autopsy notes

[Fisherman]

It's well known the name in the garment was L E Fisher. No books on the subject ever say it was Lizzie. A facsimile of the name was even reproduced in the newspapers. It's Hutchinson visiting his sister in Romford all over again.

Ouch!

[Debra A]

Joshua Rogan: If I recall, weren't the doctors unable to locate Jackson's scar at first? I believe they had to scrape away the skin where it should have been, which exposed the scarring on the underlying tissue. Not sure if this apparent invisibility was due to water immersion, decomposition or simply that the scar was never very prominent.

True. It is said that "The identification came about by means of the clothing of the victim, her description, pregnant condition at the time of her disappearance and also the fact that Elizabeth had a scar on her wrist as a result of a childhood accident. This was investigated by the doctors and by lifting away a small amount of skin from the slightly decomposed arm of the victim they were able to locate traces of similar scar on the wrist."

So it was the decomposition that hid the scar. It would reasonably have been there for the killer to see, though.


Wasn't the original owner Laura Fisher, not Lizzie? I confused them on another thread, I hope I haven't started something...

You seem to have started a correction - the garments were marked with inititals only, L E Fisher, and the Lizzie Fisher name seems to have seeped in via other channels. Jerry D looked into it on an earlier thread and wrote:
I think the Lizzie Fisher confusion came by way of a Spitalfield's woman by the name of "Margaret" who mistakenly identified a Lizzie Fisher as Mary Jane Kelly. This Lizzie Fisher , as far as I know, was not identified or traced to Eddowe's sister with the same name.

So thanks for that!

It's well known the name in the garment was L E Fisher. No books on the subject ever say it was Lizzie. A facsimile of the name was even reproduced in the newspapers. It's Hutchinson visiting his sister in Romford all over again.

[Debra A]

Even the not so unfortunate class had limited clothes if my family are any real indication.

Even into the early 1900s two or three changes of clothes was it with maybe enough underwear to get through a week.

Exactly. Thanks, GUT.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman, apologies for the delay I've been on call this weekend.

Firstly, yes I am a doctor, in emergency medicine.

For the second question, from the inquest evidence I've detailed the larynx cuts. Be aware though that there was a definite disinclination to fully detail injuries, I'm trying to see if there were reports by the other doctors except Bond/Hebbert.

Nichols: Llewellyn - left side of neck 1" below jaw to right side 3" below jaw. Completely severed all tissues. NB no mention of larynx so don't know where or if severed

Chapman: Phillips - throat had been severed. NB larynx again not mentioned

Stride: Blackwell - windpipe cut in two/windpipe severed. Cut left side of neck 2" below jaw to right side 1" below jaw. BUT Phillips - "grazing muscles outside of the cartilages on left" and then states "couldn't cry out after throat was cut"

Eddowes: Gordon-Brown - cricoid cartilage severed

MJK: Phillips - not mentioned. Bond - cut through cricoid cartilage.

I suspect the cuts all went through either the trachea or larynx but the general sources don't seem to say exactly where in all of the cases. With anything though lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Hope answers questions

Paul

Thanks for that!

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: If I recall, weren't the doctors unable to locate Jackson's scar at first? I believe they had to scrape away the skin where it should have been, which exposed the scarring on the underlying tissue. Not sure if this apparent invisibility was due to water immersion, decomposition or simply that the scar was never very prominent.

True. It is said that "The identification came about by means of the clothing of the victim, her description, pregnant condition at the time of her disappearance and also the fact that Elizabeth had a scar on her wrist as a result of a childhood accident. This was investigated by the doctors and by lifting away a small amount of skin from the slightly decomposed arm of the victim they were able to locate traces of similar scar on the wrist."

So it was the decomposition that hid the scar. It would reasonably have been there for the killer to see, though.


Wasn't the original owner Laura Fisher, not Lizzie? I confused them on another thread, I hope I haven't started something...

You seem to have started a correction - the garments were marked with inititals only, L E Fisher, and the Lizzie Fisher name seems to have seeped in via other channels. Jerry D looked into it on an earlier thread and wrote:
I think the Lizzie Fisher confusion came by way of a Spitalfield's woman by the name of "Margaret" who mistakenly identified a Lizzie Fisher as Mary Jane Kelly. This Lizzie Fisher , as far as I know, was not identified or traced to Eddowe's sister with the same name.

So thanks for that!

[kjab3112]

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?

Hi Fisherman, apologies for the delay I've been on call this weekend.

Firstly, yes I am a doctor, in emergency medicine.

