"The Face Was Very Much Mutilated"

[Sox]

For all we know, the Ripper may have enjoyed a completely onesided "relationship" with Kelly, though Kelly had perhaps not even ever noticed him, much less exchanged with him in any way.

The best, Jeff

Fisherman

Yeah, obsession is a strange thing indeed, and the opporunity to get Kelly alone might never have presented itself to him, hence the other victims. He may even have been scared to approach her, & his other victims were a sign of him building up the courage....all possibilities.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fisherman,

What I always thought Bond suggested was that the sheet that covered the palliasse, that is to say the sheet Kelly was lying on, was what had been used. The killer would have grabbed it at the corner closest to the partition, and covered her face, cut away, and then let it fall back onto the palliasse again.

The way in which Bond's report has been read historically is that he thought the killer might have "thrown the sheet over Kelly's face", rather than "he yanked at the sheet that was tucked under the mattress and pulled it towards him and over Kelly's face". Why would the killer have done that? It would have complicated matters no end, what with Kelly squirming underneath him as he reached across to grab the cloth.

Two plausible explanations I can think of are that Bond either (a) heard/read of the cut bedsheet second-hand (e.g. from Phillips) and erroneously assumed that what was being referred to was a bedspread; or (b) he examined the sheet in isolation and wrongly concluded that it had been over the body rather than under it.

[Fisherman]

Fair points, Sam. But we do not know that the sheet was tucked in under the mattress, do we? And if it was not, it would be an easy enough thing to reach for it and fold it over her face. That too would correlate with the notion that he threw it over her face.

Also, there is perhaps the possibility that he cut her neck first, only after that placing the sheet over her face. No squirming then, I should think.

The best, Sam!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

Fair points, Sam. But we do not know that the sheet was tucked in under the mattress, do we?

From the photograph, it certainly appears to have been - at least on the left hand side of the bed. It was certainly under Kelly from headboard to foot.

And if it was not, it would be an easy enough thing to reach for it and fold it over her face.

I don't think it would have been an easy thing at all. It would have been an unnecessary and cumbersome thing to do, whether he'd cut her throat first or not. Now, an over-sheet is a different matter, but there doesn't appear to have been one, at least not in contact with the body. The overblanket (if such it is) appears to have been of the coarse, woollen variety, and was rolled up near the bottom of the bed.

[Fisherman]

Still uncertain here, Sam.

"The overblanket (if such it is) appears to have been of the coarse, woollen variety, and was rolled up near the bottom of the bed."

Is that the piece of cloth that you think Bond recognized as cut??

As for your remark that it would have been cumbersome and unneccessary, I really don´t recognize it as to hard a labour. And as this point was something I raised in relation to a suggestion that if Fleming was her killer, he may have wanted to cover her face (psychological marshlands, I know, but there you are), I must say that the effort it would take for him to reach out and grab hold of that sheet would have been minimal, even IF it was tucked in under the mattress.
Still, it´s academical like so many issues in this case, but it is a possibility that should not be totally overlooked I feel!

The best, Sam!

Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And people say that I divert threads!

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

"The overblanket (if such it is) appears to have been of the coarse, woollen variety, and was rolled up near the bottom of the bed."

Is that the piece of cloth that you think Bond recognized as cut??

No - Bond clearly mentions the sheet to the right of Kelly's head.

I'm suggesting that the white (or dirty white) under-blanket to the right of Kelly's head (and beneath it) was the most likely item to have sustained the knife damage. If so, then I believe it possible that Bond mistakenly suggested that those cuts in the sheet were coincident with Kelly or her killer pulling the sheet over her face during the attack. The reason why I believe this may indeed have been the case is that, as far as we can tell, there was no "top-sheet" anywhere near Kelly's face, and the blood-soaked sheet to the right of Kelly's head was clearly beneath her body.

I don't consider it particularly feasible that the killer would have reached across the bed, tugged out the undersheet from the right side, dragged it over Kelly's face, cut her throat through the sheet, then placed the sheet back onto the bed to the right of her head once he was done. Indeed, lifting the sheet up from that side of the bed would have largely shielded the partition wall from the jets of blood that we know had struck it - so it's unlikely that the killer did so prior to cutting Kelly's throat.

