|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 982
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 11:31 am: |       |
Folks,
This is really a follow on from posts on the Barnett thread...I forget which one....about Jacks 'tidiness'.
It got me to thinking (a bad sign indeed) about Eddowes and her mutilations. I just want to gage people opinions if I may.
Its been predominately thought that the eyes and facial mutilations occurred after the abdominal mutilations. This may be down to Brown stating "I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes." This may infer this act happened after the disembowling act.
I was wondering if the opposite was the case. Could the facial mutilations happen prior to the abdominal ripping ?
The reason I ask this is because Kate is the first one to be on 'display'. Look at the drawing of the cadaver in situ. There is no attempt to cover up the body. Is this because he was disturbed or just didnt bother to do such a thing ?
A little feedback would help,
Cheers,
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Well, the most realistic suggestion for me, would probably be some kind of combination of the two; there is really nothing to indicate that he was disturbed in Eddowe's case, but in any case it might have taken too much time for him to hide or cover the bodies in a sufficient way. My bet is, that he just wanted to do what he felt was important to him and then get the hell out of there as soon as possible -- to stay behind and cover up the bodies would be too risky, I feel. I also think the bodies were never meant to be covered up in the first place -- then, if it was a deliberate intent as showing off his work, or if he just didn't care, that's another question.
My bet is that the ripping of the bodies came first; we can see from the earlier victims that those were his main goal -- I have no idea why he added facial mutilations on Eddowes, but I believe they would have been done after the body was mutilated, as an extra "treat". But that is only pure speculation, and I don't really see it as being of extreme importance from a factual point of view.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Monty,
I think the face was done first, then the abdominal mutilations. My reasoning: The facial marks were meant as a message to someone. That part done and he moved on to the "thrill" part. IMHO, he would have been too "up" to have done the facial cuts after the abdominal mutilations.
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1468
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Could be, Mikey. But I don't really believe in "messages" or "ritualistic elements" in connection with Jack the Ripper.
So in my view, the face marks are just simply done by some sort of frenzy -- I wouldn't want to read something more into them than that.
The "thrill" part i believe he would have done first. But I can't swear on it.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 3:40 pm: | |
My gut feeling is that he'd have done the abdominal mutilations first and the facial ones last. However, one thing that seems to suggest the opposite is that Brown doesn't mention any faecal matter being on the face - just a little mud on the left cheek. If Jack's hands and knife were already soiled with faecal matter, you'd have thought some of it would have found its way onto Kate's face.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Monty,
I’m with Glenn and Robert on this one. Judging from Nichols and especially Chapman I think the abdominal mutilations were his primary aim. They were what he came for. I feel the facial mutilations were done later.
However, I don’t agree with Glenn that the inverted V’s on the cheeks and the nicks on the eyelids were done in a frenzy and I think 5 minutes is a long time for the nicking of the eyelids. I’m not sure the facial mutilations meant nothing.
All the best,
Frank
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Where some see ‘thrill’ I see pure desperation.
I don’t think the timing allows for ritual or design, of any nature or form.
No forethought, no after-thought, just a middle road of haze.
A sort of blitz that rushed through so fast that before or after is no consideration at all.
You know, Jack’s means of expression in the terms that we might understand today were very limited in his day. In the LVP the mediums available for artistic expression and interpretation were shockingly restricted and limited, you picked up a paintbrush - or knife - and painted the picture accordingly.
I always think it important to remember that, and it is patently false to attempt to interpret events of the LVP in the terms of our modern age.
That’s like walking into an East-End pub during the LVP and asking for an ice-cold pint of lager.
It didn’t exist then. They drank warm bull’s piss in those days.
Imagine asking a LVP barman for a gin and tonic with ice and lemon.
It was warm then and came out of a bucket.
Just like Jack.
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 624
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
I think the ripper could have been practising ancient type slaughter prompted by perhaps the old testament rituals or by being in the slaughter business and wanting to progress from animals to humans and get digging and cutting and scooping and well ripping!!!Or perhaps in the medical business [surgery or post mortems]and desired warmer "living" "models" to play with.His actions seem a bit like digging and scooping up sand the actual enjoyment of feeling the "sand" run through the fingers.
He certainly wasnt squeamish and seemed to positively want all the slime and stinky stuff to come to the surface.