For the second question, from the inquest evidence I've detailed the larynx cuts. Be aware though that there was a definite disinclination to fully detail injuries, I'm trying to see if there were reports by the other doctors except Bond/Hebbert.

Nichols: Llewellyn - left side of neck 1" below jaw to right side 3" below jaw. Completely severed all tissues. NB no mention of larynx so don't know where or if severed

Chapman: Phillips - throat had been severed. NB larynx again not mentioned

Stride: Blackwell - windpipe cut in two/windpipe severed. Cut left side of neck 2" below jaw to right side 1" below jaw. BUT Phillips - "grazing muscles outside of the cartilages on left" and then states "couldn't cry out after throat was cut"

Eddowes: Gordon-Brown - cricoid cartilage severed

MJK: Phillips - not mentioned. Bond - cut through cricoid cartilage.

I suspect the cuts all went through either the trachea or larynx but the general sources don't seem to say exactly where in all of the cases. With anything though lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Hope answers questions

Paul

[Joshua Rogan]

It was one of the few distinguishing things there was to look for at that stage. Scars, moles, tattoos, old wounds - such things. It was always going to be the likely identifiers. Unless the body was helpfully left with clothing on it, it would be the ONLY means of identification if the head was gone. However, in the Jackson case, the clothing WAS provided.

If I recall, weren't the doctors unable to locate Jackson's scar at first? I believe they had to scrape away the skin where it should have been, which exposed the scarring on the underlying tissue. Not sure if this apparent invisibility was due to water immersion, decomposition or simply that the scar was never very prominent.

Lizzie Fisher was the only woman to mark her garments with her name

Wasn't the original owner Laura Fisher, not Lizzie? I confused them on another thread, I hope I haven't started something...

[GUT]

The name was written on the inside waistband of the undergarment and that garment itself underwent division itself into at least two pieces as it was used to wrap two separate portions of the body; a thigh and the parcel containing the flaps of skin taken from the abdomen and the uterus. It seems the killer handled and cut the underwear, so it's not unseasonable to suggest he knew the name was written there is it? Unless we think he cut the body up while the clothing was on it?
People owned less clothing in those days and the unfortunate class wore the same things until they dropped off their backs so were seen daily by neighbours, friends and family in the same couple of outfits. Their clothing was usually hand me down stuff that was many years old, bought from dealers and markets or given to them so less likely that anyone else had the exact same pieces.

Even the not so unfortunate class had limited clothes if my family are any real indication.

Even into the early 1900s two or three changes of clothes was it with maybe enough underwear to get through a week.

[Debra A]

The name was written on the inside waistband of the undergarment and that garment itself underwent division itself into at least two pieces as it was used to wrap two separate portions of the body; a thigh and the parcel containing the flaps of skin taken from the abdomen and the uterus. It seems the killer handled and cut the underwear, so it's not unseasonable to suggest he knew the name was written there is it? Unless we think he cut the body up while the clothing was on it?
People owned less clothing in those days and the unfortunate class wore the same things until they dropped off their backs so were seen daily by neighbours, friends and family in the same couple of outfits. Their clothing was usually hand me down stuff that was many years old, bought from dealers and markets or given to them so less likely that anyone else had the exact same pieces.

[Fisherman]

John G: You think it likely that the victim would initially have been identified by her scars?

Oh yes, quite so. It was one of the few distinguishing things there was to look for at that stage. Scars, moles, tattoos, old wounds - such things. It was always going to be the likely identifiers. Unless the body was helpfully left with clothing on it, it would be the ONLY means of identification if the head was gone. However, in the Jackson case, the clothing WAS provided.

I'm tempted to enquire how you think he would be familiar with female undergarments and the likelihood that a name would be written into them, but I dread to think what the answer will be!

You should perhaps be more scared of your own questions? Female undergarments have always been a sexual centre of attention, and it would have been no less so in 1888. Many killers will have taken them as trophies, then as now. The killer would have no problems handling them, and a very good reason to do so. And I donīt think Lizzie Fisher was the only woman to mark her garments with her name. It was an age when clothes were hung out to dry in backyards, together with the clothes of the neighbours. It will have been common practice to mark oneīs clothes for that reason. The killers own undergarments may well have had his name in them.

And of course he was trying to prevent the victim being identified-he retained the head!

Or not. The fact is, we donīt know that he did. He could well have dumped the heads in the Thames. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. No?
All we can say is that the head was present in the Tottenham case, and that the face was present in the 1973 case. So thereīs no "of course" at all here, whereas there are plenty of indicators to the contrary.

[John G]

How could he have expected the victim to be identified by way of her undergarments?

By taking them off and checking them for personal/unusual traits.

How could he have expected the victim to be identified by way of the scars on her wrist?

