The Paris Torso Mystery

[Fleetwood Mac]

And that commonsense difference--fully appreciated by James Monro back in 1889, despite what you and Christer seem to believe--is precisely why Monro rejected the Pinchin Street case as the work of the 'Ripper.'

The limitation bound up with 'common sense' is that it is subject to personal bias and it's ambiguous. The articles I posted are based on observation and experience, as opposed to some abstract notion such as 'common sense'.

To quote the man himself:

"There is no mutilation as in previous cases, altho' there is dismemberment. There is no evisceration. There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines. The murder was indubitably committed neither in the street, nor in the victim's house, but probably in the lodging of the murderer. Here where there was as in the previous cases of murder in a house, plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate & skillful dismemberment with a view to removal."

"With a few to removal."

When you say 'believe', I think the issue is more one of approach. I've done you the courtesy of summarising your post; most of it revolves around a policeman from 1888 or 1889 or whatever. The police had very little information to guide them. That's why I believe the most recent research carries more weight: they've looked at various sexual serial murders and drawn conclusions from that observation, unlike Munro who was imagining what was possible based on virtually no experience. Call it theory (Monro's).

As I see it, Dr. Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm's observations dovetail perfectly with the observations made by James Monro back in 1889, and do not support, as is being implied or claimed, the idea that the injuries to the Pinchin Street victim demonstrate the same underlying 'sexual' motive as in the 'Ripper' cases.

I posted this in the post (217) to which you replied, from a study of 762 cases of sexual murder:

They define 'unusual acts' as follows:

Such as carving on the victim, evisceration (i.e., removal of internal organs), skinning the victim, cannibalism and vampirism.

Our findings show a strong relationship between body dismemberment, FOI and unusual acts. These extreme crime scene behaviours may just share a common theme: sadism.

Despite a lack of research on unusual and extreme crime scene behaviours, the current study shows that these behaviours—although unusual—can be interpreted as a form of dismemberment.

Interesting? Or is Monro with no experience to guide him, a commentator carrying more weight?

The victim's abdomen was mutilated.

[Kattrup]

And that commonsense difference--fully appreciated by James Monro back in 1889, despite what you and Christer seem to believe--is precisely why Monro rejected the Pinchin Street case as the work of the 'Ripper.'

To quote the man himself:

"There is no mutilation as in previous cases, altho' there is dismemberment. There is no evisceration. There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines. The murder was indubitably committed neither in the street, nor in the victim's house, but probably in the lodging of the murderer. Here where there was as in the previous cases of murder in a house, plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate & skillful dismemberment with a view to removal."

"With a few to removal."

Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm couldn't have written it better herself.


In other words, despite the murderer having all the time in the world, he made no attack on the abdomen or the genitals, etc., even though this was his apparent focus in Mitre Square, in Hanbury Street, in Miller's Court, etc..

Here the murderer's motive appears to be entirely different.

As for the cut down the midsection Monro writes:

"The inner coating of the bowel is hardly touched, and the termination of the cut towards the vagina looks almost as if the knife had slipped, and as if this portion of the wound had been accidental. The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut in prepatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, & had then changed his mind."

Does anyone truly think the Ripper, having hours at his disposal, would have made such a vague attempt at the victim's vagina that it could be interpreted as an accidental 'slip'? Look again at the Kelly photo and claim that this is a rational conclusion.


As I see it, Dr. Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm's observations dovetail perfectly with the observations made by James Monro back in 1889, and do not support, as is being implied or claimed, the idea that the injuries to the Pinchin Street victim demonstrate the same underlying 'sexual' motive as in the 'Ripper' cases.

Christer is forced to ignore this and instead veers his analysis over to an entirely different case, such as that of Elizabeth Jackson, though I hasten to add that that case adds its own difficulties to Christer's theories.

Or if not entirely ignore it, come up with the strange idea of a 'hybrid' to avoid facing the reality that no sexual mutilations had been attempted.

One other point. Christer further writes of the Pinchin Street case:



The previous statement by Monro shows that that is not the case, and Christer is misusing the word 'emulate.'

