Criminal Dismemberment: Forensic and

Investigative Analysis 1st Edition Sue

Black
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/criminal-dismemberment-forensic-and-investigative-a
nalysis-1st-edition-sue-black/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Criminal dismemberment forensic and investigative

analysis Black

https://textbookfull.com/product/criminal-dismemberment-forensic-
and-investigative-analysis-black/

Cold Case Homicides: Practical Investigative Techniques

(Second Edition) Practical Aspects of Criminal and
Forensic Investigations R. H. Walton

https://textbookfull.com/product/cold-case-homicides-practical-
investigative-techniques-second-edition-practical-aspects-of-
criminal-and-forensic-investigations-r-h-walton/

Gothic Forensics: Criminal Investigative Procedure in

Victorian Horror & Mystery (Semiotics and Popular
Culture) 1st Edition Michael Arntfield

https://textbookfull.com/product/gothic-forensics-criminal-
investigative-procedure-in-victorian-horror-mystery-semiotics-
and-popular-culture-1st-edition-michael-arntfield/

Introduction to Data Analysis with R for Forensic

Scientists International Forensic Science and
Investigation 1st Edition Curran

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-data-analysis-
with-r-for-forensic-scientists-international-forensic-science-
and-investigation-1st-edition-curran/
Biological Distance Analysis Forensic and
Bioarchaeological Perspectives 1st Edition Marin A.
Pilloud

https://textbookfull.com/product/biological-distance-analysis-
forensic-and-bioarchaeological-perspectives-1st-edition-marin-a-
pilloud/

The Expert Witness, Forensic Science, and the Criminal

Justice Systems of the UK 1st Edition S. Lucina Hackman
(Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-expert-witness-forensic-
science-and-the-criminal-justice-systems-of-the-uk-1st-edition-s-
lucina-hackman-editor/

Behavioral Evidence Analysis International Forensic

Practice and Protocols 1st Edition Brent E. Turvey

https://textbookfull.com/product/behavioral-evidence-analysis-
international-forensic-practice-and-protocols-1st-edition-brent-
e-turvey/

Mobile forensic investigations : a guide to evidence

collection, analysis, and presentation 1st Edition
Reiber

https://textbookfull.com/product/mobile-forensic-investigations-
a-guide-to-evidence-collection-analysis-and-presentation-1st-
edition-reiber/

Forensic Interventions for Therapy and Rehabilitation

Case Studies and Analysis 1st Edition Taylor & Francis
Group

https://textbookfull.com/product/forensic-interventions-for-
therapy-and-rehabilitation-case-studies-and-analysis-1st-edition-
taylor-francis-group/
 Criminal Dismemberment
Forensic and Investigative Analysis

Professor Dame Sue Black is a Professor of Anatomy and Forensic Anthropology, the
Director of the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification and the Director of the
Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Dundee, UK.

Professor Guy Rutty is a Home Office registered Forensic Pathologist and is the Vice-
Chair of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging, University of
Leicester, UK.

Professor Sarah Hainsworth is a Professor of Materials and Forensic Engineering,

University of Leicester, UK.

Mr. Grant Thomson is a former Scenes of Crime Officer and Crime Scene Manager of the
British Police and is now a senior trainer and consultant in capacity building within fragile
and conflict affected states.
Criminal Dismemberment
Forensic and Investigative Analysis

Edited by
Sue Black, Guy Rutty, Sarah Hainsworth
and Grant Thomson
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2017 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4822-3628-6 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made
to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all
materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all
material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been
obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future
reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in
any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, micro-
filming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.
copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-
8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have
been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identi-
fication and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data

Names: Black, Sue M., editor. | Rutty, Guy N., 1963- editor. | Hainsworth,
Sarah V., editor. | Thomson, Grant, editor.
Title: Criminal dismemberment : forensic and investigative analysis / edited
by Sue Black, Guy Rutty, Sarah V. Hainsworth, and Grant Thomson.
Description: 1st Edition. | Boca Raton : CRC Press, [2017] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016048354| ISBN 9781482236286 (hardback : alk. paper) |
ISBN 9781315373126 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Forensic psychology. | Dismemberment. | Murder. | Forensic
sciences.
Classification: LCC RA1148 .C75 2017 | DDC 614/.15--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016048354

