autopsy notes

[John G]

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.

Hi Jerry,

I would have to disagree. In respect of a modern perpetrator such a precaution might make sense, but surely not in the Victorian age. I mean, there were 5.6 million people living in the Metropolis alone, so for a Victorian police force, identifying an individual from their clothing alone-which may have been very similar to clothing many other people wore, would have been an enormous task and would have required massive resources.

[John G]

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.

Hi Abby,

Okay you make a fair point. However, the purpose of most dismemberment murders is defensive, i.e. to aid disposal of the body and prevent identification. And, in all of the Torso crimes, only one victim was identified, and that was via identification in the clothing, which I doubt the perpetrator could have predicted or reasonably expected.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jerry,

I would have to disagree. In respect of a modern perpetrator such a precaution might make sense, but surely not in the Victorian age. I mean, there were 5.6 million people living in the Metropolis alone, so for a Victorian police force, identifying an individual from their clothing alone-which may have been very similar to clothing many other people wore, would have been an enormous task and would have required massive resources.

Aha. So London was so large and everybody so anonymous that there was actually no need to hide things like named clothing, moles and scars, right? You could bank on nobody ID:ing you anyway?

What I think Jerry is trying to say is that it could well be rather useless to take the head off from a victim where you left named clothing on.

Equally, if the killer knew that his victim was not Lizzie Fisher, he would nevertheless be aware that the ulster was worn by her, and so those who knew her could easily point the garment out as the exact type she wore. Meaning that an ID was imminent.

It would seem you are trying to eat the cake and have it? Either a killer is cautious and does away with all tracks, or he is not.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

I would have to disagree. In respect of a modern perpetrator such a precaution might make sense, but surely not in the Victorian age. I mean, there were 5.6 million people living in the Metropolis alone, so for a Victorian police force, identifying an individual from their clothing alone-which may have been very similar to clothing many other people wore, would have been an enormous task and would have required massive resources.

But that is exactly how they (Victorian Police) did identify Elizabeth Jackson, John.

The first witness called was a Margaret Minter, 3 Cheyne-row, Chelsea, who said she had received from Mrs. Girards an ulster, which she gave about two months ago to Elizabeth Jackson. Witness had known her and her sisters about two years. Two months ago she had seen Elizabeth in the street looking very shabby, and had given her 3d. to buy food. Witness recognized a skirt produced as one worn by the deceased girl. The girl said she had bee living with a man who had been very unkind to her, and had finally left her. At this interview witness recommended her to go in to the union, but she said her parents were there, and she did not want them to know she was with child. She also said she had no home, and had slept on the Embankment the night before. On the 20th of May witness gave her the ulster and some food. The 21st was the last time witness saw her, and she then was wearing the ulster.
Johanna Keefe, sister to last witness, said she had known Elizabeth Jackson and saw her at her sister’s, where she gave her some black cotton to sew a string on an under-garment, which witness identified, as well as the skirt and ulster. Having recapitulated much of the evidence given by her sister, she said she particularly noticed the hands of Elizabeth Jackson; they were very white and clean and nicely shaped, though the nails were bitten to the quick.

[Debra A]

The clothing of the unidentified dead was generally put on display at the mortuary the body or remains lay, as an aid to identification for family and friends.

[John G]

But that is exactly how they (Victorian Police) did identify Elizabeth Jackson, John.

The first witness called was a Margaret Minter, 3 Cheyne-row, Chelsea, who said she had received from Mrs. Girards an ulster, which she gave about two months ago to Elizabeth Jackson. Witness had known her and her sisters about two years. Two months ago she had seen Elizabeth in the street looking very shabby, and had given her 3d. to buy food. Witness recognized a skirt produced as one worn by the deceased girl. The girl said she had bee living with a man who had been very unkind to her, and had finally left her. At this interview witness recommended her to go in to the union, but she said her parents were there, and she did not want them to know she was with child. She also said she had no home, and had slept on the Embankment the night before. On the 20th of May witness gave her the ulster and some food. The 21st was the last time witness saw her, and she then was wearing the ulster.
Johanna Keefe, sister to last witness, said she had known Elizabeth Jackson and saw her at her sister’s, where she gave her some black cotton to sew a string on an under-garment, which witness identified, as well as the skirt and ulster. Having recapitulated much of the evidence given by her sister, she said she particularly noticed the hands of Elizabeth Jackson; they were very white and clean and nicely shaped, though the nails were bitten to the quick.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether this is something the perpetrator could reasonably expect and have accounted for.

[Fisherman]

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether this is something the perpetrator could reasonably expect and have accounted for.

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?

[jerryd]

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether this is something the perpetrator could reasonably expect and have accounted for.

Almost a year earlier the police were broadcasting the clothing found with the Whitehall torso in hopes of a discovery of her identity. Whether the killer followed the news or not is uncertain, but if he did, he would have known the police were looking at that means for a way of identification.

So yes, I believe it was possible for the perpetrator to reasonably expect that process might have taken place with Elizabeth Jackson. And it did.

[John G]

Almost a year earlier the police were broadcasting the clothing found with the Whitehall torso in hopes of a discovery of her identity. Whether the killer followed the news or not is uncertain, but if he did, he would have known the police were looking at that means for a way of identification.

So yes, I believe it was possible for the perpetrator to reasonably expect that process might have taken place with Elizabeth Jackson. And it did.

But this didn't result in an identification, which only goes to prove my point; nor could it reasonably be expected to have. Anyway, 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 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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.