Facial Mutilations

[Jon Guy]

If you look at "Ultimate" p. 105, it clearly states that there are two cuts--just like with Polly.

I checked and couldn`t find it. Maybe, I have a different edition.
Do you have the source for this, please ?

[lynn cates]

angle

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Can we assume that all of the victims were cut at the exact same angle and that his grip on the knife was exactly the same in every case?"

Actually, the grip and angle in Kate's case was REMARKABLY different. Have you looked at her PM lately?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

routine

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

"The depth may be relevant, Lynn . . ."

Agreed.

"But I see these as mere practicalities . . ."

Practical is one quick, deep cut.

" . . . if you want to make sure you get a satisfactory "bleed", then you're going to make deep cuts to the neck."

I agree that the first cut was to bleed. But why plural? And why not in the subsequent murders?

"As to the parallelism of the wounds, we have no data on how precisely (or approximately) parallel they were."

But we DO know about distance. One victim had the two cuts an inch apart, the other, half an inch. Looks like part of a routine.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thinking

Hello Harry. Thanks.

Well, if you found two bodies with a geometrical (say, a pentagon) carved into them, what would be your thinking?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

"Parallel or partially-parallel cuts, of course, require more than one wound to be present - but, as is established regarding Sutcliffe, a different number of wounds in one murder compared to another is not a strong indicator that there were different killers involved."

And while were on the subject of Sutcliffe, it bears repeating that he bailed on several attempted murders because he was scared off. What scared him? Simply thoughts in his own head. Just paranoia.

c.d.

[Errata]

Hello Lynn,

Can we assume that all of the victims were cut at the exact same angle and that his grip on the knife was exactly the same in every case? Did any of the victims move or struggle just as he was about to cut? It seems that there are a number of factors that could account for differences in the cuts. Also, we have no way of knowing the importance of the cuts to him (as in a signature) or if they were simply a way of achieving an end. In that case, one cut was as good as another.


c.d.

He probably also thought that an ear to ear cut was necessary, since he made efforts to do exactly that, and it's not at all necessary. So he's not exactly up on the physics of throat cutting. He could have gotten the same result with half the work. But there is no reason for him to know that. How would he know that? All the stories talk about cutting someone's throat from ear to ear.

So what else doesn't he know that accounts for a ton of variations? We assume he knows what he is doing. And why he is doing it. That might not at all be true. He is far more lucky than good.

[c.d.]

Hello Gareth. Of course, it is NOT just number. Two deep parallel cuts--that's significant.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Can we assume that all of the victims were cut at the exact same angle and that his grip on the knife was exactly the same in every case? Did any of the victims move or struggle just as he was about to cut? It seems that there are a number of factors that could account for differences in the cuts. Also, we have no way of knowing the importance of the cuts to him (as in a signature) or if they were simply a way of achieving an end. In that case, one cut was as good as another.


c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Gareth. Of course, it is NOT just number. Two deep parallel cuts--that's significant.

The depth may be relevant, Lynn, so too the extent of the wounds inflicted. But I see these as mere practicalities - if you want to make sure you get a satisfactory "bleed", then you're going to make deep cuts to the neck.

As to the parallelism of the wounds, we have no data on how precisely (or approximately) parallel they were. Besides, if you're going to inflict two transverse-section cuts above and below the larynx in quick succession, there's a good chance you'd end up with more-or-less parallel lines anyway.

Parallel or partially-parallel cuts, of course, require more than one wound to be present - but, as is established regarding Sutcliffe, a different number of wounds in one murder compared to another is not a strong indicator that there were different killers involved.

[Harry D]

Hello Gareth. Of course, it is NOT just number. Two deep parallel cuts--that's significant.

Cheers.
LC

Why are the "two parallel cuts" the determining factor in all this?

[Errata]

Hi Errata
Good post.
But the eyes? and tongue??? I thought the most common thing taken by a serial killer was the head, then breasts and feet?? in that order.

Or are you just talking about all killers?

Yeah it's all of them. That's why hit men blow the curve on tongues. It's a mob thing

This is sort of dependent on the meaning of "taken". Some killers take the whole body home. Or they lure their victims to their home. Whatever else they do to the body, they have all of it. So they don't count in this particular statistic. They have the whole thing, no matter how many parts it gets broken down into, so technically they aren't "taking" the head. They took the whole person. Different category. So we are talking about people who kill someone and abandon the remains, or someone who kills and dumps the remains elsewhere. Body collectors are a whole other thing.

And the head and breasts are the most commonly cut off, but they are not the most likely to be taken. Feet tend to be a body collector thing unless a killer brings an axe to a murder scene.

Many killers don't actually take the head, they dump it elsewhere. And it's worth noting that hit men blow this stat as well. People who cut off a head don't hang on to it very long. Apparently just cutting it off is enough, and they dump in the same day if not near the rest of the body. Like they don't want it, they just don't want the victim to have it. Or maybe it's a forensic countermeasure.

