autopsy notes

[kjab3112]

Thatīs true - but in the torso cases, we do not know what condition the victims were when they had their necks cut. They could have been drugged, for example, offering no resistance. Different circumstances can have led to different types of cuts.

True, but there is a lack of defence wounds recorded in the ripper cases to suggest that they too were insensate when the throat was cut

[kjab3112]

Hi Paul

In the cases of Chapman and Kelly, the Ripper did cut from the front and right around the back of the neck.

Apologies for lack of clarity, the torso cuts went from the front down the side of the neck and then joined up on the other side. The ripper start under the angle of the jaw and progress across the larynx. My interpretation would be that the cut to the larynx was essential for the rippers intended purpose whereas the torso cut would be as a means of dismemberment

[Fisherman]

True, but there is a lack of defence wounds recorded in the ripper cases to suggest that they too were insensate when the throat was cut

There is a suggestion, but no certainty. These were much rushed affairs, and there are differences inbetween all the Ripper neck cuts.

[Fisherman]

Apologies for lack of clarity, the torso cuts went from the front down the side of the neck and then joined up on the other side. The ripper start under the angle of the jaw and progress across the larynx. My interpretation would be that the cut to the larynx was essential for the rippers intended purpose whereas the torso cut would be as a means of dismemberment

Would not severing the vocal chords silence the victim too? Anyway, I think that the killer - who I believe to be one and the same in both series - may have taken more time and cut more carefully in the torso cases. The cutting work there is generally more clean.

[kjab3112]

The vocal cords were not cut from the evidence that we have. In MJK and Eddowes (The Times does state location of larynx incision) the cut was through the cricoid cartilage, this would result in exhaled air bypassing the vocal cords and thereby silencing the victim. My personal interpretation would be that the neck cut for the ripper was to cause bleeding to death and prevent screaming. I agree the torso cuts are more deliberate and controlled, but would appear to be for dismemberment and disguise of victim purposes rather than necessarily the primary means of murder

[Michael W Richards]

True, but there is a lack of defence wounds recorded in the ripper cases to suggest that they too were insensate when the throat was cut

There is evidence in the Millers Court case kjab, Mary has defensive wounds on her arms...she was likely still alive after the initial throat cut. I say after because without the throat cut we have Mary being able to make audible sounds.

[Fisherman]

The vocal cords were not cut from the evidence that we have. In MJK and Eddowes (The Times does state location of larynx incision) the cut was through the cricoid cartilage, this would result in exhaled air bypassing the vocal cords and thereby silencing the victim. My personal interpretation would be that the neck cut for the ripper was to cause bleeding to death and prevent screaming. I agree the torso cuts are more deliberate and controlled, but would appear to be for dismemberment and disguise of victim purposes rather than necessarily the primary means of murder

Thanks for that information.

I agree that the torso cuts look more deliberate on a general level. I donīt agree that they were necessarily made to disguise the victims identity - marks that could have been hidden were left on the body of Jackson, and the whole face was cut away and thrown in the Thames from the 1873 victim, for example. My guess is that the killer was not worried about any identification of the victims.
As for the dismemberment suggestion, the bodies were of course dismembered. But I do not think it was a practicality only - I think it was made by design to a large degree. In one case, I believe I can point out which cuts were led on by design and which were simply practical dismemberment.
There are a number of interesting things to take in about how it was done. One such thing is how the doctors agreed that the dismemberment was carried out very close in time to death. That sits well with a suggestion that the dismemberment was part of the aim.
There are other matters too that support the idea that the killer was working to an agenda while carrying out the dismemberments, but I am not going into them as of now. The cut away face and scalp from the 1873 victim should serve as a reminder of how these were not ordinary dismemberment murders. The killer made two cuts, one in the neck and one on top of the skull, and then he pulled the scalp and face off from the victim while working it free with the help of his knife.
That is not a mutilation you make to disenable an identification - not if you throw the face in the Thames to be washed ashore and found.
If you want to disenable an identification, it is MUCH easier to use acid or to bash the face in, or cut it to pieces. You donīt elaborately cut the face away from the skull, even leaving the eyelashes in place. Itīs unheard of.
So why then did this killer do it?
Because it answers to an agenda that can be clearly seen in a number of the other Ripper AND torso murders, not least in the Kelly murder.
And once again, I am not going further into it as of now. But it is there.

Question: Are you a medico or a forensic pathologist, or just interested in the details anyway?

Question 2: Are MJK and Eddowes the only victims where we know the larynx was severed? Evidently Stride did not suffer that damage, but how about Chapman and Nichols?

[jerryd]

I agree the torso cuts are more deliberate and controlled, but would appear to be for dismemberment and disguise of victim purposes rather than necessarily the primary means of murder

Hi Kjab,

Then the killer made a mistake by leaving Elizabeth Jackson's identifiable clothing with the body? If his purpose was to hide identification, why would he have done that? He also made extra unnecessary cuts to the bodies (abdomen). Again, if the sole purpose was to hide identity, why the extra mutilations? By extra I mean, above and beyond, the cutting off of the head and limbs.

[Debra A]

Hi Kjab,

Then the killer made a mistake by leaving Elizabeth Jackson's identifiable clothing with the body? ...

As well as that point, Jerry; the killer would have to have been certain that her name wasn't L.E. Fisher, the name written on the undergarments he wrapped a portion of her body in.

