Facial Mutilations

[Rosella]

Yes, Jack was just enjoying himself with random slashes and cuts all over Kate's face, IMO. In a horrible sort of way it was a little like a toddler with a red crayon scribbling meaninglessly on a piece of paper. I suppose in the obliteration of her face Kate could have been standing proxy for a female Jack hated (mother?) I suppose, but of course we'll never know.

[Natasha]

If he was motivated by blind anger, why not stab at the eyes? All I can think is that he wanted Eddowes and Kelly to look at him. Does that indicate that even unfortunate women of the lower class wouldn't even give him a second glance?

[Penhalion]

It could indicate a narcissistic personality who always had to be the center of attention. Even while he was destroying them, he wanted to be the center of their world.

[Natasha]

It could indicate a narcissistic personality who always had to be the center of attention. Even while he was destroying them, he wanted to be the center of their world.

Hi Penhalion,

I think that's a good point. I think for him to be narcissistic he would be more inclined to brag about the murders. So does that mean he was the author of some of the letters? If he was narcissistic I would think so.

[Batman]

This is why there is no copycat. A copycat would copy Nichols and Chapman. Instead we see escalation of mutilation. The purpose I think is best explained by Robert Keppel when he says it was done to shock the public and to demonstrate his power over his victim by making them look this way.

[Sib]

I agree...I think he wanted to stand out above all others...no one was going to surpass his crime and in his mind he is " the best of the worst". The one to most feared. Just a thought...Sib

[Harry D]

If part of the Ripper's design was to dehumanize his victims, it stands to reason that the more attractive among his prey would suffer facial mutilations. Kelly and Eddowes were easier on the eye than Nichols & Chapman who, with respect, had long since seen better days.

[Errata]

Anyone here ever study any of the killers we know who mutilate faces? Read up on why they do that?

[DJA]

Anyone here ever study any of the killers we know who mutilate faces? Read up on why they do that?

Not really,however Ed Gein took faces off and wore them.

Eddowes's remaining kidney was infected with "strep".

From personal experience,the throat and Maxillary sinuses which were marked by nicks, are often the initial sites of infection.
Food and water being consumed being the other alternatives.

Sincerely doubt that Catherine was a prostitute,however the nose cut might have been inflicted to imply that.

[Natasha]

If part of the Ripper's design was to dehumanize his victims, it stands to reason that the more attractive among his prey would suffer facial mutilations. Kelly and Eddowes were easier on the eye than Nichols & Chapman who, with respect, had long since seen better days.

Disorganised killers are more likely to destroy the face and other areas of sexual significance to them. So I guess if he felt sexual desire for Eddowes & Kelly, it could explain the escalation of mutilation.

[Michael W Richards]

This is why there is no copycat. A copycat would copy Nichols and Chapman. Instead we see escalation of mutilation. The purpose I think is best explained by Robert Keppel when he says it was done to shock the public and to demonstrate his power over his victim by making them look this way.

What a copycat killer would do is attempt to recreate what had been publicly exposed about the previous unsolved killings, which is precisely what we see with the 4th and 5th Canonical murders. What a copycat could not know is why the previous murders were actually committed, and therefore he or she would be unaware of the motive. In the case on Annie Chapman it is suggested that virtually everything that was done to Annie was with the intention of eventually obtaining the organs he took. The kill, the cuts and the excisions were in that sequence.

Its obvious to anyone who has studied any violent crimes that facial mutilations are most often committed by persons who knew the victim, by someone with an imagined or real grievance. Since Mary was in what can be described as a romantic triangle at the time of her death, that premise makes some sense. One Joe was evicted, but what of the other "Joe"? How come he didn't assume a more prominent role in Marys life after Joe # 1 left?

As for Kates wounds, they didn't essentially remove her facial features as is the case with Mary, he viciously marked her face. A different thing altogether.

What was behind the murders is the key to solving them, not what was done to them, because the motive is the only element that is unique to the killer, anyone can cut people up. They do it everyday. Its WHY they did it that matters in terms of solving the crimes.

Cheers

[Harry D]

What a copycat killer would do is attempt to recreate what had been publicly exposed about the previous unsolved killings, which is precisely what we see with the 4th and 5th Canonical murders. What a copycat could not know is why the previous murders were actually committed, and therefore he or she would be unaware of the motive. In the case on Annie Chapman it is suggested that virtually everything that was done to Annie was with the intention of eventually obtaining the organs he took. The kill, the cuts and the excisions were in that sequence.

Hello, Michael.

This does kind of prove Batman's point. The initial murders did not include any kind of facial mutilations. Therefore, if the murders of Eddowes & Kelly were copycat killers trying to disguise their crimes as Ripper murders, why would they break with precedent? You're implying it's because these victims had some previous relationship with their killers, but that still doesn't rule out a serial killer. Maybe the Ripper knew Eddowes & Kelly, or they reminded him of his mother or an ex-lover? Why the need to invent multiple killers when there was already one knife-wielding prostitute slayer at large?

What was behind the murders is the key to solving them, not what was done to them, because the motive is the only element that is unique to the killer, anyone can cut people up.

That's a kind of contradiction in terms, because it's only by studying the post-mortems that one can infer any kind of motive in the first place. Moreover, you make it sound like the Ripper murders were fairly commonplace, as if anyone could go out into the street and start butchering women and removing their viscera.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Jack was just enjoying himself with random slashes and cuts all over Kate's face, IMO. In a horrible sort of way it was a little like a toddler with a red crayon scribbling meaninglessly on a piece of paper. I suppose in the obliteration of her face Kate could have been standing proxy for a female Jack hated (mother?) I suppose, but of course we'll never know.

But all of the facial mutilations do no appear to be as a result of cutting and slashing by what we have seen and read. They appear to have been carefully crafted which would I suggest would have needed some degree of light which was not present at the murder scene.

We have to ask if all of the victims were killed by the same hand why suddenly out of the blue go to great lengths to do so with Eddowes. We also have to consider the time factor, and how long the killer had with the victim with regards to him being able to do all that he is alleged to have done including the facial mutilations?

Is there another plausible explanation?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But all of the facial mutilations do no appear to be as a result of cutting and slashing by what we have seen and read. They appear to have been carefully crafted which would I suggest would have needed some degree of light which was not present at the murder scene.

Hi Trevor

Dr Sequira was in Mitre Square that morning and he said (at the inquest):

"I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed"

[Jon Guy]

But all of the facial mutilations do no appear to be as a result of cutting and slashing by what we have seen and read. They appear to have been carefully crafted which would I suggest would have needed some degree of light which was not present at the murder scene.

Also, in the Kelly case, Insp Abberline said this (at the inquest):

"....it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing."