J Forensic Sci, 2019

doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14012
PAPER Available online at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com

ANTHROPOLOGY

Bradley J. Adams,1 Ph.D.; Christopher W. Rainwater,1,2 M.S.; An-Di Yim,3 M.S., M.A.; and
Helen S. Alesbury,4 M.A.

A Retrospective Study of Intentional Body

Dismemberment in New York City:
1996–2017†

ABSTRACT: A review of New York City dismemberment cases occurring between 1996 and 2017 was conducted, which resulted in a total
of 55 dismembered decedents in a 22-year period. Annual trends indicate an average of 2.5 dismembered decedents. Additional results show
that 53% of cases involved transection only, 35% involved disarticulation only, and 13% involved a combination of both. When the entire body
could be accounted for, the average number of body portions per case was 5.5. Frequent locations for dismemberment were the neck, shoulders,
hips, and knees. Dismemberment locations showed a general trend of anatomical symmetry. Seventy-eight percent of the dismemberments
involve disposal of body parts in an outside location. Eighty-four percent were concealed from view with some type of covering. The findings
from New York City are compared with other studies.

KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, dismemberment, New York City, sharp force trauma, transection, disarticulation

Dismemberment is defined as the intentional removal of parts
of the body (1). More specifically, dismemberment refers to a
perpetrator voluntarily using sharp objects to sever limbs or cut
the body into smaller pieces (2). Prehistoric and historic cases of
mutilation and dismemberment of the human body have been
documented throughout the world and are often associated with
mythical traditions, ritualistic practices, or warfare (3,4). In mod-
ern times, however, postmortem mutilation and dismemberment
of the human body is most often associated with criminal activi-
ties. Overwhelmingly, modern victims of dismemberment are
almost always also victims of homicide (5), although examples
have been presented where dismemberment followed an acciden-
tal death (6). In medicolegal investigations, dismemberment
cases often utilize the expertise of forensic anthropologists (7).
During their examination of the remains, it is recommended that
tool class, anatomical distribution, and directionality of the cuts
be recorded as part of the documentation of dismemberment pat-
terns (8,9). Analysis of these patterns can provide valuable infor-
mation for investigators and can serve as a way to link crimes
1
Forensic Anthropology Unit, Office of Chief Medical Examiner, 520 First
Avenue, New York, NY 10016.
2
Department of Anthropology, Center for the Study of Human Origins,
New York University, 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003.
3
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL 61801.
4
Forensic Operations, Office of Chief Medical Examiner, 421 East 26th
Street, New York, NY 10016.
Corresponding author: Bradley J. Adams, Ph.D. E-mail: badams@ocme.nyc.gov
†Presented in part at the 70th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Acad-
emy of Forensic Sciences, February 19–24, 2018, in Seattle, WA.
Received 17 Dec. 2018; and in revised form 10 Jan. 2019; accepted 10
Jan. 2019.
and corroborate or contradict eyewitness accounts (8,9). Careful
analysis and more thorough research of dismemberment trends
can help future investigations as well as our understanding of
these crimes.
Early attempts at systematic characterization of dismember-
ment focused on establishing the link between dismemberment
patterns and the psyche of the perpetrator. Few studies truly ana-
lyzed the patterns of trauma or injuries from dismembered vic-
tims. Some early textbooks in forensic anthropology categorized
dismemberment into general categories (8). For example, based
on the location of the cuts on the body, dismemberment cases
can be divided into two categories: localized and generalized.
Localized dismemberment means only one or few parts of the
body were removed, such as the removal of the head or the
hands. This is often done in an attempt to obscure the identity of
the deceased. In generalized dismemberment, cut marks are
inflicted throughout the body, and the body is usually cut into
multiple pieces. Further categorizations suggest that dismember-
ment can also be classified into limb bisection and joint disartic-
ulation—the former indicating that limbs are severed through the
shaft while the latter indicates limb segments are separated at the
point of articulation (8).
Another more specific categorization, based on the psycholog-
ical evaluation of the perpetrator’s motive, was proposed by Rajs
et al. (4). In this study, they classified dismemberment into four
categories: defensive, aggressive, offensive, and necromanic.
Defensive dismemberment is dismemberment for the purpose of
obscuring identification of the victim or to dispose the body
more effectively. Aggressive dismemberment is killing by rage,
with cuts often concentrated on the face or near the genitalia.
Dismemberment fueled by sexual desire or lust is called offen-
sive dismemberment, while those done for the purpose of using