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents

Preface vii
Acknowledgements ix
Editors xi
Contributors xiii

1 Introduction to Criminal Human Dismemberment 1

SUE BLACK, GUY RUTTY, SARAH HAINSWORTH AND
GRANT THOMSON

2 Dismemberment: A Historical Perspective 7

SHANE McCORRISTINE

3 Psychology and Dismemberment 27

DAVID HOLMES

4 Mr. Adam Vincent, Humberside Police 41

MARK OLIVER

5 Miss Gemma McCluskie, Metropolitan Police Service 59

JOHN NICHOLSON

6 Terminology 69
SUE BLACK AND GRANT THOMSON

7 Principles of Tool Mark Analysis and Evidential Best Practice 79

GRANT THOMSON AND SUE BLACK

8 Overview of the Examination of a Dismembered Body 97

GUY RUTTY AND BRUNO MORGAN

9 The Role of Forensic Anthropology in Cases of

Dismemberment 113
LUCINA HACKMAN AND SUE BLACK

v
vi Contents

10 Identification Marks – Saws 135

SARAH HAINSWORTH

11 Identification Marks – Knives and Other Implements 157

SARAH HAINSWORTH

12 Future Research in the Analysis of Criminal

Dismemberment 177
SUE BLACK, NIAMH NIC DAÉID, LUCINA HACKMAN
AND GRANT THOMSON

Appendix I: Additional Investigative Resources 189

SONYA BAYLIS AND GRANT THOMSON

Appendix II: Known Cases of Criminal Dismemberment in

the United Kingdom Since 1985 199
SUE BLACK

Index 203
Preface

The act of dismemberment, in its original form, referred to cutting, tearing, pulling,
wrenching or otherwise separating the limbs from a living being as a form of capital
punishment. In today’s society, it has become associated most frequently with the crimi-
nal act of sectioning the remains of the dead in an attempt to conceal the death and dis-
pose of the remains, making the process of identification of the deceased more difficult
to achieve.
In the United Kingdom, there are few acts of criminal dismemberment identified in
any one year. As a result, there is variable experience across the practitioner community
and the investigative forces. As the act is considered an aggravation of the most serious
of crimes, murder, it is surprising that there has been no book published previously that
addresses the specificities of this action. At the outset of undertaking this project, and in
our early literature searches, we located many published papers that discussed saw marks
on bone or the marks made by different types of knives. However, we could find no sin-
gle source that combined the information into a cohesive single point of academic refer-
ence. Therefore, the overriding intention for this book was to co-locate the literature on
the subject of criminal dismemberment and view it through the different lenses of those
involved in the subject – social sciences, investigative officers and forensic practitioners.
In addition – with cognizance of current upheaval regarding admissibility of forensic
science – we also wished to convey what aspect of the interpretation of evidence can be
supported by robust science and, by doing so, to lay open clear avenues for future research-
ers to establish the work that is still required.
The first chapter introduces the subject of criminal dismemberment and discusses the
importance of its definition in relation to the legal significance for criminal sentencing.
There are at least five classifications that reflect the motivation of the perpetrator. These are
discussed as are the critical decisions made by the perpetrator that offer potential for the
recovery of forensic evidence.
In Chapter 2, Shane McCorristine considers the history of dismemberment from the
world of Inuit and Norse mythologies, through the brutalities of war to the infamous
Whitechapel murders of 1888. In Chapter 3, David Holmes follows by analysing the psy-
chology of the dismembering killer. The organization, the frenzy, the location and the
nature of the dismemberment lend clear evidence towards the nature and purpose of this
most heinous of acts. Superstition, tribal warfare and concealment are all motives that may
underlie the psychopathy and desperation of the action.
Chapters 3 and 4 provide two case histories written from the perspective of the police
investigators. We are inordinately grateful to the families of both deceased who willingly
gave their permission for these cases to be considered in the hope that they might assist in
the learning process. In Chapter 4, Mark Oliver from Humberside Police discusses the dif-
ficulties encountered when the search for body parts is dispersed over a wide area and the
importance of ensuring that all are ultimately recovered. In Chapter 5, John Nicholson of

vii
viii Preface

the Metropolitan Police conveys the difficulties of investigating a case of dismemberment

when it occurs within a family and when the deceased has a relatively high media profile.
Understanding and interpreting criminal dismemberment requires a common vocab-
ulary, which is presented in Chapter 6. Grant Thomson discusses the field of tool mark
analysis in Chapter 7. In Chapter 8, Guy Rutty examines the role of the forensic pathologist
in such cases, and, in Chapter 9, Lucina Hackman addresses the roles and responsibilities
of the forensic anthropologist.
In Chapters 10 and 11, Sarah Hainsworth looks specifically at the marks left by both
saws and knives on human remains. As would be expected, these are heavily illustrated
chapters, as they include the analytical components necessary to confirm that criminal
dismemberment has occurred and that it has been undertaken by a particular type of tool.
The concluding chapter (Chapter 12) from the Dundee team, places the research of
criminal dismemberment into the emerging landscape of validation and legal admissi-
bility. Its aim is to show where research has been undertaken and where there is still a
significant amount of work to be done. Although this is a field that has made some signifi-
cant strides forward, research in some aspects remains incomplete and it is important that
expert opinion be contained to what is within the boundaries of that which can be verified.
It is important to know what support is available to investigators when they face per-
haps their first case of dismemberment. In Appendix I, Sonya Baylis and Grant Thomson
lay out some of the additional resources available for investigators within the United
Kingdom. Appendix II came about as we tried to discover just how many cases of criminal
dismemberment we could identify in the United Kingdom over the past 30 years. I should
note that the included list is not necessarily complete. The information was researched and
gathered from open source materials, and, as such, it may not be complete in its accuracy.
The intent was not to form a database but to offer an indication of the scale and patterns
of the phenomenon. The results suggest that within the United Kingdom there are prob-
ably about three criminal dismemberments per year and more than 80% of these occur in
England, less than 10% in Scotland and less than 5% each in Wales and Ireland.
Books of this sort do not happen by themselves, and they require the work and com-
mitment of a number of people. The editors are enormously grateful to all the contributors
for each of the chapters, but we also wish to acknowledge the helpful assistance of Dr. Ryk
James, Dr. Debbie Cook, Dr. Ben Swift, Dr. Stuart Hamilton, Wendy Pitts, Lee Mellor
and Kathy Astbury. We are also grateful to Richard Ocone, Detective Inspector of Avon
and Somerset Constabulary, and Graham Sunderland, retired Assistant Chief Constable
of Cumbria Constabulary, for the experiences shared from their case work. Finally, no text
can be completed without the editorial and production teams at the publishers. We are so
inordinately grateful particularly to Mark Listewnik and Misha Kydd for keeping us on
track, as well as Linda Leggio and Bala Gowri on the production side.

Professor Dame Sue Black

Acknowledgements

The editors acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Ryk James, Dr. Debbie Cook, Dr. Ben Swift,
Dr. Stuart Hamilton, Wendy Pitts, Lee Mellor and Kathy Astbury in the production of this
text. We are also grateful to Richard Ocone, a Detective Inspector of Avon and Somerset
Constabulary, and Graham Sunderland, a retired Assistant Chief Constable of Cumbria
Constabulary, for the experiences shared from their case work.

ix
Editors

Professor Dame Sue Black is a professor of anatomy and forensic anthropology, the direc-
tor of the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification and the director of the Leverhulme
Research Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Dundee, Scotland. She is a cer-
tified forensic anthropologist and a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal
Anthropological Institute, the Royal Society of Biology and the Royal College of Physicians
of Edinburgh. She has two police commendations and is the recipient of the Lucy Mair
medal for humanitarian assistance, the Royal Society of Medicine Jephcott gold medal for
contribution to science and the Fletcher of Saltoun award for contribution to Scottish cul-
ture. She was awarded an Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2001 for services to forensic
anthropology in Kosovo and a Dame Commander (DBE) of the same Order in 2016 for her
services to forensic anthropology. She is the lifetime honorary professor of anatomy at the
Royal Scottish Academy. She is identified as an expert in dismemberment in the Serious
Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) Dismemberment Guidance Document.

Professor Guy Rutty is a Home Office registered forensic pathologist and is the vice-
chair of the International Society of Forensic Radiology and Imaging. He has published
more than 220 publications, edited 7 autopsy-related books, written 26 book chapters and
assisted with the writing of crime-based fictional novels. He was the founder editor-in-chief
of the international journal, Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, which he edited until
December 2008. He received a Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner’s commendation
for his work with the European Commission funded exercise, Operation Torch, in 2008. He
was awarded the Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the Queen’s Birthday
Honours List, June 2010, for his services to the police. He is identified as an expert in dis-
memberment in the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) Dismemberment Guidance
Document.

Professor Sarah Hainsworth is a professor of materials and forensic engineering at

the University of Leicester, the United Kingdom. She is a fellow of the Royal Academy of
Engineering, a chartered engineer, chartered scientist and fellow of the Institute of Materials,
Minerals and Mining, London. She was a recipient of the 2008 Rosenhain Medal of the
Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining, and she was named in 2009 as one of the Women’s
Engineering Society’s Inspiring Technical Women in the United Kingdom. Hainsworth has
research interests in forensic engineering science related to understanding the forces involved
in stabbing with sharp weapons and characterization of tool marks related to dismember-
ment cases. She regularly provides expertise on stabbing and dismemberment cases to the
courts. Hainsworth was part of the team that applied modern forensic engineering and sci-
ence tools to investigate the bones of Richard III with particular reference to understanding
the wounds on the skeleton and relating those to the weapons that could have been used.
Hainsworth has given invited talks to the Forensic Science Services and British Association

xi
xii Editors

of Forensic Medicine on her research. She is identified as an expert in dismemberment in the

Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) Dismemberment Guidance Document.

