autopsy notes

[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.

[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.

[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...

[kjab3112]

Thanks for that information.

I agree that the torso cuts look more deliberate on a general level. I don´t 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 don´t elaborately cut the face away from the skull, even leaving the eyelashes in place. It´s 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

[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!

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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!

[kjab3112]

Thanks for that!

I've played with an initial schematic tonight and each of the ripper cuts would likely (but not definitely) be above the C6 vertebra - cricoid cartilage level of the Torso decapitations. Once I've done the images I'll (try and) post.

Of note I've had an initial look at the 1873 murder report and I'm not convinced of a link due to the lack of disarticulation. In the later bodies the found parts were cleanly disarticulated, but the first one saw through the thigh and shoulder. Admittedly he may have learnt his craft over fourteen years, but I would suspect an alternative hand at play.

[Fisherman]

I've played with an initial schematic tonight and each of the ripper cuts would likely (but not definitely) be above the C6 vertebra - cricoid cartilage level of the Torso decapitations. Once I've done the images I'll (try and) post.

Of note I've had an initial look at the 1873 murder report and I'm not convinced of a link due to the lack of disarticulation. In the later bodies the found parts were cleanly disarticulated, but the first one saw through the thigh and shoulder. Admittedly he may have learnt his craft over fourteen years, but I would suspect an alternative hand at play.

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

[Abby Normal]

Then you have not read enough, kjab - yes, the thigh and shoulder/overarm were sawn through - but the rest of the joints were neatly cut and disarticulated. This is what the Lancet wrote:
Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through.

So here we have a man who knew quite well how to cut joints open and disarticulate, but who chose to saw through the thigh and shoulder/overarm nevertheless.

Once you understand WHY he sawed off the thicker bones (which would have been easier to disarticulate) while he neatly disarticulated the thinner ones (which would have been easier to saw off), you will know what led the killer to do what he did. There is an explanation that sits very well with this, and ties the 1873 victim very clearly into the Ripper/torso conglomerate.

and that explanation is???

[Fisherman]

and that explanation is???

For me to have and for you to find out, Abby!

The one thing I am certain of is that (some/many/most) people will say I am wrong once I produce it. Not because I neccessarily am, but because that is the nature of things out here.

[Abby Normal]

For me to have and for you to find out, Abby!

The one thing I am certain of is that (some/many/most) people will say I am wrong once I produce it. Not because I neccessarily am, but because that is the nature of things out here.

Grrrr. Ok now your going to make me think?

all right how about this explanation:

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

and it ties into the rest of the torso ripper group because in both series (or one, depending how you view it) he wanted to keep only certain parts of the body?

digging deeper, because he was building a body ala Frankenstein with different body parts? but how long could this be kept up as the torso ripper murders spanned many years. Did he have access to an ice closet, or was he preserving the "body" in a giant vat of preservative???? or mummification???

[Fisherman]

Grrrr. Ok now your going to make me think?

all right how about this explanation:

He neatly cut and disarticulated the thinner bones because those where the ones he wanted to keep?

and it ties into the rest of the torso ripper group because in both series (or one, depending how you view it) he wanted to keep only certain parts of the body?

digging deeper, because he was building a body ala Frankenstein with different body parts? but how long could this be kept up as the torso ripper murders spanned many years. Did he have access to an ice closet, or was he preserving the "body" in a giant vat of preservative???? or mummification???

Sorry, Abby, no - but a very valid effort!