autopsy notes

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Jon Guy]

However, the Torso's appear to have been cut from the front around to the back (from my reading) whereas Jack went from the left side across to the right.

Hi Paul

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

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I think Debra was asking could the torso been to have disguise a ripperesque cut and, personally, I don't think there is evidence to say no but there is doubt.

The ripper cuts were almost certainly done whilst on their back AND to direct the blood away from the slayer. I apologise I've not yet looked into the 1873 victim's likely autopsy findings. There was however evidence that the later torso victim's died of exsanguination too.

Paul

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.

[kjab3112]

Hi Fisherman

I think Debra was asking could the torso been to have disguise a ripperesque cut and, personally, I don't think there is evidence to say no but there is doubt.

The ripper cuts were almost certainly done whilst on their back AND to direct the blood away from the slayer. I apologise I've not yet looked into the 1873 victim's likely autopsy findings. There was however evidence that the later torso victim's died of exsanguination too.

Paul

[Fisherman]

Difficult to be sure. From the autopsy data I've accumulated from the Ripper murders so far, only MJK mentions the anatomical as opposed to physical location of the cuts. Of the latter three torso bodies where the neck was found, the decapitation (but might have been an earlier cut) went through the cricoid cartilage of the larynx or voice box (the hard bit below the Adam's Apple). In MJK the cut went through the the cricoid cartilage.

However, the Torso's appear to have been cut from the front around to the back (from my reading) whereas Jack went from the left side across to the right. That said the join at the back was not smooth with the Torso's so it would not be impossible to have been an extension of a jack style of cut.

Regard

Paul

Could it be that the Ripper neck cuts were about diverting the blood away from the cutter, whereas the torso neck cuts could have been delivered to dead bodies, lying on their backs with no blood pressure? The 1873 torso victim was probably killed by a blow or two to the temple.

[kjab3112]

Difficult to be sure. From the autopsy data I've accumulated from the Ripper murders so far, only MJK mentions the anatomical as opposed to physical location of the cuts. Of the latter three torso bodies where the neck was found, the decapitation (but might have been an earlier cut) went through the cricoid cartilage of the larynx or voice box (the hard bit below the Adam's Apple). In MJK the cut went through the the cricoid cartilage.

However, the Torso's appear to have been cut from the front around to the back (from my reading) whereas Jack went from the left side across to the right. That said the join at the back was not smooth with the Torso's so it would not be impossible to have been an extension of a jack style of cut.

Regard

Paul

[Debra A]

Hi Debra

Just read Hebbert's reports within the Westminster Hospital Reports of 1888 and 1889 (both available through archive.org, volumes 4 and 5) and agree with most of your summary. Reading the reports does give a definite hint of Jack, especially with the midline abdominal incisions, but the ones where the neck was found seem to have a different method of cut. Whereas Jack started below the angle of the left jaw and cut across the larynx/voice box, Torso cut either side and joined them up. The bigger question then is how did they (presumably) bleed to death?

For those with the illegal abortion excuse, my reading only gives Elizabeth Jackson as being pregnant, and even then so far gone abortion would be unlikely.

Regards

Paul

Hi Paul
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you about the abortion issue, no abortion was performed and no evidence of an attempt was found. If Elizabeth had died as a result of an attempt using poison and died before a miscarriage was achieved then why mutilate the body in such a way as draw attention to the fact one had been attempted? Why not leave a dismembered pregnant woman? That's just a couple of things I wonder about.

Is it possible that someone cut the throats in the same way in the torso cases and then chopped off the heads in a different position that obliterated all traces of a cut throat?