Grant Thomson is a former scenes of crime officer and crime scene manager of the British
Police. He was also an authorised forensic firearm and tool mark examiner within the
Tayside Police Identification Branch of the Scotland Police. Following 16 years of opera-
tional experience, Thomson is now employed as a senior trainer and consultant in forensic
exploitation where his work is centered primarily in capability and capacity building within
fragile and conflict affected states. Utilising 20 years of forensic experience, Thomson is
also currently undertaking a part-time PhD with the Centre for Anatomy and Human
Identification, University of Dundee, Scotland, where his research focusses on tool marks
on human bones and in particular in relation to dismemberment.
Contributors

Sonya Baylis is a manager of the National Crime Agency’s UK National Injuries Database.
The National Injuries Database (NID) is a unique national resource to support serious
crime investigations for both live and dead victims. It is available for law enforcement
and forensic practitioners both in the United Kingdom and internationally. The NID team
assists with the identification of unknown injuries; provides evidence-based case examples
to assist with forensic medical issues including fire deaths, head injuries and dismember-
ments, for cases of child abuse, homicide and serious assault; sources and instructs indepen-
dent forensic medical experts to provide expert opinions for the court; advises on forensic
medical issues through research and a network of external forensic experts, and advises on
good practice for the imaging of wounds, using alternative light sources, the technique of
image overlay and court presentations. She is listed as the main point of contact in the UK’s
National Crime Agency for the National Injuries Database Dismemberment Guidance
Document.

Lucina Hackman is a lecturer in forensic anthropology at the Queen’s Award-Winning

Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification at the University of Dundee, Scotland.
Previously, she devised and directed the award-winning National UK Disaster Victim
Identification Training Programme for UK DVI. She is professionally accredited at the
FA-I Level with the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (RAI) and
is a member of the Royal Society of Biology. She is a practicing forensic anthropologist and
has undertaken a wide range of casework in this capacity. She is listed as an expert in the
document ‘Practice Advice for Dismemberment Cases’ and is a registered forensic expert
on the forensic expert database of the UK’s National Crime Agency. She has given expert
evidence in both Scottish and English courts in relation to trauma analysis, dismember-
ment, identification and age estimation. She holds a Chief Constable’s higher commenda-
tion for her role in forensic casework.

David Holmes is a senior lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Manchester

Metropolitan University, the United Kingdom. He has taught psychology for more than
30 years and has authored textbooks on abnormal psychology. He recently published a
book entitled Abnormal, Clinical & Forensic Psychology (Pearson Education, 2010). His areas
of expertise include forensic psychology and clinical psychology with a specific inter-
est in the motivations of offenders, autism, psychopathy and stalking. Holmes has also
spoken and judged at industry, brands and entrepreneurial awards ceremonies and is a
forensic consultant on television programmes such as Casualty (BBC1). During the past
20 years, Holmes has been featured in thousands of television and radio broadcasts includ-
ing national and international news as well as many crime documentaries.

xiii
xiv Contributors

Shane McCorristine is an interdisciplinary historian with interests in the histories of polar

exploration, dreaming and social attitudes to death. Until recently, he was a senior research
associate at the University of Cambridge, the United Kingdom, and from 2013 to 2015 he
worked on the Wellcome Trust-funded ‘Harnessing the Power of the Criminal Corpse’
project at the University of Leicester, the United Kingdom. His most recent book is William
Corder and the Red Barn Murder: Journeys of the Criminal Body (Macmillan, 2014).

Bruno Morgan trained at Oxford Medical School, University of Oxford, the United
Kingdom, qualifying as a doctor in 1989. He then trained in hospital medicine before
switching to radiology. He specialised in cancer radiology and is now a professor of
cancer imaging and radiology at the University of Leicester, the United Kingdom, where
he provides clinical intervention and diagnostic radiology services and pursues research
in oncology and forensic imaging. His forensic work is particularly related to post-mortem
CT scanning. He has collaborated with the East Midlands Forensic Unit, Leicester, NHS
pathologists and a pan-European consortium to gain experience in different post-mortem
techniques. He has been directly involved in scanning hundreds of cases for both service
and research, including for the police and HM coroners.

Niamh Nic Daéid holds a PhD in chemistry, a BSc in chemistry and mathematics and a BA
in psychology. She is a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and holds fellowships with
the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Chemistry of Ireland, the Royal Statistical
Society and the Chartered Society for Forensic Science. Nic Daéid has more than 22 years
of experience in research in forensic science including the interpretation and evaluation of
evidence and in particular using chemometric and multivariate analysis in pattern match-
ing. She is the director of research of the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification
and the director of the Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Science, both at the
University of Dundee, Scotland. She also undertakes a variety of forensic casework and
has appeared as an expert witness for the courts.

John Nicholson works for the Home Office in Immigration and Enforcement, assuming
the role of regional criminal and financial investigations manager for the East of England
in November 2015. He oversees investigations into organized crime groups involved in
human trafficking, people smuggling and those concerned with producing and supply-
ing false travel documents. Prior to this, Nicholson was serving as a detective with the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) of the United Kingdom for 31 years, all in operational
roles. Between 1995 and 2002, he was involved in covert policing in various roles and lat-
terly as a source handler, and is a nationally accredited source controller. Between 2003
and 2014, Nicholson worked as both a senior investigating officer and investigating offi-
cer for the MPS Homicide Command. During that time, he investigated more than 50
homicides covering a wide range of unlawful killings varying in complexity but including
gang-related murders, domestic homicides, contract killings, corporate and gross negli-
gent manslaughter. In 2012, Nicholson was appointed as the senior investigating officer
responsible for leading the investigation into the murder and dismemberment of Gemma
McCluskie.