[John G]

I think it pretty obvious that the purpose of the dismemberment was to prevent identification of the body. In fact, this is invariably the purpose of dismembering a victim, and if the Torso victims were part of a series, the perpetrator did a pretty good job in achieving that aim as only one victim was identified.

I don't think it realistic to have expected the perpetrator to check the undergarments in case the victim had their name written into them!

[Fisherman]

I think it pretty obvious that the purpose of the dismemberment was to prevent identification of the body. In fact, this is invariably the purpose of dismembering a victim, and if the Torso victims were part of a series, the perpetrator did a pretty good job in achieving that aim as only one victim was identified.

I don't think it realistic to have expected the perpetrator to check the undergarments in case the victim had their name written into them!

John, if you believe that preventing identification of a body is "invariably" the purpose of dismembering a victim, you may need to look at the Black Dahlia case...

Or the Kingsbury Run case, for that matter.

[Fisherman]

For John G:

"Researchers suggest there are five main different kinds of homicidal mutilation; possibly the most common is referred to by Forensic Specialists as ‘defensive’ because the motive is to assist in hiding or moving the body, or getting rid of evidence, or making identification of the victim more difficult.

In a case reported by Tomasz Konopka, Jerzy Kunz and colleagues from the Department of Forensic Medicine, Collegium Medicum Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, human skin dissected free from a torso and other body parts were recovered from a local river. The remains were established to be those of a female student, who had been pronounced missing two months previously, but perhaps because of the delay in identification, the perpetrator is described in the paper as unknown.

The second most likely motive or category for this sort of mutilation murder is frequently found to be ‘aggressive’ - where the killing and mutilation is brought about by the same aggressive strong emotions, they are part of the same emotional motivation. A sub set of this type might be where dismemberment is in fact the cause of death, for example dismemberment as means of torture.

In their series of cases collected in order to spot patterns ‘Corpse dismemberment in the material collected by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Cracow, Poland’ and published in the journal Legal Medicine, Tomasz Konopka, Jerzy Kunz and colleagues draw attention to a case when several perpetrators, both male and female, from the Middle East, executed an alleged traitor, severing parts of his face, genitals and inflicting more than 100 incised and stab wounds while the victim was still alive.

The third most common category is usually referred to as an ‘offensive’ mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along, and these include lust and necro-sadistic murders. Those driven by primarily sexual motives mutilate the corpse in characteristic ways, Konopka, Kunz and colleagues report, for example severing genital organs or breasts. Some perpetrators pull out abdominal organs through the disfigured genital tract. Death by strangling is apparently very common in this kind of homicide.

In the fourth category are ‘psychotic’ murders where the perpetrator has lost touch with reasoning and perceptual reality in the conventional sense, so that they may be hearing voices or they suffer from bizarre delusions. Kamil Hakan Dogan, Zerrin Erkol and colleagues report just such a case in their paper entitled, ‘Decapitation and Dismemberment of the Corpse: A Matricide Case’ published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. A 57-year-old woman was decapitated and her right arm and both hands were dismembered by her 33-year-old daughter, who had been receiving treatment for schizophrenia for 15 years.

This case in no way suggests that schizophrenia in itself is a particularly dangerous psychiatric condition.

In the fifth type of dismemberment, are the kinds of killings associated in the modern world with organised crime such as the Mafia, whereby mutilation or dismemberment is a way of sending a message to others - in this case the murder isn’t just about getting rid of someone - it’s also a form of communication - a warning or threat."

Itīs a wide, wide world, John. It stretches far beyond Dr Biggs and his thoughts, to be frank.

[jerryd]

I think it pretty obvious that the purpose of the dismemberment was to prevent identification of the body. In fact, this is invariably the purpose of dismembering a victim, and if the Torso victims were part of a series, the perpetrator did a pretty good job in achieving that aim as only one victim was identified.

I don't think it realistic to have expected the perpetrator to check the undergarments in case the victim had their name written into them!

Hi John,

I think the dismemberment is more to aid in transferring the body from location A to B. Cutting the head off would be the most critical part to dismember in an effort to hide identity. Would you not agree? I didn't suggest the killer should check the name in the undergarments but if it was clothing a person was known to wear it would be identifiable by that means and would make sense to discard separate from the body.

[Fisherman]

Hi John,

I think the dismemberment is more to aid in transferring the body from location A to B. Cutting the head off would be the most critical part to dismember in an effort to hide identity. Would you not agree? I didn't suggest the killer should check the name in the undergarments but if it was clothing a person was known to wear it would be identifiable by that means and would make sense to discard separate from the body.

In the case of the torso series, I have little doubt that it was all about what was in my former post described as "an ‘offensive’ mutilation where the dismemberment is in fact the real purpose of the murder all along". The issue of transporting the body would have played a role, but it would not have directed all the cuts, methinks.

Off to bed now; goodnight, Jerry!

[Abby Normal]

I think it pretty obvious that the purpose of the dismemberment was to prevent identification of the body. In fact, this is invariably the purpose of dismembering a victim, and if the Torso victims were part of a series, the perpetrator did a pretty good job in achieving that aim as only one victim was identified.

I don't think it realistic to have expected the perpetrator to check the undergarments in case the victim had their name written into them!

Hey John
I think the most common cause of dismemberment for serial killers is in aid in disposal. Or maybe it's part of SIG. Like Jerry Brudos's liked to cut there feet off he had a foot fetish. Or maybe there's overlap and all three.

But in the case of torso man I lean toward sig and aid in disposal before identity hiding INMHO.