It's equally difficult to imagine that, even after cutting her throat, he then dragged the (by-now sopping wet and bloody) bedsheet from the right-hand side of the bed over her face, cut it up a bit during the facial mutilation phase, and then replaced the sheet to the right of her head when he was done.

In short, I think Bond made a bit of a boo-boo here.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Sam, I´m whith you now, when it comes to which piece of cloth you mean was cut through. There are clearly two sheets/blankets under Kellys body, and the white(r) top one is your suggestion.

But if I am correct, you believe that neither of these two pieces of cloth were drawn across Kellys face? Also, you believe that the cuts in the fabric would have come about as the killer cut her face?

If so, Sam, would you not say that since the cuts in the fabric all seem to be situated in the top corner closest to the partition, this seem to imply a left-handed killer - at least if you are correct about what happened?

The damages to the face would have come about with the killer working either from (A) a position straddling Kelly or (B) kneeling on either side of her or (C) standing at the right hand side of the bed, this being the least probable suggestion but perhaps not totally impossible.
Either way, he must have steadied her head before he cut her, and that he must have done with his free hand, in all probability by grabbing her hair.

You see what I am getting at, don´t you? If he belonged to the larger statistical group of righthanded men, he would have grabbbed her hair with the left hand, and as he cut he would in all probability have cut her face moving his hand from left to right. And that would not have produced holes in the under-blanket to the left of her head, would it?
Unless, of course, he was left-handed!
Also, of course, the more we want to believe in your suggestion that this was how the cuts came about, the more we need him to tilt the head to the side, since if the face was positioned in the exact same angle as the palliasse, that would lower the chances that the fabric was cut on EITHER side. But the more we tilt the head to the side that corresponds to the "handedness" of the killer (right- or left-), the bigger the likelihood becomes that you are correct.

All the best, Sam!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"And people say that I divert threads!"

Maybe they do, Glenn - but what has that got to do with the mutilation of Eddowes´face?

The best, Glenn!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

If so, Sam, would you not say that since the cuts in the fabric all seem to be situated in the top corner closest to the partition

Indeed - which is where Bond says they were.

this seem to imply a left-handed killer

A right or left-handed killer, standing on the left-hand side of the bed, aiming at Kelly's throat or face located towards the right-hand side, would still tend to jab to the right-hand side of her face or neck, any "overshot" jabs with the knife thus impacting on the topmost right-hand corner of the sheet. The handle of the knife would point more-or-less to the window, but the point of the knife would be angled down and towards the side of Kelly's head nearest the partition, namely the top right-hand side of the mattress - precisely where Bond describes the cuts in the blood-soaked sheet as having been.

[Fisherman]

Feasible, I guess, Sam, and since it was something coming from you I would expect no less.
Still, it means that I disagree with you on this point. I feel that what would have been produced from such a position would be stabs, more or less (you speak of "jabs" with the knife), and what we have in Kellys case looks a lot more like deliberate cutting to me.
I think that the cut in the neck was a damage that was inflicted very early on, just like in the other cases, and going all the way round and down to the bone, my feeling is that it would have been hard to accomplish from a situation standing beside the bed. When that was done he was on the bed, enabling him to use his own weight, pressing the blade downwards, if my guess is correct.
And the cuts to the face are secondary to the cut in the neck, chronologically, again if my guess is correct. I don´t see that being done from a position standing beside the bed either. She would be a lot more accessible to him if he did that from a position straddling her - which is what I think he did.
And, much as I respect your wiew, that leaves me with the feeling that the cuts did not come about the way you suggest. Any other day in the week I would choose your opinion over Bonds (who I put very little trust in - too self-inflated to my taste), but this could well be the exception that confirms that rule.

The best, Sam!

Fisherman

[DrB]

"the face was very much mutilated"

Hi all,

yes the pm results show the face was mutilated - he was describing the lacerations to the face - but lets not forget the torso and in particular the abdomen was "mutilated" and those incisions to the skin and the organ and bowel removal patterns should all be taken as the same "process" or psychopathology following the killing and when the whole rather than the parts are considered a clearer picture is built. I take the point that he may have known the victims he mutilated and cut their faces to dehumanize them , but I don't think he did. The face distortion together with the eyes represents dehumanization or depersonalozation before his "surgery"

[caz]

Sorry Caz

But are you refering to the Sally Anne Bowman Murder? This is obviously a case I know a little about having filmed in croydon last summer. This dosnt quite fit?

