Why Mutilate The Nose Specifically?

[caz]

Your assertion that Donald Rumbelow was referring to something that "is true and was known" means that you in fact believe in the dreaded nose clap. That syphilis targets the nose in violation of the laws of bacteriology and nature. That doctors are engaged in some conspiracy to fool the public into believing that their noses are as safe as any other part of the body.

My contention is that despite what Donald Rumbelow said, the fact he said it doesn't make it true. And it isn't true. And you don't have to take my word for it, ask a Gynecologist. Read Victorian medical journals. See if they sold false noses in the old Sears catalogs. There is an astonishing array of knowledge out there just waiting to be picked up. But if you choose to let it rot on the ground because it disagrees with Donald Rumbelow, you have fun.

Please Roy, save us from the Nose Clap.

Hi Errata,

This reminds me of the arguments over whether or not Liz Stride was actively soliciting when she met her killer. It's irrelevant if her killer could reasonably - or even unreasonably - have believed her to be 'available', or at least of the 'unfortunate class', and attacked her because of that belief.

Similarly, if people today - including Don Rumbelow (who also appears to believe the knife that killed Stride was blunt) - believe that syphilis could destroy a sufferer's nose, then presumably people could believe it in 1888, including whoever killed Eddowes and chose to hack off the end of hers.

In fact, the killer didn't even need to believe it himself. He could have thought it fitting that a woman such as Eddowes deserved to lose her nose to the clap and ruin her livelihood by advertising the fact, even if he was well aware that it was just an old wives' tale. If others believed it, they would understand the gesture and perhaps his motives.

I still think he just did it because he felt like it in the heat of the moment. But it would make sense if he was at least aware of the idea and its relevance to women 'plying their trade'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Similarly, if people today - including Don Rumbelow (who also appears to believe the knife that killed Stride was blunt) - believe that syphilis could destroy a sufferer's nose, then presumably people could believe it in 1888, including whoever killed Eddowes and chose to hack off the end of hers.

In fact, the killer didn't even need to believe it himself. He could have thought it fitting that a woman such as Eddowes deserved to lose her nose to the clap and ruin her livelihood by advertising the fact, even if he was well aware that it was just an old wives' tale. If others believed it, they would understand the gesture and perhaps his motives.

Well, I thought about that. I thought that if this was some sort of old wives tale, or any part of common mythology of the day, there would be evidence. So I looked for it. I have access to some Victorian era medical textbooks and journals. No mention of it in those. It was not part of medical understanding. Which isn't to say doctor's didn't believe some crazy things. Hysteria cured by hysterectomy and all that. But they didn't believe this. But hat doesn't mean anything, because obviously people believe all kinds of things doctors know to be false. So if this general rumor existed, there were two places it was guaranteed to show up. Literature and sermons from Christian missions, because they have the most to gain from scaring the ever living hell out of prostitutes... literally. The other place is social commentary cartoons. Punch and the like skewered everything high to low. Some disfiguring prostitute born illness? They wouldn't be able to resist portraying some political figure preaching morality as noseless, implying that his morals were suspect.

Nothing. No mention of such a disfigurement. And this is not a little thing. People would fear the loss of a nose more than they would fear death. And those who were in the business of scaring these women didn't so much as mention the idea? It doesn't track. And political cartoonists who make their bread and butter coming up with iconic images that can be easily associated with a condition, a flaw, a behavior, and they don't pick up on noselessness?

I think the association with syphilis and the lack of a nose comes from two places. The saddle nosed deformation associated with congenital syphilis, and the notion that cutting off Eddowes nose was a punishment for the disease she inflicted on someone else. I think Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper posited that the killer was responsible for the congenital syphilis in his children, and chose to inflict the same deformity on a prostitute. Which is fine. I have no problem with the theory on any meaningful level. But somehow it has been confused, and now people believe that syphilis eats noses. This is not correct. It was not believed to be correct at the time. It is an amusing misunderstanding whose origins have been lost in time. But I say we move forward, accept the facts as they stand, and move on.