© 2019 American Academy of Forensic Sciences 1

2 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
body parts as a trophy, fetish, or symbol is necromanic. This cat-
egorization was widely used in subsequent studies (2,5,10–13).
However, it should be noted that during the physical examina-
tion of the remains, it is outside the scope of forensic anthropol-
ogy to identify intent or motive of the perpetrator.
Recently, Rainwater (14) proposed three modes of dismember-
ment: disarticulation around the joints, transection via sawing, and
transection via chopping. Instead of relying on intent or motive of
the perpetrator to classify the type of dismemberment, this classifi-
cation scheme considers the trauma patterns as well as the tool
used to accomplish dismemberment. This allows for categories to
be determined during the initial stage of the investigation which
can potentially benefit subsequent investigative processes and
eliminates the need to understand the psychological state of the
perpetrator in order to classify the dismemberment.
Because of the relative rarity, dismemberment cases are often
presented as case studies focusing on unusual circumstances and
difficulties of the investigation (2,11,12,15–18). Both case stud-
ies and longer-term, retrospective studies also serve to demon-
strate a particular tendency or pattern. For example, Sugiyama
and et al. (18) provided detailed descriptions of cases between
1984 and 1993 in Osaka, Japan and noted that saws were often
utilized to dismember a body. In another study of Italian cases,
Di Nunno et al. (2) suggested that multiple knife wounds were
often an indication of murder committed in a fit of rage. In Cra-
cow, Poland, dismemberment trends spanning from 1968 to
2005 revealed that most dismemberment occurs at the site of a
homicide, is usually not planned, and therefore is performed
with tools that are readily available to the perpetrator (5). In
Sweden, mutilation and dismemberment cases were documented
in a 30-year span (1961–1990) and were more concentrated in
large urban areas, possibly because of the increased population
density (4). In Japan, a review of dismemberment cases between
1947 and 1998 showed that in the majority of the cases the body
was cut into multiple pieces (19).
In the United States, other than a report detailing several
cases from Maricopa County, Arizona (9) and an earlier unpub-
lished study from New York City (20), there has not been a
thorough review of dismemberment cases. The large number of
cases in New York City makes it ideal to study patterns and
characteristics of dismemberment. The purpose of this study is
therefore to expand upon the previously established database in
New York City, report on the patterns associated with these
cases, and provide a baseline for similar studies to be con-
ducted in major metropolitan areas in the United States and
across the world.
Materials and Methods
A detailed review of autopsy records, case photographs, and
anthropology reports was conducted at the New York City
Office of Chief Medical Examiner to find cases of intentional
body dismemberment. The initial list of cases was compiled
based on database searches including terms “dismember(ed),”
“dismemberment,” “disarticulate(d),” “disarticulation,” “amputate
(d),” “amputation,” “decapitate(d),” and “decapitation.” Over
700 cases were reviewed based on these search parameters. Only
cases involving intentional body dismemberment by another
individual were included in the final dataset. In addition, there
had to be complete separation of a major body part for the case
to be included in the study (i.e., separation of bones without
complete separation of the soft tissue was not counted). Contrary
to some other studies of dismemberment, the mutilation of ears,
noses, breasts, and genitalia did not meet the criteria for inclu-
sion in this study since these locations involve only soft tissue/
cartilage, would be unlikely to undergo an anthropological anal-
ysis, and might not be observable on remains in an advanced
state of decomposition.
Once all the dismemberment cases were identified, it was
determined how many separate cases (i.e., body portions) could
be linked to a single decedent. The resulting value indicates the
total number of dismembered decedents. From there, data were
collected on the mode of dismemberment (disarticulation, tran-
section, or a combination), the number and anatomical location
of the dismemberment cuts, and the circumstances of discovery
and concealment.
Results
After the vetting process, 79 different case numbers were
found between 1996 and 2017, which pertained to intentionally
dismembered bodies in New York City. Through DNA or
anthropological re-association, 24 of these cases could be linked.
After the consolidation was completed, it was determined that a
total of 55 dismembered bodies (i.e., unique decedents) were dis-
covered within New York City in this 22-year period. Roughly,
half of the dismembered decedents had all of their body parts
recovered (27/55), while the entirety of the body was not recov-
ered in the remainder of the cases (28/55).
Annual trends (Fig. 1) indicate that there was an average of
2.5 dismembered decedents per year, with a high of 8 in 2005
and a low of 0 in 2016. Figure 1 also shows the number of addi-
tional cases that were eventually linked. The total number of dis-
memberment cases averaged four cases per year, with a high of
15 cases in 2005 and a low of 0 cases in 2016. The reason for
the variation between number of cases and number of decedents
is that in some instances the body parts of the same individual
may have received different case numbers until they could be
scientifically linked, especially if the discoveries were geographi-
cally or temporally distinct. The values in Figure 1 indicate the
year that the dismembered body parts were recovered. In most
instances, the body parts were discovered soon after death but in
several cases the parts were not discovered until years after
death. The frequency of body part discoveries by NYC borough
shows Brooklyn has the highest percentage at 34% (27/79), fol-
lowed by the Bronx at 25% (20/79), Queens at 22% (17/79),
Manhattan at 15% (12/79), Staten Island at 3% (2/79), and 1
body part from outside NYC that was linked to a NYC case. In
some instances, these values represent the discovery of body
parts from the same person that were dispersed in different
boroughs.
The New York City dismemberment data were compared
against the annual New York City homicide statistics. Homicide
data were available from the New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene (21) which indicated an average
homicide rate of 527 individuals between 2000 and 2016 (this
value does not include victims of 9/11). Comparing against the
average number of dismembered individuals from this same per-
iod suggests 1 dismemberment occurs in every 224 homicides in
New York City. As noted previously, most, but not all, dismem-
berment cases are associated with homicides.
Data were collected on the mode of dismemberment: disarticu-
lation, transection, or a combination of both. Disarticulation indi-
cates that dismemberment was achieved by cutting between
bones at joints, usually with a knife. Transection, by sawing or
chopping, indicates that cuts were made through bone. In some

