Emma Smith's torn ear

[seanr]

The thread on Kate's Cuts has brought to my attention an aspect of the attack on Emma Smith which I've not seen widely discussed, that is the nature of the injuries to her face and her head.

According to the Times report of the inquest into the death of Emma Smith, the witness Mary Russell gave the following evidence

Her [Emma Smith's] face and head were much injured, one of her ears being nearly torn off.

Some thoughts on this. Do the facial injuries seem to indicate something similar to facial injuries inflicted on Kate Eddowes? Specifically, the ear being 'torn'. Without thinking about it too much, I had assumed the facial injuries had been inflicted by brute force such as a punch but short of using a blade or a sharp instrument of some kind, how could an injury be inflicted which would tear an ear?

[Fisherman]

The thread on Kate's Cuts has brought to my attention an aspect of the attack on Emma Smith which I've not seen widely discussed, that is the nature of the injuries to her face and her head.

According to the Times report of the inquest into the death of Emma Smith, the witness Mary Russell gave the following evidence



Some thoughts on this. Do the facial injuries seem to indicate something similar to facial injuries inflicted on Kate Eddowes? Specifically, the ear being 'torn'. Without thinking about it too much, I had assumed the facial injuries had been inflicted by brute force such as a punch but short of using a blade or a sharp instrument of some kind, how could an injury be inflicted which would tear an ear?

Apparently, a blow from a fist can do the job:

"A boxing match was stopped on Saturday night after one of the fighters was unable to continue because his ear was nearly torn off.

Stephen Smith had a nasty cut down his left ear that was causing heavy bleeding and needed some medical attention. His fight with Francisco Vargas at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas had to be stopped after the ninth round because of the cut. Afterwards, Smith headed to the hospital to receive stitches to sew his ear back together."

Source: https://www.yardbarker.com/boxing/ar...1_127_25190675

To me, it sounds nothing like what happened to Eddowes.

[Darryl Kenyon]

There may have been a chance that Emma had her ear pierced [though not common in Victorian England it did happen], and the earring was torn out for monetary value by whoever attacked her. Perhaps not almost tearing her ear off but it might have given that impression.
Regards Darryl

[Joshua Rogan]

There may have been a chance that Emma had her ear pierced [though not common in Victorian England it did happen], and the earring was torn out for monetary value by whoever attacked her. Perhaps not almost tearing her ear off but it might have given that impression.

I was about to suggest this as a possibility myself. It seems something similar* had happened to Liz Stride, as Dr Phillips notes;

"The lower lobe of the ear was torn, as if by the forcible removing or wearing through of an earring, but it was thoroughly healed. The right ear was pierced for an earring, but had not been so injured, and the earring was wanting."

*Not necessarily theft, of course, nor a fight, but either is a possibility.

[rjpalmer]

"A boxing match was stopped on Saturday night after one of the fighters was unable to continue because his ear was nearly torn off"

Brings back memories of Mike Tyson.

[seanr]

If the cut on the ear was caused by a punch similar to that of a boxer or professional fighter, then that does tend to suggest quite the beating - and maybe quite the physical strength on the part of the attacker(s).

[Fisherman]

Brings back memories of Mike Tyson.

I hear you, R J.
Holyfield, not so much.

[seanr]

Thinking about it a little more... most of the newspaper reports of the inquest suggest Dr Haslip's deposition was that she had bruises to her head and her ear was torn. It looks like it is only the Times which states Dr Haslip said she was 'bleeding from the head and ear'. Was the ear injury the only open wound on her head?

I consider the possibility the injury was sustained by being hit hard on the right side of her head, with the same blunt instrument which caused the other injuries. Perhaps a hit to the head with the intent of incapacitating her. Her right side of her head would be the side facing the road as she walked away from St Mary's church back towards George Street, so it's possible her attacker hit her from behind.

If it had been similar to the boxing injury described above, I'd expect more cuts and abrasions to the head than the torn ear alone (although maybe the Times is right and there was such injuries).

[Michael W Richards]

I consider the possibility the injury was sustained by being hit hard on the right side of her head, with the same blunt instrument which caused the other injuries. Perhaps a hit to the head with the intent of incapacitating her. Her right side of her head would be the side facing the road as she walked away from St Mary's church back towards George Street, so it's possible her attacker hit her from behind.

I think that's a reasonable interpretation of how the wounds to her face and head could have been caused, and if that's the case, then we can once and for all set Emma aside as a "potential" Canonical addition. The evidence in most Canonical cases includes little if any noise, no head wounds by instrument, and possible strangulation or garroting. A rap on the head to incapacitate is risky from a noise perspective, no guarantee a single blow would work..or be a silent attack, cutting off the ability to make audible sound would be more sensible if sound was an issue. Like it must have been in the backyard at Hanbury, or in Mitre Square.

[seanr]

Well, this is interesting. I was just reaching the opposite conclusion. That this attack was too easily dismissed as unrelated as part of the series. Here are some of my reasons beyond simply the time, the geographical place and the victimology (a vulnerable woman on the streets of Spitalfields/ Whitechapel in 1888).

Some seem to claim Emma Smith was the victim of the kind of violence which was common in the 1880's against women of her class and so this was not an out of the ordinary attack. This seems demonstrably not so, through the comment of the coroner at the inquest as reported in the 'East London Advertiser', 'it was clear that the woman had been barbarously murdered. Such a dastardly assault he had never heard of, and it was impossible to imagine a more brutal case'. The case was the first to bring attention onto Whitechapel and the simple fact is in 1888, if you had asked an investigating officer on this case when the series started, they would have said with the attack on Emma Smith. The 'canonical five' as a discrete set came much later.

Although some see the motive of the attack on Emma Smith as robbery, we also know (or believe we know) how little actual money these women would have carried on them (even if they had successfully conducted some 'business'). The attacker(s) in 1888 would have known this too. Although she seems she said the attackers took 'all of the money she had on her', it'd hardly have been enough to motivate the level of violence and brutality used.

Although as said 'evidence in most Canonical cases includes little if any noise, no head wounds by instrument, and possible strangulation or garroting', this is far from consistent. In the case of Annie Chapman, there is some evidence that brute force was used to render the victim unconscious, although the method of disable the victims changes, the pattern remains the same. Render the victim unable to resist and then attack the rest of the body. I don't consider it a meaningful difference *how* disabling the victim was achieved, it *may* be more significant that disabled/ unconscious was the first 'step' in attack regardless the method used to do this.

According to Dr George Haslip, as reported in the Times, she said she 'crossed the road to avoid them, but they followed, assaulted her, took all the money she had, and then committed the outrage'. We have the pattern of attack the victim, incapacitate them and then commit sexually motivated further attacks. In this case, the assault which ruptured her perineum.

Time, place, selection of victim, pattern of the attack, all the same. Sure, people often do point out the differences, but the similarities should not be ignored. The attack on Emma Smith as part of the series of attacks should not be set aside quite so easily as it usually is.