Facial Mutilations

[Trevor Marriott]

The lower portion of the abdomen also was completely ripped open, causing the bowels to protrude.
Echo, 31 Aug. 1888.

Here we go again quoting as a fact a newspaper article which is not corroborated by any official reports or the inquest testimony. Some people are easily sucked in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;346272]Don't despair, CD. Polly sustained several long cuts to her abdomen which, it's fair to argue, might have been inflicted precisely to facilitate the removal of organs, even if none were subsequently removed.

Hello Sam,

I agree completely. It is certainly a REASONABLE assumption that the cutting of the abdomen was a prelude to organ removal that for some reason did not take place. But you know Lynn and Michael, they are sticklers for the facts (well sticklers when it supports their theories).

c.d.

P.S. Good to see you posting again Sam. Don't wander off like before.

[Sam Flynn]

Is it ?

Yessum, it is - like it or not. My thanks to Wickerman for providing the quote.

[avvie]

My personal theory for this (mostly in the case of Eddowes) is Syphilis.

I feel that the Ripper had somehow got Syphilis, most likely from a prostitute. He wanted revenge. One symptom of Syphilis is facial deformity, which apparently looks like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/A_young_girl_suffering_from_congenital_Syphilis_to_the_face_Wellcome_L0038265.jpg

In fact, apparently the gentleman i feel was Jack the Ripper contacted Syphilis in 1888. I haven't done much reading though, so don't know how true this is.

[Wickerman]

The lower portion of the abdomen also was completely ripped open, causing the bowels to protrude.
Echo, 31 Aug. 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't claim to quote an official document, Trev, I simply meant that the intestines protruding from Nichols' abdominal wounds was part of "the usual story", which it is.

Is it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

In which official document does it say that

I didn't claim to quote an official document, Trev, I simply meant that the intestines protruding from Nichols' abdominal wounds was part of "the usual story", which it is.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know the usual story is that Nichols' abdominal wounds "caused the bowels to protrude",.

Hi Sam
In which official document does it say that ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

On the pull?

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

Don't despair, CD. Polly sustained several long cuts to her abdomen which, it's fair to argue, might have been inflicted precisely to facilitate the removal of organs, even if none were subsequently removed.

Now I think about it...

I know the usual story is that Nichols' abdominal wounds "caused the bowels to protrude", but that wording sounds rather passive - we get the impression that the intestines just "happened" to bulge out of the incisions. Indeed, that's the picture I've always had in mind - albeit a picture shaped by whatever brief reports have survived. But what if the killer had actually started to pull the viscera out of the way, only to be thwarted and give up? If so, perhaps a novice Ripper learned a valuable lesson; he'd have to make more extensive cuts the next time.

[c.d.]

Hello John G.,

Yes, I agree with you completely. I was simply trying to head off Lynn's response.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello Lynn,

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

But isn't that just the point? There are clearly significant differences between Polly and Annie, but few dispute that they were killed by the same murderer. The fact is the ritual doesn't have to be identical in every case and is unlikely to be so.

There can be all sorts of reasons why two murders in a series may exhibit differences in execution: natural evolution/elaboration of signature; the killer being disturbed; whether the murder was planned or opportunistic; the killer being intoxicated by drink or drugs; whether the murder was indoors or outdoors;declining mental state; the killer becoming enraged, and loosing control, because of something the victim said or did; killer losing control for some other reason, I.e the Sutcliffe example; killer trying to confuse the police.

To use my new favourite phrase, the possibilities seem endless!

[c.d.]

Hello Cd. What, exactly, is a "ripper like" murder?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

In general, I would define it as a woman having her throat cut and having her abdominal organs removed. And yes I know that Polly and Liz don't meet that specific criteria. You got me on that one.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

like

Hello Cd. What, exactly, is a "ripper like" murder?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

"Realize that...fact... there were other murderers working in that area, (there are lots of murders in the Unsolved File besides the Canonical Group)...and that anyone can cut people up or open."

Hello Michael,

You are absolutely correct in your assertion. There were other murderers in London at that time and lots of simply bad people in general. But that same situation existed in London before the Fall of 1888 and after it as well. In fact, that same situation has existed in cities all around the world at different times throughout history. Therefore, you would expect to see Ripper-like murders occur on a regular basis but that is not the case. It takes a very special and very sick individual to do what the Ripper did and your argument doesn't take that into consideration.

c.d.

[John G]

Quite right, John. It's naive to believe that a serial killer is going to murder in the same fashion each and every time. Peter Sutcliffe sometimes stabbed his victims to death with a knife, some he strangled with a rope, and some he used only a hammer. I'd daresay if he hadn't been caught someone like Michael would be on here arguing that the Yorkshire Ripper is another 'bogeyman' and these prostitutes were killed by no less than five different men. The Ripper murders are more consistent than those carried out by other infamous serial killers. All of them involved a deep slashing of the throat followed in most cases by abdominal mutilations. Mary Kelly is the one that stands out, owing to the extremity of her injuries, which were facilitated by her murder taking place indoors where the killer had the time and privacy to indulge himself.

Facial mutilations, for example, are not evidence of a different killer. We have no idea what was going through the murderer's mind when he was butchering these women. I, personally, believe the facial mutilations were motivated by the attractiveness of the victim. However, it could've been because those women reminded him of someone, or it was the simple result of direct escalation.

I think Michael is part of that small cadre who are on a mission to destroy the "sacred cows" of Ripperology. Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, more power to them, but everything we've learned about the murders and serial killers in general all points to a lone killer.

Hi Harry,

Absolutely. Serial killers are no where near as predictable as some people would like to think. For instance, it was argued at the time that Sutcliffe only targeted prostitutes, I.e because he must have had a hatred of such women (in fact, I believe he even made the same argument himself.) However, that doesn't explain why he attempted to murder a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he violently assaulted down a quiet country lane.

Of course, there's no doubt that Kelly's injuries were more extensive than the other C5 victims. However, there are numerous possible explanations for this. For instance, as she was killed indoors JtR had more time to indulge himself, and give full vent to his rage and perverted desires.

He might also have been under the influence of drink or drugs, or Kelly could have said or done something to make him lose control. It's also possible that he might have known Kelly and had been seen in her company, and therefore tried to confuse the police by creating doubt as to whether this was a Ripper murder.

Once again, Sutcliffe presents a valuable insight into the deluded mind of serial killers. Thus, with one of his victims he failed to retrieve a £5 note which he feared would be traced back to him. He therefore took the risk of returning to the body. However, after failing to find the incriminating evidence he began to mutilate the body, and even attempted to decapitate the victim. Subsequently, he explained his bizarre reasoning: "Having not found the £5 note I gave vent to my frustrations by picking up a piece of broken pane of glass and slashing it accross her stomach, when I did this there was a nauseating smell which made me reel back and immediately vomit, it was horrendous."

He added, "I forgot to say that before I did this it was my intention to create a mystery about the body...I had taken a hacksaw out if my car intending to remove her head...If I had cut the head off I was going to leave it somewhere else to make a big mystery out of it."