cases, multiple implements were used and disarticulation and
transection were observed on the same body. Figure 2 shows the
frequency by dismemberment type. The results show that 53%
of body dismemberment involved transection only (29/55), 35%
involved disarticulation only (19/55), and 13% involved a com-
bination of both transection and disarticulation (7/55). Within
the transection category, there were 16 cases involving sawing
and 13 cases involving chopping.
When possible, the total number of body parts was calcu-
lated for each case. These values indicated the average num-
ber of body portions per case was 5.5, the mode was 6, the
minimum number was 2, and the maximum was 14 body
parts. One extreme case in which the entire body was
defleshed and nearly all of the individual bones were disartic-
ulated was excluded from these counts. Since numerous cases
were incomplete, it was only possible to calculate the mini-
mum number of body parts in those instances. These values
indicated the average was 5.4, the mode was 6, the minimum
was 2, and the maximum was 10.
FIG. 1––Annual frequency of dismemberment cases in New York City.
FIG. 2––Modes of dismemberment.
ADAMS ET AL. . NYC BODY DISMEMBERMENT 3
For 30 cases, it was possible to account for all dismemberment
sites, even if some body portions were still missing (e.g., hands,
feet, or head). For these cases, the locations of dismemberment
cuts were plotted (Fig. 3). Frequent locations for dismemberment
were the neck (20 cases), shoulders (14 cases), hips (13 cases),
and knees (13 cases). Infrequent locations were the torso (4 cases),
elbows (1 or 3 cases depending on side), and feet (3 cases). Inter-
estingly, midshaft transection cuts were very infrequent, occurring
in only two cases on the femora. This indicates that whether the
dismemberment is accomplished via transection or disarticulation,
the area of focus is consistently near joints. There was a trend
toward symmetry in the cuts and only 4 of the 30 cases lacked
contralateral cuts between the right and left locations. For cases in
which dismemberment only included two body portions, this
always pertained to decapitation. Two of the cases with cuts
through the torso were body-packers in which the death was the
result of ruptured drug packets concealed within the body, and the
dismemberment was associated with retrieval of the drugs in addi-
tion to disposal of the body (6).
4 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

