Why Wasn’t Jeff Dahmer Charged with Mutilating a Corpse?
In a genuine case, the perpetrator would have faced additional felony charges under Wisconsin Statute 940.11.
Mutilating a corpse (Wisconsin Statute 940.11) is a serious felony and is often added to a homicide charge. However, Jeff Dahmer wasn’t charged with mutilating a corpse. Wisconsin Statute 940.11 was curiously absent from the narrative surrounding the so-called “trial.”
This is pretty strange, given that Jeff Dahmer supposedly mutilated more than one corpse. His confession states that he went to “great lengths” to conceal his crimes.
Given the sensationalist media claims made about the condition of the victims’ remains, one would expect this to be a central focus of the prosecution's case. But they never applied or even mentioned Statute 940.11 during the “trial” proceedings.
If the victims' bodies were indeed subjected to the level of mutilation alleged in the media, then the perpetrator should have faced additional felony charges under this statute had this been a genuine case.
A review of Wisconsin case law reveals numerous instances where the Corpse Law has been applied alongside homicide charges. These include the case of the State of Wisconsin vs. Peter T. Kupaza, the State of Wisconsin vs. Joel O. Peterson, and the State of Wisconsin vs. Norbert W. Ellis. These cases can be easily found in the Justia legal database, which provides a wealth of information on court proceedings and legal documents.
This sensational story about Jeff Dahmer focused on the condition of the remains of the alleged victims. Bodies were supposedly chopped up, dissolved in acid, etc. So, the lack of any reference to Statute 940.11 is exceedingly strange.
The following video is Jeff Dahmer’s first court appearance. Note that they discuss the initial four charges of “homicide” and “habitual criminality” but nothing about Statute 940.11. They then mention further investigations for the amended complaint to be presented at a later date following a police investigation.
The “amended complaint” is then read during Jeff’s second court appearance, where they read all the additional charges of “intentional homicide” and “habitual criminality.” Note that once again, there’s no mention of Statute 940.11.
At the “sentencing,” the judge just reads the “15 counts” (and even says he doesn’t have the complaint in front of him!) and the “habitual criminality.” Again, there’s no mention of Statute 940.11.
Where Is the Official Case File for the State of Wisconsin vs. Jeffrey Dahmer?
One also has to wonder why there’s no official case file for the State of Wisconsin vs Jeffrey Dahmer. Of course, we know the answer…
Despite the widespread belief that Jeff Dahmer was subjected to a formal legal process, the so-called “trial” was nothing more than a media spectacle, a carefully orchestrated performance designed to mislead and manipulate. The perpetrators of these false narratives - i.e., fake news stories - are clearly banking on our gullibility and willingness to believe sensational claims without demanding rigorous proof.
We encourage you to read our in-depth analysis of the trial to understand the full scope of the irregularities: Jeff Dahmer's Trial - An Exploration Of The Peculiar Legal Process
So, how did they set up a sham trial and fail to cite the laws, etc. and no one, it even other attorneys noticed? Is this the power of the trance of television.
I agree with your assessment. I never heard any laws cited, no names of the “deceased” or description of evidence, but I also am not familiar with court procedures and trials.
If they pulled this off with Jeffrey, where else has this happened? If it was this easy to do, it seems there are others that are sham trials as well. I certainly can think if others that are suspicious.
And yet the 'acid' story is central to the narrative. The 'confession' mentions throughout the lengths Jeff goes to to hide his 'crimes'. The alarm system in the apartment, the painting of 3 skulls so they appear 'artificial' to anyone who may see them, the constant reference to disposal of 'remains' and the 'remains' found in the blue barrel that Jeff didn't get a chance to dissolving in acid and so on. Adding the correct charges would however add further complication to an already impossible narrative, and there was no real evidence to present (hence the admittance only of the so-called confession as the only key physical 'evidence' allowed at the trial). No issue with charges for 'habitual criminality' and the extra 120 years that would carry. More holes than Swiss cheese.