autopsy notes

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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."

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

[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.

[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!