Mark Oliver was a serving police officer for 30 years – 20 years with the Metropolitan
Police predominantly on homicide and murder review investigations and 10 years with
Contributors xv

the Humberside Police as a senior investigating officer, both in the United Kingdom. He
retired in 2014. Oliver is also one of the United Kingdom’s foremost experts in disaster
victim identification (DVI), having led the response to mass fatalities around the world as
well as training and developing the national team. He is now the operations director with
a leading international disaster management company. As the head of the Humberside
Police Anti-Corruption Unit, Oliver led covert and overt investigations, working closely
with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and has led inter-force corruption
investigations at the senior command level. He now works with a law firm carrying out
confidential investigations for police and public authorities. He writes on DVI and cor-
porate liability and is the director of Old Woollen Mill Associates Ltd., an investigation
and disaster management consultancy business. He has recently worked on a Foreign
and Commonwealth funded criminal justice project in Bosnia and Herzegovina and is
now working on an EU project to improve the disaster victim identification capability of
Croatia.
Introduction to Criminal
Human Dismemberment
1
SUE BLACK
GUY RUTTY
SARAH HAINSWORTH
GRANT THOMSON

The well-known saying ‘The dead do tell no tales’ probably received one of its earliest air-
ings in the tragedy Andronicus Commenius written by John Wilson in 1664. In the days
before forensic investigation, the concept of death as the permanent concealer and silencer
of secrets may well have held some truth. However, science has since learned to read the
narrative of the dead and relay those self-same secrets most convincingly to those within
our judicial system who must determine the guilt or innocence of the person accused.
Effective translation of evidence, through the filter of science, as it relates to the life, dying
and death of the victim, assists those whose ultimate aim is to uphold justice and those who
mete out punishment against the transgressors of our laws. Nowhere is the solemnity and
seriousness of this practice more focussed than in judgement over the crime of homicide.
The taking of a life through ill faith carries the harshest of sentences that our courts
are permitted to enforce upon those accused of the crime. Although England, Wales and
Scotland abolished the death penalty in 1965, it is no surprise that the last capital punish-
ment performed in each country was for the crime of murder. Although Northern Ireland
did not abolish the death penalty until 1975, the last state execution was in 1961, which was
also for murder (Clark, 2009; Webb, 2011).
Murder and manslaughter are the two offences that constitute homicide in the United
Kingdom. Murder is committed when a person who is of sound mind unlawfully kills
another human with intent, under the Queen’s peace. Exceptions do occur in relation to
the definition when it involves diminished responsibility, loss of control or a suicide pact.
In the United Kingdom, murder carries a mandatory life sentence (Mitchell and Roberts,
2012) where the nature of the murder dictates the starting point for sentencing tariff, and
the length of imprisonment may be increased or decreased depending on aggravating or
mitigating circumstances, respectively (CPS Sentencing Manual, 2012).
Schedule 21 of the CPS Sentencing Manual (2012) sets out four basic starting tariffs for
murder.
A whole life order is the most stringent sentence that can be handed down, and this
is a current major topic for debate in the UK legal system. To wit, there have been several
appeals to the European Court of Human Rights in an attempt to have such sentences
overturned. The sentence refers to life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole, and
this order may be made by the trial judge in cases of aggravated murders committed by
mentally competent adults who were aged 21 and older at the time of the crime. There are
more than 60 individuals currently incarcerated within UK prisons under this tariff, and
all have been found guilty of aggravated murder.
1
2 Criminal Dismemberment

If more than 21 years of age at the time of committing the crime, there are three other
starting points for the duration of a murder sentence:
• Thirty years (murder involving a firearm or explosive; for personal gain; to
obstruct the course of justice; involving sexual or sadistic conduct; multiple mur-
der; racially, sexually or religiously aggravated murder; murder committed by a
person under age 21 if it would otherwise deserve a whole life order)
• Twenty-five years (murder involving a knife)
• Fifteen years (other cases of murder)
Aggravating factors that can influence and therefore increase the starting tariff for murder
include the following:
• A significant degree of planning or premeditation
• That the victim was vulnerable because of age or disability
• Mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death
• The abuse of a position of trust
• The use of duress or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of
the offence
• That the victim was providing a public service or performing a public duty
• Concealment, destruction or dismemberment of the body (Criminal Justice Act,
2003, Schedule 21, Section 269[5])
Dismemberment of the body relates to the act of the removal of parts of the body, whether the
victim is alive or dead, and it has been used as a form of capital punishment in its own right
for much of the known history of man (Chapter 2). It can of course be beneficial if directed
by the surgeon to remove parts of a body that are no longer viable, and accidental dismem-
berment can occur as a result of traumatic incidences that may, of course, prove fatal. As a
concept, the violent separation of the body into its parts captivates the imagination of the
public and has resulted in an enduring and popular theme for literature (e.g. Divine Comedy),
drama (Titus Andronicus) and art (Norman, 2008) throughout the time. The woodcuts of the
Execution of Queen Brunhilde from the fifteenth century, Hogarth’s depiction from 1725,
and the emotive Martyrdom of St. Hippolytus from an unknown Flemish artist in the fif-
teenth century all display graphically the concept of the violence associated with dismember-
ment and desecration of the human body that both fascinate and repulse in equal measure.
So, although the act of murder is considered the most heinous of crimes that can be com-
mitted, it is aggravated when the body is further disrupted or violated intentionally. This engen-
ders abhorrence through a perception of disrespect for, and dehumanization of, the remains
of a fellow human. There are several descriptions of different criminal dismemberment cat-
egories, but those most commonly followed are discussed in communications such as Rajs
et al. (1998) and Hakkanen-Nyholm et al. (2009) and are summarized as follows:

1. Defensive dismemberment: By far, the most common reason for dismemberment

relates to the requirement to dispose of the body and to do so in as expeditious a
manner as possible. The deceased is often surprisingly heavy, big and difficult to
manoeuvre. As most dismemberments are not planned, the corpse poses a challenge
for the murderer as it is the most compelling evidence of the crime. Therefore, there
is a logic to trying to reduce the body to smaller individual parts that are manage-
able to lift and to remove unnoticed from the crime scene to facilitate concealment.
Introduction to Criminal Human Dismemberment 3

Dismemberment in this situation is usually generalized in terms of its anatomical

focus as the body is easiest to handle if in six parts: the head, torso, two upper limbs
and two lower limbs (Chapters 8 and 9). Bisection of the torso is often avoided due
to the complications posed by viscera and their subsequent disposal.
Defensive dismemberment will also occur when the motive is to obscure the iden-
tity of the deceased. If this is the intent, then the dismemberment will be anatomically
targeted usually to the face, teeth and hands or any personal identifying feature such
as skinning to remove evidence of tattoos. In addition, there may be further trauma
to the remains perhaps through chemical treatment, burning or other means.
In our pilot survey of recent dismemberment cases in the United Kingdom
(Appendix II), approximately 82% of the cases most likely arose through defensive
dismemberment. This compares favourably with 74% described by Konopka et al.
(2007) in Poland but is larger than the 61.5% reported by Hakkanen-Nyholm et al.
(2009) in Finland, 45% reported by Rajs et al. (1998) in Sweden and 39% reported
in Hamburg by Puschel and Koops (1987).
2. Aggressive dismemberment: This is the second most common motivation for
dismemberment, and the act of murder in this situation is brought about by a
heightened state of rage that continues into the dismemberment phase as a violent
mutilation of the body. This can be referred to as ‘overkill’ where the rage of the
killer is manifest and is reflected in the often haphazard nature of the dismember-
ment. Equally, aggressive dismemberment can commence before the death of the
victim, and it may be the cause of death.
3. Offensive dismemberment: This often results from murder arising from sexual
gratification or the sadistic pleasure of inflicting pain on the living or injury on the
dead. This type of dismemberment often involves mutilation of the sexual regions
of the body, and it is rare. In this situation, dismemberment may be the primary
purpose of the murder.
4. Necromanic dismemberment: Although this form of dismemberment receives
a disproportionate amount of attention in films and novels, it is by far the rar-
est. This dismemberment may utilize or retain a body part as a trophy, symbol or
fetish, and cannibalism also falls into this category. It should be noted that it is not
always necessary for a homicide to have occurred to fulfil this type of dismember-
ment, and it can arise in situations where individuals have access to the already
deceased or it may necessitate exhumation of the dead.
5. Communication dismemberment: This type of dismemberment is often utilized as
a means of transmitting meaning between violent gangs or groups. It is intended
as a clear indication of threat often to persuade the other party to desist in activi-
ties or to persuade, usually young men, to join such groups, as refusal to do so
could result in their death and dismemberment.