What Monro actually wrote, as an alternative theory to his previous observations, is:

"It may also be that the gash was inflicted to give rise to the impression that this case was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer..."

Monro is clearly not saying that the Pinchin Street murderer was "emulating" the Ripper (which means to meet or exceed his behaviors) but to counterfeit the Ripper, with the strictly analytical motive of throwing the police off the scent.

Personally, I suspect that Monro just threw this out as a 'spitball' possibility---he had already given his own primary reasoning at greater length.

All in all, I think it is really poor form, investigatively speaking, to take two very different case (the Kelly murder and the Pinchin Street case) and then to try to link them to the same perpetrator by interjecting a third case (say, Elizabeth Jackson).

From all that I have read, murder squad detectives consciously avoid this sort of thing because it only leads to wrong interpretations and false assumptions and, at its worse, pinning the crime on the wrong person.

Very good post, RJ.

I too have argued that the mention of the gash being preparatory to dismemberment invalidates the claim that the Torso killer was an eviscerator or postmortem mutilator or whatever.

[rjpalmer]

I have just read your comments, Roger, which I found very interesting.

By coincidence, I was reading only minutes before that Monro and Swanson were of the opinion that the Pinchin Street victim's throat had not been cut prior to death.

Monro seems to be theorizing that the Pinchin Street murderer had intended to disembowel the victim as part of his 'removal' but then either lost his nerve or thought better of it.

It's hard to imagine the person who murdered Chapman, Eddowes, or Kelly having any such hesitation or qualms.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have just read your comments, Roger, which I found very interesting.

By coincidence, I was reading only minutes before that Monro and Swanson were of the opinion that the Pinchin Street victim's throat had not been cut prior to death.

[rjpalmer]

6) 'Offensive mutilation' is driven by sexual impulse/desire; 'defensive mutilation' is driven by rational choice. That is a very important distinction in the psychology underpinning these crimes.

And that commonsense difference--fully appreciated by James Monro back in 1889, despite what you and Christer seem to believe--is precisely why Monro rejected the Pinchin Street case as the work of the 'Ripper.'

To quote the man himself:

"There is no mutilation as in previous cases, altho' there is dismemberment. There is no evisceration. There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines. The murder was indubitably committed neither in the street, nor in the victim's house, but probably in the lodging of the murderer. Here where there was as in the previous cases of murder in a house, plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate & skillful dismemberment with a view to removal."

"With a few to removal."

Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm couldn't have written it better herself.


In other words, despite the murderer having all the time in the world, he made no attack on the abdomen or the genitals, etc., even though this was his apparent focus in Mitre Square, in Hanbury Street, in Miller's Court, etc..

Here the murderer's motive appears to be entirely different.

As for the cut down the midsection Monro writes:

"The inner coating of the bowel is hardly touched, and the termination of the cut towards the vagina looks almost as if the knife had slipped, and as if this portion of the wound had been accidental. The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut in prepatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, & had then changed his mind."

Does anyone truly think the Ripper, having hours at his disposal, would have made such a vague attempt at the victim's vagina that it could be interpreted as an accidental 'slip'? Look again at the Kelly photo and claim that this is a rational conclusion.


As I see it, Dr. Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm's observations dovetail perfectly with the observations made by James Monro back in 1889, and do not support, as is being implied or claimed, the idea that the injuries to the Pinchin Street victim demonstrate the same underlying 'sexual' motive as in the 'Ripper' cases.

Christer is forced to ignore this and instead veers his analysis over to an entirely different case, such as that of Elizabeth Jackson, though I hasten to add that that case adds its own difficulties to Christer's theories.

Or if not entirely ignore it, come up with the strange idea of a 'hybrid' to avoid facing the reality that no sexual mutilations had been attempted.

One other point. Christer further writes of the Pinchin Street case:

It even made the police speculate that it was a case of the Torso killer trying to emulate the the Rippers work!

The previous statement by Monro shows that that is not the case, and Christer is misusing the word 'emulate.'

What Monro actually wrote, as an alternative theory to his previous observations, is:

"It may also be that the gash was inflicted to give rise to the impression that this case was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer..."