of dismemberment cases in this large, metropolitan city is similar

to the highest frequencies noted in the literature for entire coun-
tries. The relative frequencies from other published studies are
compared in Table 1. When possible, the same criteria were
utilized for comparison of the NYC statistics with other pub-
lished data on dismemberment and, as a result, values presented
in Table 1 may differ from grand totals presented in the cited
sources. For example, if another study included a case of only
mutilation of the genitalia it was excluded. Further, a case was
excluded if it could be determined that complete separation was
not achieved, such as a case from Maricopa County, Arizona (9)
where the perpetrator intended to dismember the victim but “got
tired.”
When the entire body was recovered, New York City
showed a slightly lower total number of body parts with an
average of 5.5 versus 6.0 in Sweden (12 cases) (4), 7.3 in
Milan, Italy (3 cases) (2), and 7.8 in Cracow, Poland (14
cases) (5). When the entire body was not recovered, the aver-
age minimum number of body parts was 5.5 in New York
City, 7.0 in Sweden (5 cases), 2.7 in Milan (3 cases), and
8.9 in Cracow (7 cases). Although we could not ascertain
whether the entire body was recovered, dismemberment cases
in Hamburg, Germany showed an average of 4.3 body por-
tions (22). In the UK, when a specific number of body por-
tions was noted (not qualified by “over,” “at least,” or “more
than”) the average number of body parts was 7.9 for 47
cases (23). In general, the trend of symmetrical cuts noted in
New York City was also noted in the cases from Sweden,
Milan, Cracow, and Hamburg with only nine instances of
asymmetric cuts in these four studies. Additionally, those
studies showed the same trend where the presence of only
two body portions was always associated with decapitation.
The UK study also showed the predominant trend of outside
disposal sites with some type of body concealment, as seen
in New York City.
Overall, New York City experiences a high number of dis-
memberment cases in comparison to other published studies. It
is theorized that this may be due to the density of the population
and added difficulty of body transport and disposal. Retrospec-
tive studies of dismemberment trends in other large metropolitan
cities would provide an interesting comparison to the findings
observed within New York City.
FIG. 3––Frequency of dismemberment sites from subset of 30 cases.

TABLE 1––Frequency of dismemberment cases by geographic location.

Data were collected on location of discovery (inside or out-
side) and whether the body parts were concealed. Seventy-eight Time
percent of dismemberment cases (43/55) involve disposal of at Period Total Number of Average Number of
least some body parts in an outside location. A large percentage Location (years) Reported Cases Cases Per Year
of these involved placements of the dismembered parts on the U.K. (23) 32 85 2.66
street in association with garbage. In 12 of the cases, the discov- Japan (19)* 52 134 2.58
ery was made in a trash dumpster or at a trash facility. Eleven New York, New 22 55 2.50
York
cases were dumped in water. Only five cases involved the dis- Korea (13) 17 27 1.59
covery of body parts in a wooded area, which is not surprising Finland (10)* 10 13 1.30
considering the urban landscape of New York City. It was found Hamburg, 28 21 0.75
that 84% of the cases (46 out of 55 dismembered bodies) were Germany (22)
Sweden (4) 30 17 0.57
concealed from view with some type of covering (e.g., trash
Cracow, Poland 38 20 0.53
bag, plastic bin, suitcase). (5)
Maricopa 29 7 0.24
County,
Discussion Arizona (9)
New York City has an estimated population size of 8.6 mil- *Data not available to verify if all reported cases conform to the
lion according to the 2017 U.S. Census Bureau. The frequency dismemberment definition used in the New York study.