Research has suggested that the two most common forms of dismemberment (defensive
and aggressive) tend to be unplanned and largely disorganized in their execution and often
fuelled by alcohol and/or substance abuse (Rajs et al., 1998; Hakkanen-Nyholm et al., 2009;
Seidel and Fulginiti, 2014). In contrast, the rarer forms of dismemberment (offensive, nec-
romanic and communication) tend to be more controlled and planned for in advance.
If we consider perhaps one of the most common scenarios surrounding dismember-
ment, it will allow us to explore the issues faced by the murderer and/or the dismemberer
4 Criminal Dismemberment

and address the opportunities for information and evidence to be secured by the
investigative authorities. Our theoretical crime has resulted in the following scenario:

• It was a defensive dismemberment.

• It was unplanned.
• The perpetrator knows the victim.
• The death occurred in a dwelling.
• Alcohol/drugs were involved.
• The body needs to be disposed of.

There are a number of issues to be considered now by the perpetrator who is most likely in
a heightened state of alarm, and each step leaves the potential for the retrieval of forensic
evidence.

1. Where to cut up the body: Common sense dictates that the cutting up of a body will
be a messy business that will involve a significant volume of blood and other body
fluids. From research into previous cases, there are many potential solutions to this
issue. Most often, the preferred location in a home environment, which is where most
dismemberment occurs, is in the bathroom. This is a logical solution as the room is
designed to withstand water and bodily fluids, generally possesses a container that is
designed to be the size required for immersion or at least washing of the human body
and has inbuilt plumbing that will efficiently remove unwanted fluids and facilitate
clean-up processes. The bath or the shower in a dwelling tends to be the favoured loca-
tion for housing a deceased when dismemberment is being considered and indeed for
the act itself. In some cases, rolls of plastic sheeting have been purchased in a manner
that follows the television series Dexter. However, the purchase of materials sets up a
potential chain of evidence in terms of both closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras
in stores and the use of credit/debit cards for the purchase. In most circumstances,
there is a pressing urgency to ‘deal’ with the remains, and so it is unusual for them to
remain ‘stored’ for any significant length of time as the all-pervasive and noxious smell
of decomposition has the potential to alert others to the situation.
It is usual for the dismemberment to occur in the location of the murder.
Transportation of a body for the purposes of dismemberment is not common,
although it can occur when the process is being undertaken professionally.
2. How to cut up the body: For most people, this is a single unique event and some-
thing for which they have no previous experience and are generally ill-prepared.
There is much made in the fictional literature about the anatomical skills of butch-
ers, hunters, physicians and others; although they may on occasion prove to be
the perpetrator, and perhaps possess necessary skills, most dismemberments are
undertaken by individuals with little or no anatomical skill. When there is some
familiarity with the dismemberment of remains (human or otherwise), this does
tend to result in a slightly different approach to the process that can be detected.
Those who are anatomically aware will avoid bisection of the torso if at all possible,
and they will disarticulate at joint surfaces rather than attempt to cut across dense
bones.
Research (Thomson, pers. comm.) has shown that most households already con-
tain the tools necessary for dismemberment, and therefore there is rarely the need
Introduction to Criminal Human Dismemberment 5

to actively purchase additional resources to undertake both the acts of dismem-

berment and packaging of materials (see the case history in Appendix I). Most
houses contain knives and saws of some nature, and these are the most common
tools used.
The inexperienced dismemberer may try to cut through the bone initially with
a knife and will learn very quickly that this is unlikely to be successful. As such,
some parts of the body may retain clues as to the first anatomical region to be con-
sidered and the type of tool used. Of course at this point, it is possible that the per-
petrator may realize that they do not have the necessary tools, and purchase may
indeed be required. They may also realize that it is challenging to undertake alone
(see the case history in Appendix I), and so an accomplice may become involved.
Six parts to the dismembered body are most common as previously indicated,
but the final number will be dictated by the determination of the perpetrator, the
time available for the process, the challenge of the physical activity and the size of
the receptacles available for the disposal.
3. What to wrap it in: Research suggests that plastic refuse sacks, plastic bags, bin lin-
ers and cling film are the most common materials used for the initial wrapping of
the body parts, in an attempt to limit the amount of blood and body fluid leakage.
Again, these are all materials that are usually readily available in the home, but they
are also frequently purchased and because of their common domestic requirement,
they can often be undertaken without detection. Other available materials have
been used, including curtains, carpeting, duvets, sleeping bags and so on, and are
largely indicative of what the perpetrator may have to hand. The cleaning of the
scene in an attempt to remove all trace of the murder and dismemberment will
of itself leave tell-tale signs of extensive use of chemicals such as bleach and the
presence of bonfires to remove items, and a search is advised to locate the cleaning
paraphernalia that is required to accompany an effective crime scene clean-up.
4. What to carry it in: When the body parts are wrapped, there is still the need to
remove them from the crime scene for disposal. This requires that either the
remains are to be disposed of sufficiently closely in geographical terms, or they
are to be removed some distance away. If they are to be disposed of in a close
geographical location to the scene of the crime, then the obvious places to search
are under floorboards, in cupboards, in cellars, in attics, under beds, beneath
bath panels and in gardens, sheds and garages. If the remains are to be removed
from the immediate locale but there is no vehicular transportation, then disposal
will need to occur via a mechanism that would appear normal for the ambulatory
individual. The use of suitcases, holdalls, rucksacks and so on are all employed to
move the remains from the premises to the deposition site and may utilize public
transport. The torso provides the greatest issue in this regard as it is a large volume
of material and is surprisingly heavy. If the remains are to be transported in a
vehicle, then there is less need for there to be a secondary carrying capability.
5. Where to dispose of it: Research suggests that most perpetrators will dispose of
remains in a geographical area that is known to them. The Centralised Analytical
Team Collating Homicide Expertise and Management (CATHCEM) database
informed that although most bodies are found within a relatively easy carrying dis-
tance of a road or track, this has less application when the body is in smaller and/
or more manageable parts (Francis et al., 2004). The ability to transfer them further
6 Criminal Dismemberment

from the original crime scene is therefore greater. Within the United Kingdom, it
appears that water is a favoured mechanism for dispersal of body parts whether
river, loch/lake, sea or canal (Appendix II).
The following summary points made by Konopka et al. (2007) appear to be largely true,
but the area is not rich with detailed research. More is required across the entire field of the
subject of homicide and subsequent dismemberment.

