The Paris Torso Mystery

[The Rookie Detective]

My in-depth analysis.

Ripper - killed in the streets, bodies left on display and not dismembered.

Torso killer - stored and killed indoors, dismembered, wrapped, parts distributed and chucked in the river at different locations.

Two different men.

Ah...

but that's the entire point right there Herlock...NOT ALL Torso victims were chucked in the river!

He dumped ONE torso in Pinchin St under a RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED RAILWAY ARCH next to the Board of Works (Stone breaking yard) that Lusk himself had worked for...in the heart of Ripper territory.

He dumped ANOTHER torso in the RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED ARCHED cellar foundations of the ongoing work on the New Scotland Yard building.

Now.. IF ALL the torso victims had been dumped in the River and NONE had been dumped under ARCHES, then I would accept that there's a lot less riding on them being the same killer.
However, when we consider that Frances Coles was then murdered under the same stretch RAILWAY ARCH and that Nichols had been previously murdered directly next to the RAILWAY line, then the coincidences begin to mount up.

The last person seen talking with Elizabeth Jackson just A FEW HOURS BEFORE she was dismembered (this IS accurate when you do the Math) was described as having looked like a "NAVVY," a civil service engineer who worked specifically in the building of the infrastructure, including the RAILWAY and CANAL/WATERWAYS.

We can't claim that all the Torso victims were dumped in the river, because that's untrue.

Respectfully; regardless of whoever writes a book, it will always be from a subjective viewpoint regardless of the amount of data and research that is undertaken, because it is almost impossible to rule out any subconscious bias toward a particular suspect.

Now IF we rule out the Pinchin St torso as a Torso killer victim, and we also rule out the Whitehall Torso, only then we can claim that the Torso killer dumped ALL of his victims in the river.

The main issue is that linking the Ripper and Torso killer is uncomfortable for some because it virtually ruins the chances of some "popular" suspects having been the Ripper.

When we also consider the fact that there were also some cases of CHILDREN having been dismembered and dumped similarly to the already established Torso killer victims, then it becomes even more uncomfortable.

With the links between the 2 cases becoming even more transparent, the days of romanticizing about the Ripper are coming to a long-awaited end.


RD

[Fiver]

To begin with, having searched high and low I have never been able to establish any case of two eviscerating serial killers working in the same general area and time frame.

Edmund Kemper and Herbert Mullin. It took less than a minute to find them.

[The Rookie Detective]

A confirmed Torso victim, Elizabeth Jackson, had a partner/ex-partner in John (Jack) Faircloth (Smith, Fairclough) who despite working as a "Miller," was for some reason described by many sources as being a Stone Mason.

Stone Masonry is one of the many roles undertaken by Navvies.

Now the list of PROS that support him having been a key suspect are considerable.

However, it has been stated that he had an alibi that the police were satisfied with, ergo, he was too far away from the area for him to have murdered Jackson.

However, I have yet to see any EVIDENCE that confirms his alibi is TRUE.

If all we have is the word of the police at the time, then I would suggest they may have potentially made an error of judgment when dismissing Faircloth as a suspect in the murder of Jackson.

Let's not forget that the Yorkshire Ripper was interviewed by police no fewer than 9 times!

The excuse that the police dismissed a person of interest/suspect at the time because they believed an alibi, isn't enough to definitively confirm that said alibi is true.

In my recent interactions with Debra A, I have posted a list of all the pros that support Faircloth as having been a likely suspect in the murder of Jackson, and by proxy the elusive torso killer.


Now IF we have PROOF that his alibi was TRUE, only then can we dismiss him as a suspect.

The Police throughout history have had an uncanny way of misjudging suspects.

Could the Torso killer have been staring us in the face all this time based on a supposed alibi that has never been proven beyond the words of the police at the time?


I am not suggesting he IS the killer, but he IS an example of someone we should take a closer look at.


His description, behavior, and connection to a victim are all supportive of the idea that he warrants further scrutiny as a suspect.


RD

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The last person seen talking with Elizabeth Jackson just A FEW HOURS BEFORE she was dismembered (this IS accurate when you do the Math) was described as having looked like a "NAVVY," a civil service engineer who worked specifically in the building of the infrastructure, including the RAILWAY and CANAL/WATERWAYS.

