John, so it`s a moot point.

[John G]

There were no twin cuts on Chapman, John, so it`s a moot point.

Thanks Jon. Thought your earlier post was excellent by the way.

The fact is, comparing factors such as wounds is always going to be a subjective exercise anyway. I mean, on another thread it's been argued that the way Liz Jackson's abdomen was divided into sections is almost identical to MJK's injuries. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that Jackson and MJK were killed by the same person, as their killer's signature/MO was clearly so radically different.

[lynn cates]

deviation

Hello John. Thanks.

Intentions aside, the cuts were clearly there in both cases.

Would a serial killer (if such there was) deviate from such a precise signature?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

double or nothing

Hello (again) John. You seem to question whether there are twin cuts to Annie. If you look at "Ultimate" p. 105, it clearly states that there are two cuts--just like with Polly.

Now, why would a killer do that?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Thanks Jon. Thought your earlier post was excellent by the way.

The fact is, comparing factors such as wounds is always going to be a subjective exercise anyway. I mean, on another thread it's been argued that the way Liz Jackson's abdomen was divided into sections is almost identical to MJK's injuries. However, I find it almost impossible to believe that Jackson and MJK were killed by the same person, as their killer's signature/MO was clearly so radically different.

Thanks John !!

I don`t know, that`s the sort of factor I`d look out for when trying to identify a possible perp.

For example, both Kelly and Chapman had the surface of the abdomen removed in panels, and both had the circular throat cut.
I`m not up to speed on the Torso murders, but if Jackson`s abdomen was removed in 3 panels, it should be noted, whatever our personal thoughts on the matter are.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Intentions aside, the cuts were clearly there in both cases.

Would a serial killer (if such there was) deviate from such a precise signature?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Well, if we didn't know why a killer's signature was so precise, I.e why he felt the need to repeat such behaviour, I think it would be impossible to say. However, what concerns me is lack of precedent: are there any examples of a serial killer repeating a precise signature characteristic with every victim?

Schlesinger (2010) refers to a serial killer whose ritual evolved from genital mutilation to dismemberment, whilst another killer's ritual evolved from eye puncturing with the first victim-pretty rare, I would have thought-to eye enucleation with victims two and three.