• Apart from rare cases of necrophilia, the victim of dismemberment is usually a

victim of homicide.
• Homicides that end with corpse dismemberment are most commonly committed
by a person who is close, or at least acquainted, with the victim. Stranger homicide
and dismemberment are rare.
• Dismemberment is nearly always performed at the site of the homicide, and most
frequently in the place inhabited by either the perpetrator or the victim.
• A homicide that ends with corpse dismemberment is generally not planned by the
perpetrator.
• Homicides followed by dismemberment are rarely serial in nature.

References
Clark, R. (2009). Capital Punishment in Britain. Ian Allan Publishing, Surrey.
CPS (2012). Legal Guidance, Sentencing Manual. Available to download from http://www.cps.gov.
uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/, Last accessed 4 January 2016.
Criminal Justice Act (2003). Available to download from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/2003/44/contents, Last accessed 4 January 2016.
Francis, B., Barry, J., Bowater, R., Miler, N., Soothill, K. and Acklerley, E. (2004). Using homi-
cide data to assist murder investigations. Home Office online report. Available to download
from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/
pdfs04/rdsolr2604.pdf, Last accessed 29 December 2016.
Hakkanen-Nyholm, H., Weizmann-Henelius, G., Salenius, S., Lindberg, N. and Repo-Tiihonen, E.
(2009). Homicides with mutilation of the victim’s body. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54(4):
933–937.
Konopka, T., Strona, M., Bolechala, F. and Kunz, J. (2007). Corpse dismemberment in the material
collected by the department of forensic medicine, Cracow, Poland. Legal Medicine 9(1): 1–13.
Mitchell, B. and Roberts, J.V. (2012). Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder. Hart
Publishing, Oxford.
Norman, L. (2008). Dismemberment in Drama/Dismemberment of Drama. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, Cambridge. Available at http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/
sample/58559, Last accessed 4 January 2016.
Puschel, K. and Koops, E. (1987). Dismemberment and mutilation (2). Archives fur Kriminologie
180: 88–100.
Rajs, J., Lundstrom, M., Broberg, M., Lidberg, L. and Lindquist, O. (1998). Criminal mutilation
of the human body in Sweden – A thirty year medico-legal and forensic psychiatric study.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 43(3): 563–580.
Seidel, A.C. and Fulginiti, L.C. (2014). The first cut is the deepest: Looking for patterns in cases of
human dismemberment. In: Bioarchaeological and Forensic Perspectives on Violence: How
Violent Death is Interpreted from Skeletal Remains. Eds. Martin, D.L. and Anderson, C.P.,
Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 63–82.
Webb, S. (2011). Execution. A History of Capital Punishment in Britain. The History Press,
Gloucestershire, England.
Dismemberment
A Historical Perspective*
2
SHANE McCORRISTINE

Contents
Introduction 7
Dismemberment in World Mythologies 8
Dismemberment in Prehistory 9
Dismemberment as a Criminal Punishment in Europe 14
The Thames Torso Murders 19
Conclusion: The Dismembering Serial Killer 21
References 22

Introduction

Human bodies are perilously balanced between opposing arcs of wholeness and
fragmentation. In all cultures and all time periods, people have experienced themselves and
their worlds from the inside, using perceptual information and sensations that pass through
channels unique to our biological make-up. The body is, therefore, the foundation of our
being. So, on the one hand, we are beings constituted by a sense of core personhood, incul-
cated via the body, and, on the other hand, we know that we are also palpable, frequently
powerful, but frequently fragile bodies made up of distinct and detachable parts.
Practices of dismemberment, in this understanding, reflect a primordial dualistic
tension because they destruct bodily wholeness while recognizing the agency, aura, and
personality that attach to separated and still ‘lively’ body parts. An arm, head, or leg
does not simply become anonymous flesh when taken away from its owner (if we take
embodiment to be in some sense a feeling of ‘ownership’). Rather, just as the work of
forensic science seeks to reconstruct human remains and reveal a person’s journey to
death, age-old practices of inscribing body parts with symbols and deeper meanings point
to dismemberment as something that relocates, rather than annihilates, bodily integrity.
In other words, severing flesh and limbs generates stories as much as it ends them.
To say that dismemberment is something that humans have done to one another for
a long time is to state the obvious. It is more of a challenge to compress this history into a
manageable narrative because it permeates too many different aspects of human culture –
sacrifice, ritual, homicide, myth, art, medicine, and so on. This chapter therefore offers a
brief survey of dismemberment from a historical perspective. Beginning with prehistory, it
zooms in on particular cases and themes to support the argument that, for most of human
history, dismemberment was a customary practice in all societies. It is only in the past few

* This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust as part of the ‘Harnessing the Power of the Criminal
Corpse’ project (2011–2016) at the University of Leicester, Leicester.

7
8 Criminal Dismemberment

100 years that dismemberment (here understood as the purposeful removal of limbs from
a living or recently dead person) has come to be an exceptionally rare practice in most soci-
eties, unsupported by religious or cultural elites, and something that is more often than not
associated with abnormal or criminal personalities and behaviour.