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

As you later realised, I was referring to the West Croydon double event in 2003.

That's why the details didn’t fit the Bowman case in South Croydon in 2005.

But both cases involved killers who were high on drink and drugs and frustrated by a failed earlier attempt when they found their second victim of the night and inflicted shockingly brutal injuries that Glenn might well have seen as the dehumanisation of a woman known personally to her killer had they remained unsolved.

Indeed, in the Bowman case, as you have rightly observed, her ex boyfriend was initially suspected, and they had even been arguing in his car immediately prior to the vicious attack. He was only cleared by the DNA evidence which identified the real killer as Dixie, who came from outside the area but knew his way round because he had lived at one time in the very street where he committed the second, this time fatal attack.

Hi Glenn,

You wrote:

Just like I always refer to Vernon J geberth, who in his well known crime manual as well as in articles for Law and Order Magazine has said that he himself has encountered several cases where such murders initially have been assumed to be committed by a lust killer but in the end it has turned out that the trails have led to someone in the victim's close personal circuits. He also says that such crimes often display elements like "excessive overkill, dehumanisation and mutilation".

As you can see from the Bowman case, outlined again above, it can also work the other way round, with the assumption of someone close to the victim being involved proving false. You’d have more of a point if Mary’s murder hadn’t followed in the wake of others featuring the “excessive overkill, dehumanisation and mutilation” of unfortunates in the same small area. Another consideration is that the trail didn’t lead to anyone in Mary’s ‘close personal circuits’. It led nowhere at all, just as we might have expected in a world before DNA evidence if someone with no known connection was involved. If you want to turn the physical evidence for Mary's murder being Jack Drake's work into physical evidence for it being Joe Mallard's, you need something tangible that clearly distinguishes one killer duck from the other. The 'very much mutilated face' issue doesn't achieve your purpose.

Some press reports stated that Eddowes' face was destroyed 'beyind recognition', which of course is inaccurate and - as Chisholm also theorizes - fits more the facial mutilation of Mary kelly rather than Eddowes.
Thus the weird anomalies in the placing of the organs as well as the overexcessive mutilations could be explained, because that might have been what the person though a Ripper killing would look like. Not everyone were as informed as the police were or we are today, many people probably only read the illustrated tabloids or listened to the word on the street.

As Dan keeps pointing out, Jack would have had the same access as everyone else to what the papers and the man on the street were saying about his murders. “A face destroyed beyond recognition? Their wish is my command.” And the same goes for anything else the killer did to Mary that had reportedly been done to Kate. You don’t need to introduce a second killer to satisfy the hypothesis that words were being translated into actions.

On the other hand, I think the main hysteria also may have played an important part on the outcome of the murder, if the killer was psychological unstable at the time of the incident and had become too affected by the news reports. He may not have had any intention at all to deliberately blame the crime on the Ripper, his mental state at the time might just simply have been affected by the murders when he killed her, and that is why the crime scene might display a distorted view of a Ripper killing.

What’s wrong with Jack himself being ‘psychological unstable at the time of the incident’ and ‘too affected by the news reports’? You can be sure his mental state at the time would have been affected by the murders to date, whether he was out looking for someone just like Mary that night, or at home still waiting for the streets to cool down like a big girl’s blouse while your domestic dehumaniser was gearing up to whip out his own weapon. But I’d be surprised if the crime scene hadn’t displayed a distorted view of a ripper killing, if Jack had just been wallowing in the opportunity offered to do his first inside job after weeks of red hot cobbles.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

..."waiting for the streets to cool down like a big girl's blouse" I have no idea what that means but it is one hell of a great expression.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi c.d,

Sorry, it's just Brit speak for "like a soft southern shite" (sorry that's Northerner speak).

Try: "like a girl" or a "big softie".

That should cover it.

Love,

Caz
X