I often think he may simply have had a perversion about womens "innards2[he did steal off with quite a few organs---why?to "fondle " them perhaps when he got to safety.To relish the act again. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
I kind of figure that the facial mutilations came first. Since Kate's throat was cut before anything (I say that because that's what killed her), it seems like he'd take care of the face as long as he was up by her head. I might be oversimplifying, though. Who knows what his reasoning really was?
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:32 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think we are really in deep water here. We can't obviously know anything of his intentions and the order of the things he did and personally I don't think it matters whether he did the facial marks first or last -- it doesen't tell us that much.
Nevertheless, to me it would be logical to assume, that the mutilations on Eddowes' body (God, what a subject...) were done first, prior to the facial marks, since that was what he was after -- there would be no reason for him to leave that to last. Subsequently, I think he finished off with the facial marks, but for which reason he did them, I can't say.
Frank,
I guess I came out wrong when I wrote "frenzy"; I tried desperately to find an English word to explain what I meant, but I couldn't come up with anything. What I at least meant to imply, was that the facial marks at least were done from some sort of emotional expression; it could be hate, it could be to degrade her etc.
But my point was that I don't think they mean anything, in sense of a message or symbolic communication or something like that. He just may have come to a point of progression where the bodily mutilations no longer were enough to satisfy him and he at the same time had become bolder. But as I said, it's all speculation.
AP,
"It was warm then and came out of a bucket."
Aaah, those were the days.
Personally, lager and "bull's piss" makes no difference to me. I am no beer lover, but when I do drink beer I accept nothing else than a correctly poured Guinness -- everything else is undrinkable. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 107
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 8:06 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
I have to agree with Glenn on this one...There is no way we can ever know what the marks cut in her face mean. Im sure they mean something to him, but, If no one gets the point of a message, what good is it. The same thing with the Graffito...man, we cant make heads or tails out of what the hell it means.
If he had of wanted to make a point in facial carving, why didnt he just carve.."I Hate Whores" on her forehead? I agree that we are reading too much into it because....He could have just woke up that morning and thought..."I think I'll carve hyroglyphics into a hookers face today". The point is ...We'll never know. All the Best.
Paul |
Lisa F.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
I think the body mutilations were done first, then the face. The first victims do not have much damage done to their face, but the mutilations increase with violence as they go along. I think it goes to reason that he would rip up their abdomens, etc., first in a frenzy of anger, and then move on to the nittier parts like cutting up the face and the things that might take more care and precision and levelheadedness. He did slash the victims' throats first, supposedly, for security's sake (so they couldn't scream or anything), but I think then he'd move on to the torso and whatnot. |
maria giordano
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
I think that the facial mutilations came last.
The lower body mutilation was what he "had" to do to fulfill his fantasy.He may have felt that he had a little time there in Mitre Square and was drawn by his curiosity and his sickness to experiment.
Since I see this as an escalating series, I think the facial mutilations were just another stop on his way to explore everything he was capable of. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 986
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 4:18 am: | |
Guys,
Many thanks. I value your opinions.
I personally am in a 2 & 8 about this. The mutilations on Kates face differ from Marys. It seems symbolic but it also seems symbolic only to Jack (....which begs the question why didnt Mary have the same done to her ?). APs spaced out Robotic Jack must have had a programme to follow. Even if he didnt know what it was.
I think Robert makes a good point also. No report of matter of any sorts on the face apart from mud. Explain this guys ? Gloves removed ?? What ???
Glenn, Im going to have to disagree with you regarding the importance of which mutilation came first. I feel it is important because as it has been mentioned here, it seems in the prior murders the body was the intial starting place for mutilation....not the face. There may be a change with Kate. And if there is a change with Kate then there may have been a change between Tabram and Nichols....see where Im heading ?
Yeah its all supposition but Im trying to gather evidence which lays more heavily on one side than the other. Im trying to find the more likely. A hard task I know but thats my thang.
Again, thanks for the imput.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1473
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi Monty,
"...see where Im heading?"
Nope. I must admit I don't quite get what it's supposed to show.
But you are right that the face mutilations on Mary differs from those on Eddowes'. That has also been one of my points earlier on other threads.
I can't see why he should change his scheme and start with the facial mutilations, though. And I still don't see its importance. Sorry.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 989
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Glenn,
"...see where Im heading?"