Dismemberment in World Mythologies

Although dismemberment can come about through accidents or suicide, in most

contemporary societies it tends to be associated with homicide. The motivations for the
criminal dismemberment of living or recently dead people include ease of transporta-
tion, concealment, desire to dishonour and to disguise the identity of the victim (Duhig
and Martinsen, 2007). For most forensic investigators and law enforcement professionals,
criminal dismemberment strongly suggests that the offender has ‘mental health problems
with strong psychiatric disorders, and a tendency to repeat this aggressive killing and
dismemberment behaviour’ (Quatrehomme, 2007). However, criminocentric under-
standings of dismemberment stand in contrast to the manifold cosmological and social
ideas and practices of dismemberment in human societies.
In several ancient mythical traditions, dismemberment is associated not with chaos
and mayhem, but rather with the opposite, with the creation of order and the origin of
society. For instance, Inuit peoples across the circumpolar Arctic share the legend of
Sedna, a sea goddess through whom the animals of the world first appeared. According to
the most popular version of the ancient myth, Sedna was unhappily married to a birdman
and asked her father to rescue her. After killing her husband, Sedna and her father were
pursued across the sea by vengeful gulls. In order to save himself, the father threw Sedna
overboard. She clung on to the boat, however, and her father cut off her fingertips, which
fell into the water and became the whales. Still unable to get rid of her, he cut her fingers
at the first and second joints – these also fell into the water and became the seals and wal-
ruses. When Sedna herself fell into the sea, she became the mistress of the underworld;
Inuit shamans therefore had to visit her to request the return of the sea mammals in times
of hardship and hunger (Weaver, 2006).
In ancient Egypt, the myth of the god Osiris – ‘the Dismembered One’ – dominated
the religious beliefs of the inhabitants in the Nile valley for more than 3000 years. In this
complex myth, Osiris was a judicious Pharaoh who was murdered and cut into 14 pieces by
his brother Set. In the version written by the Roman historian Plutarch, the goddesses Isis
and Nepthys – Osiris’s sister and sister-in-law, respectively – managed to locate the body
parts and reassemble him as the first mummy, missing only the penis, which had been
eaten by a fish. Isis then crafted a penis for the resurrected Osiris and conceived the right-
ful heir, Horus, who after several battles defeated Set and restored harmony to the land.
Made whole again, Osiris became the ruler of the House of the Dead (Reid, 1987).
In Norse mythology, meanwhile, dismemberment features in the story of the androgy-
nous frost giant Ymir, who was killed by the gods and torn apart. They turned his body into
the earth, his blood into the seas, his bones into the mountains, his teeth and jaw into rocks
and stone and his skull into the sky. Another myth of killing and dismembering a monster
was present in Babylonian culture, which told of the hero Marduk who defeated Tiamat
and her lover, forming the universe out of their body parts (Leeming, 2010). Similar myths
of dismemberment also existed in Chinese, Indian and Aztec cultures.
Dismemberment 9

In all of these traditions, the murder and dismemberment of a primordial being are
generative and seen as the beginning of social life for humans. The dismembering and
dispersal of body parts that come to constitute a world of life, point to universal ideas of a
whole and healthy ‘body politic’, a supra-individual body that, like the individual body, is
fragile and dependent. The relationship between bloody sacrifice and the emergence of a
harmonious society in ancient mythologies goes some way towards explaining why rituals
of animal and human sacrifice and dismemberment were so pervasive in hunter-gathering
cultures, albeit in different guises. In Totem and Taboo, Sigmund Freud (1950) famously
hypothesized the prehistoric homicide and cannibalism of a father by his sons – a kind of
original sin/sacrifice that laid the foundations for social organization and moral restric-
tions. The underlying principle at work was as follows: from death and dismemberment
come life and order.

Dismemberment in Prehistory

Moving from the realm of myth to social practices, it is clear that dismemberment is a
physical process that requires some skill and knowledge if it is to be done in a neat and timely
manner. There have always been people – typically men – in ancient and modern popula-
tions with these attributes who have processed cadavers for their communities for benign
reasons (e.g. butchers, surgeons, hunters and taxidermists). Dismemberment in the form of
butchery is the ubiquitous means of processing dead animals for use as food and is therefore
present in the archaeological record of sites associated with early humans. In recent decades,
the dismemberment of humans has been a prominent topic among bioarchaeologists and
anthropologists in the context of studies of extreme violence, cannibalism and ritual in
prehistoric societies. With evidence of extreme and brutal violence being found further and
further back in our evolutionary history (Strauss et al., 2015), many scholars have moved
away from previously dominant ‘noble savage’ perspectives of pre-state pacifism and lim-
ited violence. However, it must be recognized that the ‘case’ approach to the documentation
of ancient violence tends to zoom in on spectacular incidences of dismemberment. In the
absence of widespread data, it is impossible to calculate how frequent such practices were
amid a background of constant and varied forms of non-traumatic violence (Walker, 2001).
Nevertheless, and with this proviso in mind, surviving skeletal remains have provided abun-
dant evidence for prehistoric dismemberment practices, and several taphonomic studies
have offered remarkable insights into this aspect of early human behaviour.
Dismemberment is a common aspect of state and non-state warfare, occurring in
the heat of battle (injuries from weapons, projectiles and other objects), in the immedi-
ate aftermath of battle (amputations and executions) and sometimes at various stages
afterwards (ritual executions and trophy-taking) (Hoskins, 1996; Keeley, 1996; Walker,
2001). Incidences of perimortem dismemberment associated with warfare vary consider-
ably in prehistoric sites, but studies of skeletal remains in pre-Hispanic California and the
American Southwest suggest significant levels of mutilation and dismemberment associ-
ated with warfare (LeBlanc, 1999; Potter and Chuipka, 2010).
In a recent analysis of a bioarchaeological database of the remains of more than 13,000
individuals from prehistoric sites in Central California (3000 BCE–1700 CE), 76 individ-
uals (0.56%) were found to show evidence of perimortem dismemberment (Andrushko
et al., 2010). Another analysis supplementing this database found that just less than 1% of
10 Criminal Dismemberment

individuals had been dismembered in some form (Schwitalla et al., 2014). The American
Southwest was a populous region and home to socially complex and culturally diverse
societies known for outbreaks of extreme intertribal violence before European contact. In
the above-mentioned studies, evidence from human remains indicated that young males
were more likely to be dismembered in massacre sites – with upper limb and skull/scalp
removal being the most common mutilations – following which the bodies were buried in
a haphazard and multiple burial context. Data from the broader anthropological record
also suggest that young males were more commonly, and continue to be, both the perpe-
trators and victims of homicide (Walker, 2001).
Elsewhere, excavations at a site called Sacred Ridge in Colorado have uncovered the
largest deposit of mutilated and processed human remains in the American Southwest
(Potter and Chuipka, 2010). Dating back to ca. 800 CE, this settlement of pit houses was
the scene of a brutal assault from outsiders that resulted in the death and dismemberment
of at least 33 individuals – men, women and children. Tool marks consistent with exten-
sive scalping, disembowelling and other forms of perimortem body processing were found
amid the 15,000 bone fragments on the site. These fragments provided further taphonomic
indicators of burning and torture in the form of hobbling (Osterholtz, 2013). This assault
proved devastating to the community, as the site was abandoned shortly afterwards. The
better known massacre at Crow Creek, South Dakota, which took place around 1325 CE,
resulted in the deaths of some 486 individuals (at least 60% of the village population).
These people suffered similar perimortem mutilations, especially scalping (90% of skulls)
and tongue and tooth removal. Missing body parts indicate that trophy-taking took place
(Willey and Emerson, 1993). For bioarchaeologists looking at these prehistoric violence
patterns, cut marks typically provide the main type of evidence for perimortem dismem-
berment, especially near joints where soft tissue (muscle, tendon, ligaments, joint capsules,
etc.) would have to be severed. Incidences of scalping were indicated by circumferential cut
marks of the cranial vault.
We know from examples throughout the New World that extreme violence and
dismemberment associated with warfare were prevalent and could serve several
purposes: to inflict defeat, to dehumanize and inflict terror, to remember victories, to
enhance a warrior’s social status or to disable the ‘dangerous dead’ (Chacon and Dye,
2007). Bioarchaeological and ethnohistorical studies indicate that trophy-taking follow-
ing dismemberment was a socially sanctioned practice associated with warfare in the
American Southwest. In a context of intertribal raiding and retribution, the removal and
display of trophy body parts may have served to prove and recall the defeat of an enemy.
Dehumanization and the treatment of the enemy ‘other’ as meat to be butchered are also
important psychological factors here. It is also worth comparing the historical manufacture
of shrunken heads (Tsantsa) by the Jivaroan tribes of South America – originally done to
trap the soul of an enemy – with the purchase and display of these, now objectified, heads
by Victorian collectors.
In the bioarchaeological literature, there are lively debates as to whether incidences
of perimortem mutilation and dismemberment, such as at the Sacred Ridge massacre,
may have involved cannibalism (Billman et al., 2000; Walker 2008). Although an
inherently controversial and political issue (Arens, 1979), cannibalism has been prac-
ticed by numerous hominid species since the Pleistocene and is also recorded among
Neanderthal groups (Defleur et al., 1999). Cannibalism has therefore been a universal
facet of human mythology and experience – a fact supported by abundant historical
Dismemberment 11

