Facial Mutilations

[c.d.]

If vengeance was his motivation, why didn't he target the face before Eddowes?

Hello Harry,

I said "if" vengeance was his motivation. Like everyone else who posts here, I have no idea why he did what he did. I was simply speculating.

Certainly vengeance could take the form of throat cutting. It doesn't have to be limited to a specific act. It is also possible that Kate said or did something that made him focus on her face.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

What I think myself when faced with the matter of the eyelid nicks - as well as with the fact that the killer cut away part of Eddowes´ apron - is that this man was in no rush at all, seemingly.

Cutting the piece of apron would have taken no more than 10 seconds, Fish, and quite probably less. The nicks to the eyelids, given a sharp enough knife, would have taken a second or two at the very most. If he had been in a rush, then he could still have accomplished these things.

[Sam Flynn]

If vengeance was his motivation, why didn't he target the face before Eddowes?

It probably just didn't occur to him, Harry. It's quite possible that there was no grand plan, and that he was improvising from victim to victim, as it suited his fancy at the time.

[Fisherman]

Cutting the piece of apron would have taken no more than 10 seconds, Fish, and quite probably less. The nicks to the eyelids, given a sharp enough knife, would have taken a second or two at the very most. If he had been in a rush, then he could still have accomplished these things.

That would depend, Gareth. If he suddenly heard approaching footsteps, then nicking the eyelids would not have been something he would engage in, unless it carried great weigh symbolically to him, the way I see it. Nor would he reasonably cut away the apron piece if it could have him hung.
In situations like these, ten, twelve seconds is an ocean of time. Sit yourself down, imagine that you are kneeling in Mitre Square with a freshly killed Eddowes lying stretched out by your side, and then you hear somebody approaching. Now, start counting twelve slow seconds, and see how long it takes.

He was not pressed for time or rushed. He felt he had the time to toy with the eyelids, and when he was done, he cut away the apron piece instead of running. It makes for rather a clear picture, I think.

[c.d.]

It probably just didn't occur to him, Harry. It's quite possible that there was no grand plan, and that he was improvising from victim to victim, as it suited his fancy at the time.

Hello Sam,

I was about to post the exact same thing.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

hallucinations

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"We're supposed to believe that in his hallucinating state, where he may or may not have thought he was talking to a sheep . . ."

No, I presume he thought he was panhandling a prostitute.

"Isenschmid somehow struck a deal with Annie for some nooky out back,"

Actually, in his mind, a deal for a handout.

Please be aware that his hallucinations changed in a flash. have you read his chart?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

180

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"carried entirely round and again in front of the neck"

The key word is FRONT. At most, the cut is 180.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

That would depend, Gareth. If he suddenly heard approaching footsteps, then nicking the eyelids would not have been something he would engage in

Unless he'd already nicked them, of course. You may recall that I believe the killer mutilated the face early on, but one doesn't have to agree with this to realise that the eyelids could have been nicked at any point during the murder.

unless it carried great weigh symbolically to him, the way I see it.

The nicking of the eyelids may indicate nothing more symbolic than the killer wanting to close her eyes, Fish. Symbolic or not, one only needs a couple of seconds to carry out such an act - after all, it just takes two dabs with the sharp point of a knife.

[Wickerman]

I take the slicing of the eyelids as some kind of acknowledgment of the urban myth, that the retina can capture the last image the eyes see before death.
This topic had been covered in the press only the week before.

Our killer was keeping abreast of the investigation.

[Harry D]

Hello Harry,

I said "if" vengeance was his motivation. Like everyone else who posts here, I have no idea why he did what he did. I was simply speculating.

Certainly vengeance could take the form of throat cutting. It doesn't have to be limited to a specific act. It is also possible that Kate said or did something that made him focus on her face.

c.d.

Hello, CD.

It was only a question, because I've come to move away from the revenge mission theory and wanted to see how much stock you put into it. Most serial killers who target the prostitute class don't hold a grudge against them, so much as a collective hatred of women, it's just that prostitutes are easy pickings and no one cares about them.

As for your last point, that's something I've considered while mulling over this topic. It could've been said that Eddowes made some slight, however small, that set him off.

Furthermore, I've never understood why the killer took Eddowes' uterus AND a kidney. Maybe he was just getting greedy? While he was fishing about inside, he decided to grab another trophy for the fun of it? If one believes the provenance of the Lusk letter, you could argue that he deliberately grabbed another organ with that in mind.

It probably just didn't occur to him, Harry. It's quite possible that there was no grand plan, and that he was improvising from victim to victim, as it suited his fancy at the time.