Monro is clearly not saying that the Pinchin Street murderer was "emulating" the Ripper (which means to meet or exceed his behaviors) but to counterfeit the Ripper, with the strictly analytical motive of throwing the police off the scent.

Personally, I suspect that Monro just threw this out as a 'spitball' possibility---he had already given his own primary reasoning at greater length.

All in all, I think it is really poor form, investigatively speaking, to take two very different case (the Kelly murder and the Pinchin Street case) and then to try to link them to the same perpetrator by interjecting a third case (say, Elizabeth Jackson).

From all that I have read, murder squad detectives consciously avoid this sort of thing because it only leads to wrong interpretations and false assumptions and, at its worse, pinning the crime on the wrong person.

[New Ford Shunt]

You appear to be suggesting that the authors explain 'offensive dismemberment' as dismemberment taking place when the victim is alive, which is not what the authors state in the article.

They set the scene for you:

Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim and they are performed at the site of homicide, generally in the place inhabited by the victim, the perpetrator or shared by both.

They provide you with a clear and concise definition of 'defensive dismemberment':

The most common motive of dismemberment is an increased ease of concealing the victim of homicide. Dismemberment with such a motive in mind, as well as criminal mutilation aiming at hindering victim identification is defined as defensive mutilation

They go onto explain that the motive for 'offensive dismemberment' is entirely different:

Perpetrators governed by sexual motives mutilate the corpse in a way that does not raise any doubt as to their motivation, most commonly severing the genital organs or breasts. In some cases, the perpetrator pulls out abdominal organs through the disrupted genital tract.

Further on, they remind you of their terms: 'offensive dismemberment' and 'defensive dismemberment':

In some offensive and aggressive mutilations, the perpetrators additionally dismember the body driven by such motives as defensive mutilation, or – in other words – to remove the corpse or render identification of the victim impossible.

They conclude:

Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim.

The article is talking of post-mortem dismemberment with one exception: aggressive mutilation, which is explained as dismemberment being the cause of death. 'Offensive mutilation' is categorised separately from 'aggressive mutilation' and quite clearly those murders are 'homicides ending with corpse dismemberment' (as explained in the article).

In sum:

1) They are talking about 'homicides ending with corpse dismemberment', i.e. post mortem.

2) That includes both 'offensive' and 'defensive' mutilation.

3) 'Offensive' mutilation is defined as 'governed by sexual motives' and includes mutilation of the body other than dismemberment.

4) 'Defensive mutilation' is defined as 'aimed at hindering victim identification'.

5) The exception to post-mortem dismemberment is defined as 'aggressive' mutilation: homicides by dismemberment, or, in other words, by cases where severing of body parts is the cause of death. The authors make it clear that this form of mutilation is distinct from 'offensive mutilation'.

6) 'Offensive mutilation' is driven by sexual impulse/desire; 'defensive mutilation' is driven by rational choice. That is a very important distinction in the psychology underpinning these crimes.

Having said of all that, the study has its limitations with regard to the nature of this thread. It's a small sample size (23 victims). The aim is to explain the differing motives underpinning body dismemberment. It doesn't comment on progression or otherwise during a crime series.

Fortunately, we have this article to throw in to the pot, published in the 'Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling', July 2023

(PDF) The significance of unusual acts in sexual homicide (researchgate.net)

The authors reach conclusions on the back of 762 cases of sexual murder.

They define 'unusual acts' as follows:

Such as carving on the victim, evisceration (i.e., removal of internal organs), skinning the victim, cannibalism and vampirism.

The authors go on to say:

Our findings show a strong relationship between body dismemberment, FOI and unusual acts. These extreme crime scene behaviours may just share a common theme: sadism.

Despite a lack of research on unusual and extreme crime scene behaviours, the current study shows that these behaviours—although unusual—can be interpreted as a form of dismemberment.

This empirical study concludes that removal of limbs is closely related to the WM's known 'unusual acts' and they're driven by the same motive/psychology.