By realizing that significant scars are always very personal. Many can have them, but out of the relatively few people who went missing, they would be easily distinguishable. As you know, the mother had no problems making the match.

Just as you say, if the killer really wanted to hide what he did, he could have incinerated the body.

But he did not.

He floated it down the river, having cut a phoetus from the abdomen. That in itself narrowed the viable suggestions down to pregnant women. He wrapped the parts in her own garments. He did not take care to check for signs like moles, scars etc (and there were such marks on the other victims too, making the killer lucky not to have those victims ID:d).

What we can very clearly see, is that the killer did not go to any more realistic lengths to disguise the identities of his victims. Rather, he helpfully avoided clearing away what bodily signs there were, he left tell-tale garments with the bodies and he even carefully cut off the face from one of the skulls, effectively contradicting the idea that he would somehow have carefully done away with the skulls. Any killer who does that only AFTER having served the police and press with the face itself, is NOT a killer who tries to hide identities.

Itīs time that misconception is helped out of the courtroom.

You think it likely that the victim would initially have been identified by her scars? I'm tempted to enquire how you think he would be familiar with female undergarments and the likelihood that a name would be written into them, but I dread to think what the answer will be!

And of course he was trying to prevent the victim being identified-he retained the head!

[Fisherman]

But how on earth could he have expected the victim to have been identified by her undergarments, let alone scars on her wrist? Frankly, if he was to take into account extreme possibilities his only option would have been to incinerate the body.

How could he have expected the victim to be identified by way of her undergarments?

By taking them off and checking them for personal/unusual traits.

How could he have expected the victim to be identified by way of the scars on her wrist?

By realizing that significant scars are always very personal. Many can have them, but out of the relatively few people who went missing, they would be easily distinguishable. As you know, the mother had no problems making the match.

Just as you say, if the killer really wanted to hide what he did, he could have incinerated the body.

But he did not.

He floated it down the river, having cut a phoetus from the abdomen. That in itself narrowed the viable suggestions down to pregnant women. He wrapped the parts in her own garments. He did not take care to check for signs like moles, scars etc (and there were such marks on the other victims too, making the killer lucky not to have those victims ID:d).

What we can very clearly see, is that the killer did not go to any more realistic lengths to disguise the identities of his victims. Rather, he helpfully avoided clearing away what bodily signs there were, he left tell-tale garments with the bodies and he even carefully cut off the face from one of the skulls, effectively contradicting the idea that he would somehow have carefully done away with the skulls. Any killer who does that only AFTER having served the police and press with the face itself, is NOT a killer who tries to hide identities.

Itīs time that misconception is helped out of the courtroom.

[John G]

John,

The scars, in addition to the clothing, hair color on body parts etc. were all taken into account for the identification of Elizabeth. The L.E Fisher was a red herring for a positive identification on two women by that name (found alive) but ultimately led to the identification of Jackson by tracing the movement of the garment from person to person.

Which brings me back to my original point: the perpetrator couldn't have expected the victim to have a name sewn into the garment. I think we're going round in circles!

I would just add, that as she'd been living rough on the embankment, the perpetrator might have taken the view that nobody would be interested in her disappearance.

[jerryd]

But this didn't result in an identification, which only goes to prove my point; nor could it reasonably be expected to have. Anyway, do you know how Jackson was ultimately identified? By scars on her left forearm! Now how on earth could a perpetrator have accounted for that? LE Fisher, appearing on the undergarments, turns out to have been a complete red herring.

John,

The scars, in addition to the clothing, hair color on body parts etc. were all taken into account for the identification of Elizabeth. The L.E Fisher was a red herring for a positive identification on two women by that name (found alive) but ultimately led to the identification of Jackson by tracing the movement of the garment from person to person.

[John G]

So what are you saying? That the killer reasoned that it would be unreasonable if somebody - anybody - recognized the garments Jackson was wearing?

Instead of reasoning that ditching the garments would be ditching one of the few possibilities there were for an identification?

As an aside, Jacksons mother was able to positively identify her daughter on account of the killer leaving some a number of typical scars on the wrist of Jackson.

Was in unreasonable to think that these could provide an identification too?

In other words, will a removal of the head always ensure that a victim cannot be identified? Is it not very reasonable to argue that the heads went the same way as the rest, but sunk to the bottom - and that the killer made no effort whatsoever to hide whatever marks, scars, clothes there were on his victims? In other words, that he could not care less?

But how on earth could he have expected the victim to have been identified by her undergarments, let alone scars on her wrist? Frankly, if he was to take into account extreme possibilities his only option would have been to incinerate the body.