evidence (Petrinovich, 2000; Sugg, 2011), biochemical evidence (Marlar et al., 2000) and
archaeological evidence (Carbonell et al., 2010; Bello et al., 2015).
One of the main issues in these debates from a forensic perspective is the difficulty in
distinguishing practices of defleshing and dismemberment from practices of cannibalism
(Hurlbut, 2000; Stodder, 2008). Bioarchaeologists have therefore developed a checklist of
taphonomic signatures that indicate the likely consumption of the human dead. Cut marks,
skinning, evisceration and dismemberment are not enough to prove that cannibalism
took place, but particular breakage patterns that suggest bone marrow extraction and the
treatment of these remains do suggest the butchery of humans for human consumption,
although the reasons for this practice may vary greatly.
At a cave site containing the remains of six individuals of the Homo antecessor species
dating back to the Early Pleistocene near Burgos in Spain (ca. 800,000 BCE), evidence has
been found of the practice of ‘peeling’, defined as a type of fracture produced ‘when fresh
bone is fractured and peeled apart similar to bending a small fresh twig from a tree branch
between two hands’ (White, 1992, p. 140). The particular superimposition of peeling over
cut marks indicates that incisions were made before dismembering, a butchering sequence
that has also been observed at other prehistoric sites of cannibalism in the American
Southwest and at Fontbrégoua, France (Fernández-Jalvo et al., 1999). In this case, the
placement of butchered human remains amid other faunal remains suggests that human
cadavers shared the same processing as non-humans and that consumptive cannibalism,
rather than ritualistic cannibalism, took place. Far from being pathological or criminocen-
tric, there were many pragmatic reasons to explain why prehistoric humans would have
hunted and consumed other humans (Carbonell et al., 2010).
There are also ritualistic reasons for post-mortem dismemberment and the modifica-
tion of human remains. Today, we are familiar with the manifold socially sanctioned ways
in which different populations treat dead bodies in order to remember or care for the dead
(hair jewellery, cremations, cryonics, embalming, organ harvesting, etc.). Early in our evo-
lutionary history, humans also cared for the dead in ways that involved dismemberment
and the treatment of the corpse as a symbolic body. For instance, cut marks on a hominid
cranium found at Bodo, Ethiopia, dating back to ca. 600,000 BCE, indicate that the head
was defleshed with stone tools as part of a ritual, although there is no evidence of can-
nibalism (White, 1986). Evidence of corpse modification among Neanderthal groups also
indicates that other Pleistocene species dismembered and treated the dead body in socially
meaningful ways. An examination of human remains in an Iberomaurusian necropolis
in Morocco, dating from 11 to 12,000 BCE, has also uncovered evidence of post-mortem
dismemberment and modification of male corpses, possibly suggesting intentional killing
and ritual cannibalism among the local population (Belcastro et al., 2010).
The removal and use of human heads or skulls, whether as trophies or as memento
mori, is a particularly well-documented behaviour in prehistoric societies and a practice
that has links to cannibalism. Excavations at Gough’s Cave in Somerset, for instance,
have uncovered evidence of ritualistic cannibalism during the Upper Palaeolithic period
(ca. 12,700 BCE). Of considerable interest in this case was the deliberate processing and
shaping of skulls into skull-caps that had a ceremonial value (Bello et al., 2015) (Figure 2.1).
Elsewhere, in one of the earliest clear examples of mass murder, at a Mesolithic cave
site at Ofnet, Bavaria (ca. 5500 BCE), 38 women and children were decapitated in a raid
(Frayer, 1997). The heads were ceremonially buried in pits, probably by the returning men,
alongside grave goods such as pierced red deer teeth and shell ornaments. This burial rite
12 Criminal Dismemberment

Figure 2.1 Part of a skull burial at Ofnet, Germany. (Courtesy of Wellcome Library, London.)

indicates that people had a degree of care and concern for the dead. Just as at Ofnet, other
Mesolithic burials in the region suggest something of a ‘skull cult’ whereby victims of
decapitation, mostly but not always female, had their skulls stained with red ochre before
burial (Jochim, 1996). Research on violence in Neolithic Italy has suggested that cranial
injuries, and indeed trauma of all kinds, became more common among males than among
females after the Mesolithic because of shifting gender roles that prohibited female partici-
pation in warfare (Robb, 1997).
There are many reasons why prehistoric societies sanctioned decapitation followed by
the processing, use and curation of human skulls. In many ways, the removal of the head
is the primordial form of dismemberment because it is universally symbolic of a person’s
social identity. Decapitation, then, is not necessarily violence for the sake of violence. It is
not a typical injury associated with everyday trauma or even battlefield conflict. Rather it
is a cultural practice, performed on the already dead, or a person in captivity: ‘Severing a
head requires that the head possess an already developed and elaborated system of mean-
ings that can be appropriated with the head when the head is appropriated’ (Janes, 2005,
p. 3). Although one of the aims of decapitation was to kill, the process of severing a head
from a body could mean several things at once: a public statement of power/powerlessness,
an act of dehumanization, recognition of the head as a magical or uncanny object, or it
could be symbolic of the beginning or end of a new regime or ‘body politic’. The act of
homicidal decapitation generates meaning and social currency for the perpetrators who
gain a valuable object – it is this objectification and cultural violence that make decapitation
‘perhaps the most appallingly brutal act that can be perpetrated against the human body’
(Armit, 2012, p. 47).
As a distinct form of dismemberment, decapitation has been variously interpreted as a
barbaric practice (e.g. Roman criticism of the Celts) or a civilized practice (e.g. the criminal
punishment reserved for nobility, guillotine and the ‘quick death’), depending on social
context. There is osteological evidence for the ritual use of heads in the central Andean
region from as early as 1300 BCE, where they served as trophies and symbols of fertility
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.