[caz]

Fair enough, Errata.

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

It's been suggested that the facial mutilation inflicted on Eddowes may have been done as a warning to someone. I guess though, if it wasn't completely random, another possibility is that Eddowes herself was being punished in some way.

I've found the following which outlines reasons why, historically, nasal amputation was inflicted as punishment:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2689568/

Hi all

This is post 139 in this thread and I don't have time to read through the whole thread, so perhaps someone might have mentioned this already. It occurs to me that if there was really something in Eddowes saying she knew who the murderer was, if that old story has any credence, perhaps the nose was attacked because the killer viewed her as being "too nosy" and so punished her that way.

Chris

[Bridewell]

I was trying to think of other references to a nose being sliced off and all I could come up with was this: (Apparently the "blackbirds" were "naughty boys" in the earliest versions)

Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.
When the pie was opened,
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king?
The king was in his counting house,
Counting out his money;
The queen was in the parlour,
Eating bread and honey.
The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes;
When down came a blackbird
And pecked off her nose

I couldn't see any relevance until I saw the reference in the attached link as to how pirates spent their money:

http://www.snopes.com/lost/sixpence.asp

I don't suggest it's a solution to anything, but I thought the content quite interesting.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all

This is post 139 in this thread and I don't have time to read through the whole thread, so perhaps someone might have mentioned this already. It occurs to me that if there was really something in Eddowes saying she knew who the murderer was, if that old story has any credence, perhaps the nose was attacked because the killer viewed her as being "too nosy" and so punished her that way.

Chris

Sticking her nose where it didnt belong, precisely.

All the best Chris

[Tecs]

Hi all,

We knew what it meant already, but did anybody else notice that in Ripper Street this week the villain described giving information to the Police as "Turning nose?"


regards,

[Errata]

If there was something symbolic in the removal of the nose, wouldn't it happen more than once? Cutting a tongue out tends to be symbolic (or cannibalistic) and while it doesn't happen often, it happens. And no attempt is made in those cases to do anything else that might obscure the meaning of that gesture, unless there are other meaningful gestures, like putting the eyes out of cutting off a hand or something. If a mutilation is supposed to be a message, then it tends to be cliche. Like mafia dumps. Tongue cut out, he talked. Hand cut off, he stole. Etc. But corpses with those mutilations do drop occasionally. So if it's supposed to be obvious symbolism, that would suggest that noseless corpses occasionally dropped in Victorian London. Did they?

[Michael W Richards]

If there was something symbolic in the removal of the nose, wouldn't it happen more than once? Cutting a tongue out tends to be symbolic (or cannibalistic) and while it doesn't happen often, it happens. And no attempt is made in those cases to do anything else that might obscure the meaning of that gesture, unless there are other meaningful gestures, like putting the eyes out of cutting off a hand or something. If a mutilation is supposed to be a message, then it tends to be cliche. Like mafia dumps. Tongue cut out, he talked. Hand cut off, he stole. Etc. But corpses with those mutilations do drop occasionally. So if it's supposed to be obvious symbolism, that would suggest that noseless corpses occasionally dropped in Victorian London. Did they?

Hi errata,

Your question carries with it the implication that Kates killer killed other people. Thats not been established.

Maybe her killer only cuts the nose if he has reason to leave the corpse in public as a message to the general civilian population. I doubt the nose cut itself is the issue here...its her punishment, if it is that, which is a horrible death.

Cheers

[Errata]

Hi errata,

Your question carries with it the implication that Kates killer killed other people. Thats not been established.

Maybe her killer only cuts the nose if he has reason to leave the corpse in public as a message to the general civilian population. I doubt the nose cut itself is the issue here...its her punishment, if it is that, which is a horrible death.