References
1. Black S, Rutty G, Hainsworth S, Thomson G. Introduction to criminal
human dismemberment. In: Black S, Rutty G, Hainsworth S, Thomson
G, editors. Criminal dismemberment: forensic and investigative analysis.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017;1–6.
2. Di Nunno N, Costantinides F, Vacca M, Di Nunno C. Dismemberment:
a review of the literature and description of 3 cases. Am J Forensic Med
Pathol 2006;27(4):307–12.
3. McCorristine S. Dismemberment: a historical perspective. In: Black S, Rutty
G, Hainsworth S, Thomson G, editors. Criminal dismemberment: forensic
and investigative analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017;7–25.
4. Rajs J, Lundstrom M, Broberg M, Lidberg L, Lindquist O. Criminal
multilation of the human body in Sweden – a thirty-year medico-legal
and forensic psychiatric study. J Forensic Sci 1998;43(3):563–80.
5. Konopka T, Strona M, Bolechala F, Kunz J. Corpse dismemberment in
the material collected by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Cracow,
Poland. Leg Med (Tokyo) 2007;9(1):1–13.
6. Adams BJ, Rainwater CW, Ambrosi CN. Intentional body dismember-
ment following non-homicidal deaths: a retrospective study of body
packer cases in New York City. In: Ross AH, Cunha E, editors. Dis-
memberments: perspectives in forensic anthropology and legal medicine.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2018;155–63.
7. Porta D, Amadasi A, Cappella A, Mazzarelli D, Magli F, Gibelli D,
et al. Dismemberment and disarticulation: a forensic anthropological
approach. J Forensic Leg Med 2016;38:50–7.
8. Reichs KJ. Postmortem dismemberment: recovery, analysis, and interpre-
tation. In: Reichs KJ, editor. Forensic osteology: advances in the identifi-
cation of human remains. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1998.
9. Seidel A, Fulginiti L. The first cut is the deepest: looking for patterns in
cases of human dismemberment. In: Martin DL, Anderson CP, editors.
Bioarchaeological and forensic perspectives on violence: how violent
death is interpreted from skeletal remains. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014;63–82.
10. Hakkanen-Nyholm H, Weizmann-Henelius G, Salenius S, Lindberg N,
Repo-Tiihonen E. Homicides with mutilation of the victim’s body.
J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):933–7.
ADAMS ET AL. . NYC BODY DISMEMBERMENT 5
11. Konopka T, Bolechala F, Strona M. An unusual case of corpse dismem-
berment. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2006;27(2):163–5.
12. Dogan KH, Demirci S, Deniz I, Erkol Z. Decapitation and dismember-
ment of the corpse: a matricide case. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(2):542–5.
13. Sea J, Beauregard E. Mutilation in Korean homicide: an exploratory
study. J Interpers Violence 2016;1:1–15.
14. Rainwater CW. Three modes of dismemberment: disarticulation around
the joints, transection of bone via chopping, and transection of bone via
sawing. In: Passalacqua NV, Rainwater CW, editors. Skeletal trauma
analysis: case studies in context. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell,
2015;222–45.
15. Duhig C, Martinsen N. Many layers of taphonomy: dismemberment and
other body processing. In: Brickley MB, Ferllini R, editors. Forensic
anthropology: case studies from Europe. Springfield, IL: Charles C Tho-
mas, 2007;86–98.
16. Hyma BA, Rao VJ. Evaluation and identification of dismembered human
remains. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1991;12(4):291–9.
17. Quatrehomme G. A strange case of dismemberment. In: Brickley MB,
Ferllini R, editors. Forensic anthropology: case studies from Europe.
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 2007;99–119.
18. Sugiyama S, Tatsumi S, Noda H, Yamaguchi W, Izuwi W. Investigation
of dismembered corpses found during the past 10 years in Osaka. Acta
Criminol Med Legal Japan 1995;61:192–200.
19. Watanabe K, Tamura M. Mutilation-murder cases in Japan. In: Farring-
ton DP, Hollin CR, McMurran M, editors. Sex and violence. New York,
NY: Routledge, 2001;229–41.
20. Fridie JS. A retrospective study on dismemberment in New York City,
1990–2006 [Master’s thesis]. New York City, NY: New York University,
2007.
21. Epiquery: NYC interactive health data system – mortality module;
https://nyc.gov/health/epiquery (accessed December 3, 2018).
22. Puschel K, Koops E. Dismemberment and mutilation (1). Arch Kriminol
1987;2:28–40.
23. Black S. Appendix II: known cases of criminal dismemberment in the
United Kingdom since 1985. In: Black S, Rutty G, Hainsworth S, Thom-
son G, editors. Criminal dismemberment: forensic and investigative anal-
ysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017;199–202.