Necrophiles are the ones who keep heads, there just aren't that many of them. They don't kill that often, as far as paraphilias go. And these tend to be body collectors. I can think of three that took heads, one doesn't count because he didn't kill for them he just dug them up. So that leaves Kemper and Dahmer. And both of them at that point actually kept everything, somewhere. Kemper buried headless bodies in his garden, Dahmer dissolved them in vats. Both kept the parts they wanted, but multiple parts. Not just the head. But it's pretty rare. They are sensational cases, but the amount of press they get makes it seem like it happens a lot more often than it does. I can think of like five cases where that happened, and given there are more that 100 known unsolved serial murders in the US, it's not really a lot. But it almost never happens where the killer doesn't also have the rest of the body somewhere in his possession. Which makes it that whole other thing usually. Let's face it. It's not the heads we remember Dahmer for.

Breasts are also an incredibly common fetish. When mutilating women it is super common to excise the breasts, and it's relatively easy to do. They are typically attacking her womanhood so breasts, external genitals (or inner thighs) and mouths are common targets. But they don't typically walk away with the breasts they cut off. They are usually found near the body. Lips and labias are also commonly cut off and those are usually right near the body as well. It's hard to tell from reports what exactly happened to something that was cut off. Those details are usually held back, and it's gross so the press doesn't get too detailed. It could have been left at the scene, it could have gone home with him in a bag, it could have been thrown out the car window on the way home. In unsolved cases we almost never get that information, and it skews statistics a little. Typically we find out that those parts are nearby. The breasts may have been tossed into the bushes, but they are on the scene. Sometimes animals get there first, but the guys who do this that we catch never talk about cannibalism, and we don't find breasts in jars. So they probably never left the scene with what they cut off.

Eyes are the most fetishized part of the body for killers. And I honestly don't know why. It's creepy as hell, so maybe that's why it popular, as a scare tactic. Cannibal killers do eat them, but the eyes are sort of the least of the problems there. Like I said, most of these guys are into taxidermy, which is the one place a person pops out eyes on a regular basis. It may start there, it may have started earlier and taxidermy just lets them do it in an acceptable way. Either way, once a serial killer focuses on eyes, he always becomes an enucleator. I don't know why a guy can't just be satisfied with stabbing them or whatever, but they never are. But they are small and portable, and the killer takes them home and put them in a jar or something for a while. They tend not to keep them long, just a week or so or until they are replaced. Sometimes they force others to eat them.

Killers tend not to leave the body in the woods and take something home with them other than maybe a piece of jewelry. When they do, it's usually eyes. And tongues are usually used as proof of kill. Sometimes hands are as well, and a lot of hands get cut off to foil identification. But that's a pro thing, rarely a serial killer thing. And the Pros still lead serial killers three to one in murders.

[lynn cates]

number

Hello Gareth. Of course, it is NOT just number. Two deep parallel cuts--that's significant.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

signature

Hello John. Thanks.

Actually, I do not think of the parallel cuts to Polly and Annie as signature--at least, not in the technical sense used for serial killers. Rather, I think this indicates his occupation.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not entirely sure that the two cuts is a signature.

In similar manner, Peter Sutcliffe didn't stick to the same number of hammer-blows to dispatch his victims. One, two, three, more... it varied.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

"are there any examples of a serial killer repeating a precise signature characteristic with every victim?"

I think we might even ask whether there are serial killers with 2 such precise signatures. If there are, did they later deviate?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I'm not aware of any precedent. And, as Errata points out, the parallel cuts might not be signature characteristics, but merely incidental.

[John G]

I'm not entirely sure that the two cuts is a signature. It might be if it's significant to him, but if it's because he's just sort of bad at slitting throats and always has a sort of starter cut because he's nervous, that's not really a signature as much as it's significant. The way being left handed would be significant but not a signature. A signature is that which is necessary to the killer but not for the commission of the crime. Technically the extra cut isn't necessary, but it might be accidental. In which case it's not significant so it's not a signature.

Cutting the throat down to the spine is a signature. It's not necessary for death, and it was done after the victim technically died, so once the victim dies, you only keep at it if it's important to you. No one ever born has the ability to cut the throat that deeply in one go without power tools. That's a lot of hacking away at some tough tissue. So that mattered to him. That's a signature.

There's almost never only one signature. The overkill on the neck, the pose, the abdominal mutilations, organ theft, facial mutilations, etc. All potentially signatures. All likely signatures (except possibly the pose). So having a lot of signatures isn't uncommon. Changing them is uncommon. And circumstances may change things for a killer, say being interrupted for example. But even if they were thwarted at some point, they go back to what's important.

By the way, the eye guy was always going to take eyes. Anyone who messes with eyes even a little ends up being an enucleator. I don't know why exactly, but it's the only body part that once a killer messes with it, he is destined to organizing his life around getting them. It's like eyes are addictive somehow. Not many killers are interested in them, but those who are always end up taking them. Always. The Eyeball killer was remarkable only in that apparently it was the only thing he was interested in. Enucleators also tend to be into taxidermy. So there's that. Most common part taken by a killer. The tongue is a close second, but that's a little skewed by hit men who are not technically serial killers is a psychological sense.

Hi Errata,

I agree with Abby, this is a good post. Of course, lack of experience might presumably explain the "starter cut" in respect of Nichols and Chapman, and why such a technique isn't obvious with Eddowes, I.e because the killer was more experienced by this time.