Cheers

That's not what I mean though. I have a hard time explaining it. I mean there's nothing new in the world. Any sort of (pardon this) visual pun on the part of Kate Eddowes killer that would be obvious to the casual observer would have showed up before. If this was a statement about her being an informant for example, then other murdered informants would have something similar done to them, regardless of the killer. Maybe not all, but some. Say for example, a tongue getting cut out. It's a statement that they shouldn't have talked. Lots of different killers cut out their victim's tongue to send that message. It's a common message. If the parlance of the day made the nose a target, then one would expect other killers to indulge in same sending of a message through mutilation.

On the other hand, if the symbolism was known only to the killer, then he might as well not have bothered. It's like the Zodiac letter no one can decrypt. It may make him feel better, but it completely fails as communication. But since he cut up the rest of her face, and didn't confine his attention solely or eve primarily to the nose, I think it's probably not meaningful.

[caz]

Plain as the nose...

On the other hand, if the symbolism was known only to the killer, then he might as well not have bothered. It's like the Zodiac letter no one can decrypt. It may make him feel better, but it completely fails as communication.

Hi Errata,

Well I have to say your Zodiac example rather scuppers any argument that a serial killer like the ripper would not have bothered with the kind of message (or gesture, or private joke or whatever) only he was likely to understand. Zodiac was either crazy enough to imagine everyone would 'get it' - because he knew what his unique message was communicating - or he did it as a deliberate wind up, knowing people could waste the rest of their lives trying to work it out, and not have a prayer of getting anywhere. A more obvious and relevant example would be the GSG. Whether it was a message from the killer or a local graffiti artist, it remains too cryptic for anyone then or now to interpret with any degree of certainty.

In short, the nose job on Eddowes could have meant everything or nothing to our killer, because here we are today, wondering if the gesture had any special meaning for him, or for his audience, and we are none the wiser.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

As far as I'm concerned...only a personal opinion of course, and I haven't read back over all this thread, to see if anyone else has expressed the same opinion...the killer cut off the nose because it was a bit of the body which stuck out and was easily cut-offable (and the marks on the cheeks were collateral damage of that).
He could have cut off the ears of course (and didn't he cut off an earlobe ?), but there are two ears and he didn't have much time).

[Elenahoyos66]

As far as I'm concerned...only a personal opinion of course, and I haven't read back over all this thread, to see if anyone else has expressed the same opinion...the killer cut off the nose because it was a bit of the body which stuck out and was easily cut-offable (and the marks on the cheeks were collateral damage of that).
He could have cut off the ears of course (and didn't he cut off an earlobe ?), but there are two ears and he didn't have much time).

My feelings exactly.

[c.d.]

...and Kelly's killer cut off her ears because she had HEARD rumors about who Jack might be...and then he cut off the flesh from her thigh because she might have WALKED to the nearest police station to inform on him. He also pulled out her intestines because she had a GUT feeling as to Jack's identity and he wanted to discourage that in other women. The list goes on and on.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all

This is post 139 in this thread and I don't have time to read through the whole thread, so perhaps someone might have mentioned this already. It occurs to me that if there was really something in Eddowes saying she knew who the murderer was, if that old story has any credence, perhaps the nose was attacked because the killer viewed her as being "too nosy" and so punished her that way.

Chris

Ive said that same thing before Chris....but its far too reasonable an explanation for most of our group here.

Interesting that she was the only Ripper victim that supposedly told a friend that she intended to claim the reward for the killer by turning him in...the implication is there is that she had someone specific in mind. Perhaps the "nosey" wound was to let others know that they too might get their nose sliced off if its stuck into someone elses business. A warning.

Interesting question regarding this point......why wasnt Kate afraid to rat out the man...if indeed she believed him to be a deranged killer? Why did she assure John that she wouldnt "fall into "his" hands?

I think its possible she knew a killer on the loose...whether it was Jack or not is a different matter. Since her wounds are less skillful and much sloppier than Polly and Annies...."there were no meaningless cuts" on Annie for example, that might be a valid idea to look at.

Cheers