He did not look like a sailor, then?

More navvy than navy, it seems.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

1. The victims of the torso killer had moles and scars left on the body parts that were found, some of them in water, some on dry land. Therefore, the killer had not taken all the necessary precautions to obscure the identities of his victims, and sure enough, this was how Liz Jackson was identified.

I refer you to my # 177, which was in reply to you, and in which I wrote:

They beheaded her, stuffed her headless body in a suitcase and flung it into the sea, believing that they had covered their tracks well, the police said. But Mintu Singh and his brother Chunchun forgot that Anjali Singh had a distinctive tattoo on her hand. It was this tattoo that helped the police identify her, and subsequently, arrest the brothers on the charges of murdering the 23-year-old.

(The Indian Express)

2. The killer apparently did not throw body parts in the Thames with the intention of hiding what he had done.


A reasonable conclusion was that he intended for the parts to be found.

I quote again from # 177:

Casandra Nazario was convicted of the murder of Rachel Lerato Sebetlela, whose headless body was found in a public park.

(NBC Connecticut)

The commonest reason for dismemberment murders is a wish to hide what has been done, or a wish to hide an identity...

Nowadays, the hands or fingers are also removed to disenable finger printing. That was not a problem back in 1887-89, though.

I quote again from # 177:

According to police, the accused [Pankaj Sharma] had executed the murder and cut off the head of the victim to fake his own murder, so the police would stop chasing him assuming him as dead.

The accused also cut off his fingertips.

(Hindustan Times)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

However, it has been stated that he had an alibi that the police were satisfied with, ergo, he was too far away from the area for him to have murdered Jackson.

Was that greater than the distance between Dorset and Whitechapel?

[The Rookie Detective]

He did not look like a sailor, then?

More navvy than navy, it seems.

No, not a sailor.

There's no reference to the Jackson suspect having been a sailor.

Not to be confused with the man seen talking to Stride by Marshall, who DID have the (alleged) appearance of a sailor.


A Navvy is a civil engineer and nothing to do with the Navy.

Imagine a working-class transient heavy builder, going where-the-work-is type of fella.

That said, Jackson's partner and alleged father to her unborn child, John Faircloth, was previously a soldier (Grenadier)... imagine the kind of man seen by PC Barrett around the time Tabram was murdered.

Faircloth was ex-military and had served 6 years in a Militia before joining the army.

A brief description...He had distinct grey eyes, a pockmarked face, brown hair, dark complexion, broad shoulders, between 5ft 7" to 5ft 8, walked flatfooted, dressed extravagantly at times, had previously attacked Jackson with a knife, spent time in Cambridgeshire, Chester, London and Durham (among others), ergo, he traveled around for work, suffered from syphilis (thanks Debra) had a permanent scar (cut) on the outside of his right leg, often wore 2 pairs of trousers that acted as overalls (thanks Debra) and had multiple hats that he often swapped.

He had absconded from the Grenadiers on multiple occasions, but was eventually discharged on medical grounds.

He also had a brother who worked for the railway (thank you to Debra A for telling me this)

He had another brother (possibly the same one, but he had at least 2 brothers) who lived in the Horsleydown area; the exact same place used by the torso killer to dump some of his victim's body parts.

But going back to your point...No, I never mentioned anything about the Navy.

We are talking about a NAVVY (derived from the word Navigator) or a civil engineer.

Now Faircloth was a Miller (Thank you to Debra & others for telling me this) but he was described in multiple newspaper reports as being/looking like a Stone Mason.

Stone Masonry is one of the many jobs undertaken by NAVVIES, in building structures, including ARCHES that need to be reinforced.

I am not saying that Faircloth was the killer, but he should be scrutinized much further; because to date his only defense was that the police at the time said he had an alibi.

After at least 9 interviews, the Yorkshire Ripper also appeared to have had an alibi... and look what happened there.


Now when we look at the similar torso murders that happened in Paris (Thanks to Charlie) there could be an argument to say the the killer was indeed a man of transient nature.