Quite possibly, but I do find it interesting that a killer who focuses primarily on the abdominal/genital area would suddenly mutilate the face, and in a weird ritualistic manner (nicked eyelids, inverted v-wounds). There has to be some kind of trigger for that. We have the standard explanations: he was becoming more violent, he was feeding off the media frenzy, or that he was taking the Stride interruption out on Eddowes, etc. but I think it might've been something else, like she reminded him of someone, or he found her more attractive than the previous victims. Or, you're right, and he was just an impulsive kinda guy.

On a side note, do people think the facial injuries came before or after the abdominal mutilations?

[c.d.]

Hello Harry,

No problems here with your post.

For some reason, I keep thinking about Humphrey Bogart in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre." After he thinks that he has killed Curtin he starts to analyze what he did and starts to think about what maybe he should have done. I can see the Ripper doing the same thing and thinking about the face and how it might be thrilling to cut it.

If I had to guess, I would think the facial mutilations came first. Since the abdominal mutilations were so extensive, I think his thoughts immediately turned to getting the hell out of there.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I do find it interesting that a killer who focuses primarily on the abdominal/genital area would suddenly mutilate the face, and in a weird ritualistic manner (nicked eyelids, inverted v-wounds).

The killer didn't exactly "carve" a v-shape on purpose, Harry, although that is the common misconception. In fact, as Dr Brown's detailed notes make clear, the inverted "V" wounds were simply triangular flaps of skin peeled up when the knife cut through the flesh beneath. The mystery is rather diluted when one realises that the "Vs" were practically side-effects, rather than patterns drawn deliberately on the skin.

[c.d.]

Hello Harry,

Your question as to why he took a uterus AND a kidney is a good one and does lend credence to the Lusk letter. However it could simply be that he felt more emboldened on that occasion and also felt like he had more time. A similar situation with Mary Kelly.

c.d.

[Errata]

The thing is that he sliced the eyelids without apparent injury to the eye itself. Which is not easy, and takes more than a second. Given he did the upper and lower eyelid of each eye, we are probably looking at 20 seconds per eye. Most like he made an initial incision, and then pulled the eyelids away from the eyeball to cut through.You have to work with the tip of the blade, and there is a high likelihood of puncturing the eye. You have to be careful and steady.

He did it because it was important. It was not a lark, it was not a throw away move, it was not an accident. It's too hard a thing to do, even for an expert, to do on a whim. It is really the most precise thing he does in any of the murders. He's not using a scalpel. He's using a dagger. And no matter how sharp is it is, the weight of the blade alone is enough to push the tip into the eyeball. So he is fully supporting the weight of the blade while cutting through tissue a millimeter or two thick, and another couple of millimeters would be sufficient to completely drain and collapse the eyeball. It's either a sign of immense skill or insane luck. But either way he wouldn't do it if he didn't care about it.

It is like using a chef's knife to cut out exactly two pages in a book. No more, no less. Crouching over the book while it lays on the ground, without nicking the third page, you can't rest you elbows on anything, and the clock is ticking down. Even if the task itself isn't important, the execution of that task is a big deal. So no one does it unless they really need to for whatever reason.

Stabbing the eyes would have taken a single second. Probably would have dulled the blade, but depending on his sequence that might not have mattered. It's far easier and far more symbolic to do that. But he didn't. Didn't even try. He was doing something purposefully and significantly. With a high degree of difficulty. It was not a whim. It was a need.

[Fisherman]

Unless he'd already nicked them, of course. You may recall that I believe the killer mutilated the face early on, but one doesn't have to agree with this to realise that the eyelids could have been nicked at any point during the murder.
The nicking of the eyelids may indicate nothing more symbolic than the killer wanting to close her eyes, Fish. Symbolic or not, one only needs a couple of seconds to carry out such an act - after all, it just takes two dabs with the sharp point of a knife.

I recall quite well that you suggested that the facial wounds came first on account of the lack of any mentioning of faeces there. A good call, I´d say.
However, the eyelid nicks may well have been added as a final touch.
As for symbolism, I don´t just agree - I think we may go a step further and suggest no symbolism at all involved, just a whim.

I don´t think it could have been done all that quickly to be honest - it took a steady hand and arm in the darkness, and a very exactly measured amount of pressure. And all of that would have called for concentration - and a feeling that time was not a factor.

What I would like for people to contemplate is the possibility that although the scene seemed to suggest rage and frenzy, raging and frenzied killers do not take the time to make the kind of meticulous cuts this killer produced to the eyelids. We are looking at a calmer and more collected type, taking precautions to ensure silence, cutting out the kidney and the uterus (albeit sort of sloppy), adding the nicks to the eyelids and rather calmly and callously finishing off by carving himself a rag from the apron before he left Eddowes´ body lying on the ground and took off. This act implies that he was not forced to run off with little control - instead he did what he wanted to do and took his time about it.

It tells us a lot about the type of killer we are dealing with - or at least I believe so; fearless, arrogant, self-secure and with a sense of superiority.
That is what the eyelid nicks and the apron cutting suggests to me.