Kates Cuts

[Sam Flynn]

Given the sharpness of the Ripper's knife, a cut hand would probably have released a lot of blood onto the apron, causing a decent-sized patch of bood to be apparent somewhere on the cloth. As it was, what was described was a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it". I'm inclined to believe that this description fits pretty much exactly what happened; the killer got blood and caca on his hand, and used the apron piece as a makeshift towel.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fiver,

I've wondered if JtR might have gotten an infection from this as well. If he did, hospital records could potentially be an interesting area to search, looking for someone admitted with an infection, or blood poisoning, in the days that follow this attack. Not sure if such records would still exist, or be accessible to a researcher, but I think it is a hypothesis worth testing if the data exists. Of course, there's no guarentee he did cut himself and/or get an infection.

- Jeff

hi jeff
good idea and him using it for a cut is possible. however. lawende described "sailorman" having a hanky around his neck. if cut wouldnt the first thing he would do would be to use that? and not some tainted portion of a victims apron?

My theory is he cut the apron to sign the graffiti. or to carry the organ in and when he got home decided to use it to sign the graffiti. a little payback to all those pesky jews who had spotted him that night.

[JeffHamm]

...

As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.

Hi Fiver,

I've wondered if JtR might have gotten an infection from this as well. If he did, hospital records could potentially be an interesting area to search, looking for someone admitted with an infection, or blood poisoning, in the days that follow this attack. Not sure if such records would still exist, or be accessible to a researcher, but I think it is a hypothesis worth testing if the data exists. Of course, there's no guarentee he did cut himself and/or get an infection.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

In the murder of Kate Eddowes her killer took some extra time to do somethings that seem irrelevant to the task at hand, which evidently was killing the woman then opening her abdomen and taking organs from that region.

In the case of Annie Chapman it was suggested by the coroner that her killer only cut where he needed to in order to obtain what he eventually took. "There were no meaningless cuts". Its clear that no such evident goals are applicable in the case of Liz Stride. Or Kate Eddowes. Or Mary Kelly for that matter.

So why did Kate have extra cuts? Why did he try and cut her nose off, or at least severely damage it. Were the cuts on her cheeks just collateral damage from the nose wound? Why did he find himself cutting a 2 foot colon section off, and why would it be placed between her arm and her body..why not placed out of the way like the intestines? Why would he also need a section of apron from her, one that he tore and cut free. If he was Annies killer and intended to take something away again, wouldn't he be prepared to do so?

Eddowes had plenty of "extra" cuts - two to the right ear, two to the left eyelid, one to the right eyelid, two to the right cheek, one to the left cheek, one to the nose and upper lip, one above the nose, one to the right side of the mouth. The largest number of cuts appear to be to the right cheek and the eyes, with the mouth or ear getting as many cuts as the nose. If the killer was trying to remove Eddowes nose, he was strikingly inept at the job.

Other "extra" cuts were a stab and four cuts to the liver, a stab and a cut to the groin, cuts to both thighs, and a cut to the pancreas. The killer left some organs undamaged (stomach, right kidney, gall bladder, bladder, vagina, cervix), cut others (liver, pancreas) , partially removed some organs (colon, spleen, uterus), and fully removed others (intestines, left kidney). Some of the removed organs were left by the body (intestines, colon) and some were taken by the killer (left kidney, uterus, spleen). The most damaged organ was the liver. The only organ that was removed fully intact and taken was the left kidney. Attempting to interpret anything from that seems like an exercise in futility.

As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.

[Michael W Richards]

NB: I put the word in quotation marks deliberately. I mean "playful" to mean something like "mucking about with her face". Improvising. Making it up as he want along. Having (Jack's idea of) fun. That kind of thing.

Ok, gotcha. I believe its far more likely that he did make those marks for a specific reason myself, a warning to others not to "stick their nose where it didn't belong", or signifying her as a "nose". There are historical precedents for that specific wound being made for specifically that reason. Whether Kate is a victim in that kind of scenario isn't yet clear.

[Sam Flynn]

Playful Sam?

NB: I put the word in quotation marks deliberately. I mean "playful" to mean something like "mucking about with her face". Improvising. Making it up as he want along. Having (Jack's idea of) fun. That kind of thing.

[Michael W Richards]

He'd have needed extra moments to score the rest of the face, lop off one earlobe and nick the eyelids. Personally I believe the chevrons were deliberately sliced, albeit not "carved" into the skin according to some grand plan. Amongst all these other cuts, the hacking off of the tip of the nose seems like just another "playful" improvisation, and little more.

Playful Sam?...like this guy was feeling no immediate threat? I think they represent a deliberate choice to make those marks, not a "just for the jolly".

[Sam Flynn]

He'd have needed extra moments to score the rest of the face, lop off one earlobe and nick the eyelids. Personally I believe the chevrons were deliberately sliced, albeit not "carved" into the skin according to some grand plan. Amongst all these other cuts, the hacking off of the tip of the nose seems like just another "playful" improvisation, and little more.

[Michael W Richards]

Aside from Trevor then there seems to be a belief that at the very least the nose cut was intentional. The chevrons, maybe not so much. Jury is still out on those. So if this killer, this mutilator of women he almost decapitates, takes even 2 seconds to make that nose cut, it has some meaning, at least to him. Spontaneously coming from him I see as less plausible, I think he planned to do that, that's why he took the extra moment.

[JeffHamm]

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you sure they weren't done in the mortuary?

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

lol. trevor strikes again!

[Michael W Richards]

Go on then.

The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.

That's encouraging to read ABE. The precedent for the nose cutting is there is the press of the period, and "noses" were something that was within a common understanding at the time. The thing for me now is.....since there are so many similarities with Annies murder as well as differences, how do I connect someone who kills Kate because she tried to blackmail him, with the killer of Annie. There doesn't seem to be a rational explanation for the abdominal mutilations, even if there are some possible rational explanations for the murder itself.

Does a mad serial killer also kill because he is threatened, or for other more comprehensible reasons? Or is it just when impulse meets opportunity.

[Sam Flynn]

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

No they weren't. The very idea is preposterous.

[FISHY1118]

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

I find it astonishing that you actually belive this .

[Harry D]

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In which case, Eddowes was not incapacitated. Strange how no one heard this struggle taking place. Also, the nature of those injuries does not speak to defensive wounds.

Btw, do you always have to be so edgy and contrarian?

There was no Ripper.
The killer never took organs.
The apron piece was a menstrual rag.
The facial wounds weren't deliberate.
etc etc.

It's all so tiresome and one-note. Questioning the status quo, regardless of the evidence, doesn't make you a special snowflake, Trevor.