The important inference being: it is possible for a murder in a crime series to involve removal of limbs and another murder in the same crime series to not involve removal of limbs. The reason being that removal of limbs is not the only form of dismemberment, and a murderer in a crime series would fulfill the same desire by means of undertaking other forms of dismemberment, e.g. 'carving on the victim', evisceration, skinning the victim.

In your opinion which torso cases and which WM cases fall into these categories please?

[Abby Normal]

No. The Chargers have no fans.

JM

lol. i actually feel bad for fans of teams like the chargers, bills and vikings. no matter how good of a team they have, or how good of quarterbacks theyve had(and theyve all had/ have great qbs) they still just cant find a way to break through and win consistantly. theyve never won the superbowl, eventhough they have come tantalizingly close many times. they are snakebit teams.

[jmenges]

("...football game"... you must be a Chargers fan then!)

Ha ha!

RD

No. The Chargers have no fans.

JM

[The Rookie Detective]

For where I sit (in a lazy boy recliner in front of a football game) I think Steve might have been using the word 'await' as in 'anticipate', rather than 'suspend all discussion until'.

Many years ago Andrew Cook put the photo of the butchered Mary Kelly on the front cover of his book. Casebookers went ballistic on a thread questioning why Cook would think to do such a thing. I happened to be shopping in a Best Buy electronics store at the time and my cell phone rang. It was Andrew Cook wanting to explain himself. I didn't immediately come to that Casebook thread and say "hold on-important information incoming". I recorded our phone call and put it online. Not to end, but to add to the discussion. Books add to the discussion. Interviews can add to the discussion. I seriously doubt it was Steve's intention to suspend the discussion until Suzie's book comes out. That would be silly. Steve is not silly.

So perhaps this is just a case of misreading his statement and its intent.

JM

I took it the way it was meant, Steve is brilliant, so no questioning his intent, I agree.


("...football game"... you must be a Chargers fan then!)

Ha ha!


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

In Homicides with Mutilation of the Victim's Body by Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm, the study concluded that "Two of the mutilations were offensive, i.e., the offender inflicted the mutilation in the course of the attack." The Torso murders were post-mortem dismemberment and so could not be what Hakkanen-Nyholm puts in the offensive category.

You appear to be suggesting that the authors explain 'offensive dismemberment' as dismemberment taking place when the victim is alive, which is not what the authors state in the article.

They set the scene for you:

Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim and they are performed at the site of homicide, generally in the place inhabited by the victim, the perpetrator or shared by both.

They provide you with a clear and concise definition of 'defensive dismemberment':

The most common motive of dismemberment is an increased ease of concealing the victim of homicide. Dismemberment with such a motive in mind, as well as criminal mutilation aiming at hindering victim identification is defined as defensive mutilation

They go onto explain that the motive for 'offensive dismemberment' is entirely different:

Perpetrators governed by sexual motives mutilate the corpse in a way that does not raise any doubt as to their motivation, most commonly severing the genital organs or breasts. In some cases, the perpetrator pulls out abdominal organs through the disrupted genital tract.

Further on, they remind you of their terms: 'offensive dismemberment' and 'defensive dismemberment':

In some offensive and aggressive mutilations, the perpetrators additionally dismember the body driven by such motives as defensive mutilation, or – in other words – to remove the corpse or render identification of the victim impossible.

They conclude:

Homicides ending with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed by a person close to, or at least acquainted with the victim.

The article is talking of post-mortem dismemberment with one exception: aggressive mutilation, which is explained as dismemberment being the cause of death. 'Offensive mutilation' is categorised separately from 'aggressive mutilation' and quite clearly those murders are 'homicides ending with corpse dismemberment' (as explained in the article).

In sum:

1) They are talking about 'homicides ending with corpse dismemberment', i.e. post mortem.

2) That includes both 'offensive' and 'defensive' mutilation.

3) 'Offensive' mutilation is defined as 'governed by sexual motives' and includes mutilation of the body other than dismemberment.

4) 'Defensive mutilation' is defined as 'aimed at hindering victim identification'.

5) The exception to post-mortem dismemberment is defined as 'aggressive' mutilation: homicides by dismemberment, or, in other words, by cases where severing of body parts is the cause of death. The authors make it clear that this form of mutilation is distinct from 'offensive mutilation'.

