Why Mutilate The Nose Specifically?

[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]

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

[Roy Corduroy]

Whatever you mean by nose clap is your deal. Errata, you say things I didn't say then you argue with them. This could go on for awhile.

Roy

[Errata]

This is what I posted, Errata. Yes that is my assertion. There's no need for me to answer your multiple questions, because I didn't say any of the things you asked me.

Roy

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.

[Michael W Richards]

What's symbolic about dropping a piece of apron Michael?

Greg

Hi Greg,

Even if youre of a mind to separate the apron piece and the grafitto, personally I dont, but whatever the case.. it still doesnt make sense for this to be a random act. The apron section isnt seen at that location until almost 3am, and neither you nor I would like to explain why the killer walked around for a bit with something that he wouldnt care to explain to a constable. If he casually dropped it after using it to wipe his hands,...a common assumption, then one would have to explain why he still had it on him as far as Goulston, and where it was for the missing hour and a bit.

People may argue that the apron may just have been missed by the good PC on his earlier pass, but when examining this exchange on the stand at the Inquest...;

"[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
[PC Long] I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
[PC Long] It was not.

...one must conclude that his very direct answer to the second question almost eliminates the possibility that he must have missed seeing it there. According to PC Long, the man who found it, it was not there until approx 2:55am.

That seems to me to indicate that its placement was not a casual drop on the way home fleeing from a murder scene. In fact, if one imagines it was as PC Long states, the apron was placed there.

To mislead police as to where he actually lived, or to lead police to a message he also left as a suggestion of guilt? It doesnt matter for the sake of this argument.

It appears it was set there intentionally...perhaps symbolically linking some local residents to the crime.

Cheers Greg

[Roy Corduroy]

Donald Rumbelow said the nose rotted from syphilis, which is true and was known.

This is what I posted, Errata. Yes that is my assertion. There's no need for me to answer your multiple questions, because I didn't say any of the things you asked me.

Roy

[GregBaron]

Misplaced symbols...

. If the killer himself did that, isnt that a symbolic gesture?

What's symbolic about dropping a piece of apron Michael?



Greg

[Errata]

Donald Rumbelow said the nose rotted from syphilis, which is true and was known.

Roy

So your assertion is that there is a sexually transmitted disease out there that specifically targets noses? I just want to be clear. You think that there is a disease that starts on the penis or cervix, leaves those organs intact, but then eats the nose right off the face. If someone doesn't have a nose, does it eat something else, or is that person merely spared the indignity of nose eating clap?

[Michael W Richards]

I didn't say that, Michael. Follow back a few pages and see the quote from Don Rumbelow. That's what I was discussing. The nose. A nose. Not her nose.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Roy

Sorry if I misinterpreted the remark Roy. No offense intended.

Heres something that perhaps should be factored in when assessing why Kates killer did cut her nose....the fact that her murder is the only investigation in the Ripper series where the police assumed a getaway trail by the discovery of crime scene evidence taken from Mitre Square some 10 minutes away and discarded at the Goulston St entrance to the Model Homes. If the killer himself did that, isnt that a symbolic gesture?

And if we find a character that takes valuable time to commit symbolic acts, might we also expect to see some at the murder scene as well?

There may be plenty of evidence about the killer and the murder itself staring us right in the face...pun intended,...and we lack the proper perspective or context to understand it.

Much of the evidence in these cases I believe may fall into those voids.

Cheers Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

I didn't say that, Michael. Follow back a few pages and see the quote from Don Rumbelow. That's what I was discussing. The nose. A nose. Not her nose.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

Donald Rumbelow said the nose rotted from syphilis, which is true and was known.

Roy

Hi Roy,

But no-one claimed that Kates nose showed signs of any disease before it was found sliced almost entirely off. Not John Kelly certainly.

Cheers Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Donald Rumbelow said the nose rotted from syphilis, which is true and was known.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

When the act performed suggests some kind of symbolic reference, like I believe in the case of Kates nose, the more obvious the translation the better. Why take that extra time in Mitre Square with the PC bootsteps never very far away if its just some idiosyncratic impulse?

Although I did note the find Bridewell made regarding a prostitute branding of sorts interesting, in the case of Kate Eddowes that has been a very difficult argument to make. Supposedly she and John lived as virtual man and wife and they were in early each night....attested to by a landlord of theirs I believe.

She was hopping at the end of the previous week with John, and we can account for most of her evenings since she returned to London. It would seem that the only possible times that she would have prostituted herself is when she was away from John and was able to stand and walk a straight line,....which leaves what, Friday night and Saturday?

I think the nose cutting is a simple yet effective reminder to anyone in the area that people shouldnt stick their nose where it doesnt belong, in other peoples business...or they may get it cut off.

Cheers all

[Abby Normal]

I'd go with the "because he liked it" explanation.

As in "my knife is so nice and sharp..and see what I can do to a womans face with it." It gave him pleasure and released an urge.

secondary motivations may have been, degradation, anger or curiosity but basically he did it because he could, and liked it.

[Tecs]

Yeah, I think the killer may have simply wished to further humiliate and degrade the victim.

Greg

I think that they are the key words.

I don't want to lower the tone, but there are certain sexual practices to do with humiliation and degradation that focus on the face. If Jack was using the knife as a substitute for his you know what, then attacking the face may have been his way of doing this.

Having gained satisfaction from this at Mitre Square, he may have gone even further in Miller's Court?

Also on this subject (apologies if anybody's mentioned this, I've not checked the whole thread) there is a legend that the singer Ian Curtis from Joy Division cut off his own nose before hanging himself. It may be a complete urban myth but it's never been denied as far as I know.

If he did, nobody has suggested why. To spite his face? Self loathing, spite oneself? Who knows?

regards,