Why Mutilate The Nose Specifically?

[Nemo]

PS Gareth's contention was that the knife was placed across the bridge of the nose and moved in a see-saw motion causing the V slices to the cheek, the knife then skitting downward off the bone and causing the major gash

That's a pretty bad effort at cutting off a nose isn't it?

[Nemo]

Approximately one week prior to the double event, the death of Jane Beardsmore was investigated as a possible Ripper crime - William Waddell was hanged for it

The victim was found with her right leg bent, left leg straight, disembowelled and with a gash to the bone on the right side of her face

Any connection to the Mitre Square murder do you think?

[lynn cates]

One more time.

Hello Sally. Thanks.

If Gareth is correct that the triangular flaps were a failed attempt at removal, and given the oblique cut was successful, looks like a repeat effort.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally. Completely agree.

Do you think the nose is so much discussed given the killer made a second attempt at it?

Cheers.
LC

Well, I don't know Lynn. I don't recall reading many lengthy discussions re. the nose - but that could be because I've missed them or simply don't remember

I meant speculation in a general sense regarding facial mutilations - I wasn't thinking only of the nose, although the nose is very interesting.

So, did the killer make a second attempt at removing the nose? Interesting. I wonder if the facial mutilations we see with Eddowes are experimental. What do you think?

[lynn cates]

times two

Hello Sally. Completely agree.

Do you think the nose is so much discussed given the killer made a second attempt at it?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

The thing is, we don't (can't) know what was in the mind of the killer, so we are free to speculate ad infinitum.

Sounds like stating the bleedin' obvious, I know - but:

The mutilation of the face appears personal, and so it is. It is in effect a removal of the victim's identity (something we could argue we see in greater detail with Kelly). The trouble is, even is the mutilation of the face (and in the present context, the nose) is personal to the killer, we have no way of telling who was in the mind of the killer when he did it.

It seems quite possible that every victim, Eddowes included, were imagined as somebody else - somebody who was personal to the killer.

Intent is very difficult, if not impossible, to establish, beyond the very obvious.

[lynn cates]

enjoyment

Hello Miakaal.

"Could it not be that the nose reminded the killer of someone whose visage intruded on the killer's enjoyment of mutilation?"

Certainly. But, out of curiousity, why do you believe he enjoyed mutilation?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

growing list

Hello Nemo. Thanks for your considered reply.

"Are you referring to the tenet that killers attack the face because they are personally involved with the victim - derived from the study of murders in general?"

No. But if that's the thinking, let's add to list

"I have found that often, in such a case, the victim's face is covered rather than attacked."

I'm with you here.

"He might have attacked the victim's face due to his disgust in having to kiss her during his "Judas like" advances."

Alright. Possible.

"If you see any sign of JtR displaying the victim then attacking the face was maybe just to increase the horror to the discoverer of the body."

Very well. Not sure about display--but, just as you wish.

"Maybe he just had time to do something else other than attack the abdomen."

According to the medicos, he had ample time. So, agreed.

"There are more possible reasons but I don't consider any one more likely than the other."

There are indeed. Besides the ones I've discussed before (ie, nose = nark) what about "making one difficult to recognise"? It was awhile before Kate was identified. And the officers were a bit hesitant--"Looks like the one we had, but difficult to be sure." [my paraphrase]

Cheers.
LC

[miakaal4]

I must admit I have not read through the whole thread on this, so please forgive if I am repeating. Could it not be that the nose reminded the killer of someone who's visage intruded on the killers enjoyment of mutilation?
Perhaps a wife or mum?

[Nemo]

Hi Lynn

Are you referring to the tenet that killers attack the face because they are personally involved with the victim - derived from the study of murders in general?

I have found that often, in such a case, the victim's face is covered rather than attacked

He might have attacked the victim's face due to his disgust in having to kiss her during his "Judas like" advances

If you see any sign of JtR displaying the victim then attacking the face was maybe just to increase the horror to the discoverer of the body

Maybe he just had time to do something else other than attack the abdomen

There are more possible reasons but I don't consider any one more likely than the other

Regards

Nemo

[lynn cates]

list

Hello Nemo. Thanks.

You are right to deal with the facial targeting. And I agree that the nose is easy to cut--at least after the first misguided attempt.

Let's ask a general question. Under what conditions (note the plural) would one wish to cut up another person's face. Perhaps we could list them?

Cheers.
LC

[Nemo]

PS I consider him to have been more worried about the use of bloodhounds than pictures of the victims retina - hence the location of the apron piece

[Nemo]

Hi Lynn

I don't consider the nose to have been particularly targetted, no

It would be extremely easy to cut off a nose or an ear with a very sharp knife

The facial injuries go beyond that IMO

May I ask what type of character you consider JtR to have been?

You seem to have clear cut views on who he was and how he might have acted

What are your views on the facial injuries?

Regards

Nemo

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Nemo's interpretation of the killer returning home after Stride via Mitre square, is a view I have held for many years.
It would certainly fit in with the account of the morning of the 9th November, when at 1010am a man saw a well dressed man hurrying through the square blood soiled, in an ''excitable'' state.
Remember that this was approx 35 minutes before Kelly's body was found, so the witness was completely unaware of another murder.
It would also fit in nicely with the daylight theory I have believed for countless years, even if it goes against the grain.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Dividing the eyelids without cutting into the eyeballs, that takes some skill and some time. Why bother with such an intricate bit of cutting if that wasn't the focus of the facial mutilation?

I wouldn't expect the killer to take the time to lift the eyelid to see if he had sliced the eyeball, in the dark with time being of the essence I think he sliced the eyelids in an attempt to slice through, but, the eyeball did not offer enough resistance.

Sometime in September, I forget the date, the press published an article about the eyes retaining the image of what the victim last saw. It was brought up at the Chapman inquest.
Then, Eddowes is found with her eyelids sliced.

We should ask, was this the killer's attempt to play safe?

Regards, Jon S.