6) 'Offensive mutilation' is driven by sexual impulse/desire; 'defensive mutilation' is driven by rational choice. That is a very important distinction in the psychology underpinning these crimes.

Having said of all that, the study has its limitations with regard to the nature of this thread. It's a small sample size (23 victims). The aim is to explain the differing motives underpinning body dismemberment. It doesn't comment on progression or otherwise during a crime series.

Fortunately, we have this article to throw in to the pot, published in the 'Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling', July 2023

(PDF) The significance of unusual acts in sexual homicide (researchgate.net)

The authors reach conclusions on the back of 762 cases of sexual murder.

They define 'unusual acts' as follows:

Such as carving on the victim, evisceration (i.e., removal of internal organs), skinning the victim, cannibalism and vampirism.

The authors go on to say:

Our findings show a strong relationship between body dismemberment, FOI and unusual acts. These extreme crime scene behaviours may just share a common theme: sadism.

Despite a lack of research on unusual and extreme crime scene behaviours, the current study shows that these behaviours—although unusual—can be interpreted as a form of dismemberment.

This empirical study concludes that removal of limbs is closely related to the WM's known 'unusual acts' and they're driven by the same motive/psychology.

The important inference being: it is possible for a murder in a crime series to involve removal of limbs and another murder in the same crime series to not involve removal of limbs. The reason being that removal of limbs is not the only form of dismemberment, and a murderer in a crime series would fulfill the same desire by means of undertaking other forms of dismemberment, e.g. 'carving on the victim', evisceration, skinning the victim.

[Elamarna]

For where I sit (in a lazy boy recliner in front of a football game) I think Steve might have been using the word 'await' as in 'anticipate', rather than 'suspend all discussion until'.

Many years ago Andrew Cook put the photo of the butchered Mary Kelly on the front cover of his book. Casebookers went ballistic on a thread questioning why Cook would think to do such a thing. I happened to be shopping in a Best Buy electronics store at the time and my cell phone rang. It was Andrew Cook wanting to explain himself. I didn't immediately come to that Casebook thread and say "hold on-important information incoming". I recorded our phone call and put it online. Not to end, but to add to the discussion. Books add to the discussion. Interviews can add to the discussion. I seriously doubt it was Steve's intention to suspend the discussion until Suzie's book comes out. That would be silly. Steve is not silly.

So perhaps this is just a case of misreading his statement and its intent.

JM

That's exactly what was meant Jonathan.
Just as many are awaiting the Updated A-Z

There was no intention to suggest debate should stop, only that the book would undoubtedly add to the debate on this topic.


Steve

[jmenges]

For where I sit (in a lazy boy recliner in front of a football game) I think Steve might have been using the word 'await' as in 'anticipate', rather than 'suspend all discussion until'.

Many years ago Andrew Cook put the photo of the butchered Mary Kelly on the front cover of his book. Casebookers went ballistic on a thread questioning why Cook would think to do such a thing. I happened to be shopping in a Best Buy electronics store at the time and my cell phone rang. It was Andrew Cook wanting to explain himself. I didn't immediately come to that Casebook thread and say "hold on-important information incoming". I recorded our phone call and put it online. Not to end, but to add to the discussion. Books add to the discussion. Interviews can add to the discussion. I seriously doubt it was Steve's intention to suspend the discussion until Suzie's book comes out. That would be silly. Steve is not silly.

So perhaps this is just a case of misreading his statement and its intent.

JM

[Elamarna]

I can't speak for other people.

I did spell out my 'objection' to you in the post to which you replied; I can put it in a simpler form.

This is what you typed:

I really would suggest people await what will I suggest be the definitive study of the Thames Torsos due out next year.

Why would anyone in their right mind take notice of that which you suggest given that you provide no details whatsoever and nobody has access to this supposed earth-shattering information? More to the point, why do you think that 'people' would adhere to what amounts to your baseless 'suggestion' (given that you provide no details to support the claim)?

Had you said: here is in an interesting book and here are the details; 'people' would have taken it seriously and replied to your argument/details.

