Catherines Ear!

[Nurse Sarah]

Cheers Archaic!! LOL

Modern night nurses are all the drop-dead-gorgeous-I-coulda-been-a-model, highly-educated-but-still-sassy professional type like on ER, right?

I wouldnt mind being one of those!

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I believe Sam made a point within his post that is relevant to its going unnoticed....it was a piece of the ear, most probably it was only the lobe that was severed. Something that could easily have lodged in clothing. Her coat was trimmed with imitation fur at the collar, and she had a piece of red silk or gauze worn as a neckerchief. It could easily get lodged in either of those items alone.

On a side note, has anyone ever wondered if there is any significance to the fact that Kate and her alleged assailant were both wearing red neckerchiefs that night?

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

I believe Sam made a point within his post that is relevant to its going unnoticed....it was a piece of the ear, most probably it was only the lobe that was severed.

Dr Brown specifically states that it was the "lobe and auricle" that was cut through, Mike. The auricle, or "pinna", is the curved cartilaginous bit above the fleshy lobe that extends upwards to form the "sticky-out" bit of the ear.

On a side note, has anyone ever wondered if there is any significance to the fact that Kate and her alleged assailant were both wearing red neckerchiefs that night?

...If her assailant were also wearing a bonnet, several layers of skirts and an apron, I might be inclined to say "yes" As it is, the number of possible colours for neckerchiefs is rather limited, even to this day. On that basis, I reckon there's about as much significance in their choice of neckwear as there is in the fact that they both had ears.

[Archaic]

Flicking Off A Bit Of Ear

Hi, everyone. I don't think it's a terribly crucial point whether the piece of ear was already detached in Mitre Sq. or only semi-detached & fell off en route. When I read Dr. Brown's report that says "cut obliquely through", I honestly can't tell if he means "slashed at an angle but NOT detached", or whether "cut through" means "cut completely through from one side to the other" and therefore "detached".

My impression is that if Dr. Brown had originally seen the piece of ear hanging by a bit of skin he would probably have mentioned it in his notes. Then again, with Kate's bloody hair & much more horrific wounds to draw his attention, he may have missed it in the dark.

It doesn't really change anything either way, but I would think a blade & an assailant capable of inflicting such atrocious bodily injuries as those perpetrated on Catherine Eddowes would have had no problem flicking off a bit of ear.

Best regards, Archaic

[Cap'n Jack]

'ear, 'ear, I can't 'ear a thing. I must be deaf. As well as blind.

[Archaic]

re: Cat Meat's Question About Possible Earring

Has anyone considered before that the killer's motive in attacking Catherine's ear was to remove and take away an earring?

Hi, Cat's Meat Man; I just noticed that nobody has answered your question, so I'll give it a try.

I don't know of any report that Kate was wearing earrings, and as she was in such a desperately impoverished state it seems unlikely. If she had owned any she probably would have pawned or sold them for either food, drink, or shelter.

If you look at the autopsy photo, her left ear is intact & has no earring. Also, the severed piece of ear was recovered and in his autopsy report Dr. Brown makes no mention of an earring or a torn earring-hole in the earlobe.

I hope that helps. Best regards, Archaic

[Monty]

A few points..

Re the ear,

This is being debated because there are some who connect this crime of Eddowes to that of Gills via the ear mutilations. This despite the mutilations differing.

Re red kneckerchiefs. Firstly Lewande is stated as saying, by the police, that the man was wearing a 'reddish' kneckerchief. Its not ascertained it was red. This, I suspect, due to possible colour distortion due to the gas lighting or the possible fact Lewande wasnt sure.

Secondly we arent certian the man was Kates murderer or that Kate was indeed the woman. Lewande identified the clothing, black jacket and bonnet (which was and still is common), and not the person.

This needs to be bared in mind when stating what the killer was and was not wearing, and if indeed he was the killer.

Monty

[perrymason]

Hi Monty,

I see what your point is on the color of the neckerchiefs, perhaps only I see it as a possible way for 2 people who may not have known each other to identify themselves.

On the ID, although that style and color of clothing may not have been unique to Kate, even though the jacket was a new jacket she had purchased before returning from hopping, it may have been unique on that night in that specific area...unless you have information that other women were seen wearing similar clothes. The fact that he does not get a good look at thye man by his own account, but is certain that the clothing he saw in the morgue was the same that he saw on the woman, around 5ft tall, just oustide a location where she is found dead 10 minutes later.

It would be difficult to imagine that 2 different 5ft prostitutes worked Mitre Square that night wearing the same jacket and skirt combination, at the same time of night.

All the best Monty

[Monty]

Does Lewande mention this skirt Michael?

Monty

[perrymason]

Does Lewande mention this skirt Michael?

Monty

Thats a good point Monty, as Im sure its possible that I knew that fact but he didnt mention it....I shall check.....(seconds later)....and I see that in one account he says "dress". So point in Montys favour.

The Jacket was black with fake fur trim, and the skirt was a dark green....so he may have thought it was one black dress based on the amount of time and available light. And we know to some men a dress and a skirt might seem like the same garment.

All the best Monty, Happy Fathers Day.

[caz]

Has anyone considered before that the killer's motive in attacking Catherine's ear was to remove and take away an earring?

Anything but the obviously crazy, yet far too simple and "too good to be true" idea that he attacked an ear just for jolly, wouldn't you, within hours of the Dear Boss author's words reaching police eyes, right?

What's this ear? There are none so blind...

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm assuming that the following from the Alderley Advertiser, 5th Oct 1888, is the result of a typo in the transcription?

'When the body was undressed at the mortuary the several portions of the ear fell from the clothing. '