Nope. I must admit I don't quite get what it's supposed to show
A change in signature.
As for not seeing its importance dont apologise for that. It may not be important. Thats a conclusion you have come to. I have yet to come to mine.
Later,
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
PF arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
I suspect that the facial mutilations were committed after the body was attacked. This is because i've always assumed that in throwing up several layers of clothing to reveal the adomen the ripper would have ended up covering Eddowes face with the clothes. Yet Dr Browns initial assessment at the scene mentions the face was leaning to the left? shoulder so it could not have been covered. Therefore her clothes must have been removed from her face. I can only think of two reasons for this being done.
1 By the ripper to get to kate's face to cut it.
2. By a curious policemen before the doctor arrived
I think the Ripper scenario is more likely. Though i'm aware that it is all based on an intial assumption and nothing else (before anyone points this out to me).
|
Nick Cook
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
Hmm im sure this is nothing to do with it, just a big guess and doubt its right atall but the V he carved could be the roman numral for 5....as in 5 murders, hehe dont laugh, just a silly guess. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
No one above appears to be within half a million years of a clue as to what the facial mutilations on Eddowes' corpse mean. The Ripper's speaking, but we're not listening.
All of what the Ripper said--he made four speeches--have a meaning along the same line. The four speeches of JtR were:
1. Lipski!
2. Facial mutilations, Catherine Eddowes.
3. The Juwes are...
4. From hell...
Now get out there and solve it! You haven't got much more time...
B.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
And the prophet has spoken once more...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 6:49 pm: | |
Don't worry Glenn, once you read A?R, you'll realize I didn't need to be a prophet--nor even particularly smart--to figure the case out.
B.
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 5:08 am: | |
I think I've posted elsewhere on this, but I'll post it for a last time anyway. It is of course, like almost everything else written about the Ripper, a theory or speculation.
There are always references in this case of mutilation, to the 'inverted' V's.
Common sense would say that the killer would not sit astride a disembowelled body amongst the gore to put them there but would probably carve them from the head end and so they could be referred to just as V's.
It is unfortunate that these "V" markings have, mainly due to their prominence, overshadowed what I believe to be the actual significance of the mutilations on Eddowes face, the markings to her eyes. These markings, not the V's, are of actual significance as they relate directly to the Goulston St. Graffito, were preplanned, and in the killers mind made up for an incorrect and unavoidable spelling derived when interpreting the graffito clue.
I believe I know the answer but am not at liberty as yet to reveal anything further, it's just a pointer for those who enjoy puzzles.
"..had a go at her eyes, left my mark.."
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 8:40 pm: | |
Hey All,
Nick...not a stupid theory at all. Its as good as any others I guess. Who knows what the hell it means.
Bullwinkle...good call on the clues, dude. I have almost got it solved, but Im holding out a little longer...haha.
Glenn....Whats up Bro? I just got back from a vacation at the beach. This is where I had an epiphany. The identity of Jack the ripper is.........ya know, Im not any closer than I was before I left. Cheers.
Paul |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 178
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
While I do not share David's enthusiasm about his "Archbisop Ripper" (I think that's what it means, at least that's what he eluded to on the old boards) theory, I do think the mutilations and any 'symbols' did have some importance. Either they were for him and him alone or we are just missing to many pieces of the puzzle to put it together.
crix0r |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
"These markings, not the V's, are of actual significance as they relate directly to the Goulston St. Graffito, were preplanned, and in the killers mind made up for an incorrect and unavoidable spelling derived when interpreting the graffito clue. I believe I know the answer but am not at liberty as yet to reveal anything further..."
>>The markings on the eyes have nothing to do with the spelling of 'Juwes,' or with the graffitus. These have two independent sets of meanings. There is indeed something 'preplanned' here, but no one in eleven decades has been able to figure out what the deuce it is. There is no telling what ANYTHING in the evidence means without telling what EVERYTHING in the evidence means, this is the most important point. When I tell you what everything means, you'll fall right off your chair. It's that maddeningly obvious. It will be like finally discovering the elephant that's been living in your closet unnoticed for the past 20 years. When I read though my Summary for proofreading purposes, I am struck by how pedestrian the solution seems. Everything is different despite that almost nothing is.
B.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