To say it is an objection is a touch strong. It's more a mild inconvenience.

Authorities on a subject are authorities due to their knowledge, their reasoning skills and putting forward that knowledge for discussion; as opposed to appealing to some information that nobody has access to. That's science, reason, historical analysis/rigour, whatever you want to call it: putting forward your ideas for scrutiny.

As to why, I've thought about this for a few seconds and I reckon the nuisance part to it is that it is an illiberal approach to discussion (that shouldn't need further explanation).

As far as 'remarkable' goes, absolutely not. In the event you looked out of your curtains and witnessed God half cut and rolling around your garden with a pint of ale and singing: "shutuppa yerface", that would be remarkable. We're talking about the bare essentials of discussion: there is nothing remarkable in that, those bare essentials have stood the test of time.

Back to the topic at hand (complete with supporting information in an ideal scenario)...........

As I said, you "object" to me saying there is a book, which covers the Torsos in greater depth than previous works, which may aid in discussing the subject.

It seems many posters took the comment how it was meant, that is providing basic information on an up coming book on the specific topic under debate.


There it ends.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's remarkable that people object to me mentioning there is a new book, specifically on the Torsos next year?

Why is that?

I can't speak for other people.

I did spell out my 'objection' to you in the post to which you replied; I can put it in a simpler form.

This is what you typed:

I really would suggest people await what will I suggest be the definitive study of the Thames Torsos due out next year.

Why would anyone in their right mind take notice of that which you suggest given that you provide no details whatsoever and nobody has access to this supposed earth-shattering information? More to the point, why do you think that 'people' would adhere to what amounts to your baseless 'suggestion' (given that you provide no details to support the claim)?

Had you said: here is in an interesting book and here are the details; 'people' would have taken it seriously and replied to your argument/details.

To say it is an objection is a touch strong. It's more a mild inconvenience.

Authorities on a subject are authorities due to their knowledge, their reasoning skills and putting forward that knowledge for discussion; as opposed to appealing to some information that nobody has access to. That's science, reason, historical analysis/rigour, whatever you want to call it: putting forward your ideas for scrutiny.

As to why, I've thought about this for a few seconds and I reckon the nuisance part to it is that it is an illiberal approach to discussion (that shouldn't need further explanation).

As far as 'remarkable' goes, absolutely not. In the event you looked out of your curtains and witnessed God half cut and rolling around your garden with a pint of ale and singing: "shutuppa yerface", that would be remarkable. We're talking about the bare essentials of discussion: there is nothing remarkable in that, those bare essentials have stood the test of time.

Back to the topic at hand (complete with supporting information in an ideal scenario)...........

[New Ford Shunt]

The information provided by Charlie about the Montrouge case is very enlightening and I can see direct parallels with some of the torso cases, specifically the 'casual' dropping off of body parts, and the probability that a handcart was used. However, this element of the disposal process could be interpreted as a logical means to an end, i.e. that anyone wishing to dispose of a dismembered body would take this type of action. In my opinion, it doesn't indicate a strong enough corrolation from which to concluded any torso case and the Montrouge case were linked.

The references in R Michael Gordon's books to the Montrouge case reflects sweeping assumptions (unreferenced and unsourced) that quitre frankly aren't really worth the paper they're written on. That's not to say RMG's book on the torso's isn't interesting, it is, and it's engagingly written, but the strength of its argument is very weak indeed.

From my point of view, and noting the enthusiasm the thread has created, speculation on any links are somewhat premature as far more groundwork needs to be done in order for anyone to stick their heads above the proverbial parapet. Charlie has done a great job in his research so far, and of course benefits from his native tongue (my French consists of 'je parle le francais tres mal'), and I would be extremely cautious in making any assessments at this stage because we simply do not have enough information to make them - let alone get into the conversation about which torso cases could be consistent, and which UK torso cases are part of their own pattern and whether any of them are linked to the Whitechapel murders (or are indeed murders at all...)

Huge, huge subject, and it's very easy to get carried away. I need to re-read the entire thread from the start and dissect it (no pun intended).