But back to THIS THREAD...did any of the Paris Torso victims get dumped under newly constructed railway arches, or similar structures that would have been constructed by a Navvy as part of a grand civil engineering project?


RD

[Elamarna]

What is the relevance to the discussion on this thread? It seems you're suggesting that there is some information somewhere, which nobody on this thread has seen and analysed for reasoning skills, and that information will render this discussion academic. In the event you have some information that is useful, then put it forward rather than appeal to magic.

It's probably worth pointing out that knowing a lot about the Whitechapel Murders, or the Torso Murders, does not automatically demand that we give credit to people's reasoning skills and ability to interpret source documents.

The people who put the effort in to unearth source documents for the rest of us to pour over, deserve all of the credit in the world given that we wouldn't have the luxury of pouring over them otherwise. That does not extend to writing books. Credit would be given depending upon their ability to reasonably interpret source documents: you (general you) could know every aspect in miniature, but without the reasoning skills and ability to interpret source documents, then your (general your) book is not going to amount to very much.

Different skills and effort: research versus the ability to reason.

It doesn't follow that someone who undertakes both research and writing books, doesn't have both skills; at the same time, it doesn't follow that someone who has undertaken a lot of research or knows a lot, can write a well reasoned book. You (general you) need to see the evidence that the author holds interpreting source documents and reasoning skills. A second-hand: "wait for this, it's gonna be earth-shattering news" is not remotely approaching evidence.

In the event the purpose of this book is to compare the WM with the TM, then I can tell you now that the author needs to do two things to render it credible:

1) Look at current research. The research undertaken by people who have studied sexual serial murders. The author cannot draw a comparison without understanding what sexual serial murderers do and why.

2) Do not go down the road of: "removal of limbs = cannot be same person"; "bodies thrown in the river = can't be the same person"; "the doctors and the police thought it was two different men and so it must have been". The reason being that the doctors and police had no knowledge to guide them, and the research undertaken by people who have actually looked at these types of murders, does not conform to such simplistic and uninformed views.

There has been research posted on this thread, i.e. analysed their crimes, empirical data. It counts for far more than what the general public, who have never studied these types of crimes, imagine.

That research, looking at 762 cases of sexual serial murder, concluded that removal of limbs, carving on a victim and evisceration; are all forms of dismemberment underpinned by the same desire/psychology/motive. The authors called for further research, which tells us that they'd like to see other researchers confirm their conclusion. But, at the very least, it should make those people parroting outdated, simplistic notions such as: "limbs removed = cannot bet the same person", stop and think.

I agree with Christer in that your appeal to some information somewhere that nobody has seen, is of no use to this thread. I'll add my take and say that it's a load of words taking up space for no good reason. A bit like having old kettles and hoovers in your car boot or garden shed that you meant to take to the skip but you (general you) never got 'round to it.

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

Why is that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your detailed reply, RD.

I was referring to Lawende's suspect, who he said had the appearance of a sailor.

I have read that Marshall said of the man he saw with Stride:

He did not look like a dock labourer nor like a sailor. He had more the appearance of a clerk than anything I can suggest.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

Why is that?

No objection from me, Suzie's book is absolutely most welcome.

The more objective factual data we have the better.

It's the books that attempt to pedal a particular suspect that you have to watch out for.

I'm sure the new book will avoid making that mistake repeated by many authors.


RD

[Abby Normal]

Edmund Kemper and Herbert Mullin. It took less than a minute to find them.

hi fiver!
good example to illustrate your point. And from what i understand it also confused the police at the time. point taken.

[Abby Normal]

I really would suggest people await what will I suggest be the definitive study of the Thames Torsos due out next year.
I have seen draft versions and it will certainly address many of the misunderstandings and genuine questions I note in this thread and others on the same subject.

Too many questionable claims and interpretations it seems are simply accepted as fact.



Steve

hi El!
thanks for pointing this out, i had forgotten one was coming out. its high time the definitive book on the torsos be written. Looking forward to it!

[New Ford Shunt]

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

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

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

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Why is that?

I can't speak for other people.

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

This is what you typed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Elamarna]

I can't speak for other people.

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

This is what you typed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


There it ends.