The Paris Torso Mystery

[Fleetwood Mac]

This point is indeed very important, Fleetwood Mac. The problem is that the victims are—almost— never identified, so the issue remains unresolved. Except for Elizabeth Jackson, the only one on whom investigators managed to put a name. It would be interesting, therefore, to work on the Jackson case based on this criterion.

I'm not so sure the identification of the bodies is important in the context we're discussing them, Charlie.

The reason being that the criteria for considering those murders at the hands of the WM, would be the psychology and the motive behind them. I think the research is suggesting that dismemberment would not rule out the WM at all but you would expect to see mutilation and body posing.

Furthermore, the research is suggesting that it's a mistake to look only at 'the mode of dismemberment' and draw a conclusion from that, which the police of the day appear to have done, when the psychology and the motive of the crime would tell us a lot.

I would say that the Pinchin Street murder is the most intriguing in terms of whether or not it was at the hands of the WM, but then again: whoever dumped Elizabeth's body parts may well have known that they would have washed up and been found, and that would have afforded the murderer a level of gratification from knowing various finders would have been shocked.

But, aye, it would be interesting to look at Elizabeth's case in the context of the WM, similarities and so on. Feel free to start the ball rolling.

Another important point from the article: This also eliminates a certain number of people, considering that butchers and other slaughterers were often pointed out in this type of cases.

There was a poster on here a good while back called 'Prosector', that was his profession, apparently very experienced.

He believed that somebody who had simply read a lot about anatomy and dissection, would have been able to excise the organs in the manner described by the doctors.

[The Rookie Detective]

I'm not so sure the identification of the bodies is important in the context we're discussing them, Charlie.

The reason being that the criteria for considering those murders at the hands of the WM, would be the psychology and the motive behind them. I think the research is suggesting that dismemberment would not rule out the WM at all but you would expect to see mutilation and body posing.

Furthermore, the research is suggesting that it's a mistake to look only at 'the mode of dismemberment' and draw a conclusion from that, which the police of the day appear to have done, when the psychology and the motive of the crime would tell us a lot.

I would say that the Pinchin Street murder is the most intriguing in terms of whether or not it was at the hands of the WM, but then again: whoever dumped Elizabeth's body parts may well have known that they would have washed up and been found, and that would have afforded the murderer a level of gratification from knowing various finders would have been shocked.

But, aye, it would be interesting to look at Elizabeth's case in the context of the WM, similarities and so on. Feel free to start the ball rolling.



There was a poster on here a good while back called 'Prosector', that was his profession, apparently very experienced.

He believed that somebody who had simply read a lot about anatomy and dissection, would have been able to excise the organs in the manner described by the doctors.

The key here Fleetwood Mac, is not in the "finding" of the torso victims; it's in the "Identification" of the torso victims.

I think it's important to distinguish the difference, in the context of the killer's intent.

When comparing the WM to Pinchin St and Jackson, all of the respective victims were intended to be found.


However, the man who dismembered Jackson did not intend for her to be identified. This is where the killer made a mistake.

In making this mistake, he may have inadvertently made the crucial link between the alleged Ripper victims and those of the Torso killer.

The murder of Elizabeth Jackson IS the bridge between the 2 separate cases.

I recently posted the idea that Kelly's killer may have intended to dismember her, and perhaps her killer was interrupted as he tried to dismember her.

The question then arises, did the killer get a kick from leaving his victims at the last moment possible, ergo, from Nichols to Coles, including all the torso victims?

Was this part of his thrill? Could this explain WHY different victims suffered different and varied levels of violence and mutilation? Was the level of violence based on the amount of TIME he had with each victim?

In other words, IF the killer had more time with all of his victims, then would Kelly have been dismembered, Chapman decapitated, Stride mutilated, and Eddowes Decapitated?
Perhaps the alleged black bag was a means of removal.

I have looked at the Jackson case, inspired by Debra's extensive research and there is a wealth of clues right there. It comes down to the interpretation of those clues.

The man seen with Jackson (the "Navvy") is almost certainly the Torso killer.

When you look at the time frame, Jackson would have been murdered within 12 hours of being seen with that man.
Now that may seem a lot, BUT let's not forget that Jackson was dismembered and NOT slain on the street and left to be found by a passing policeman.

She was also dismembered whilst she was wearing the SAME coat she was seen wearing when talking with the man.

Multiple witnesses saw them talking.

This was Jackson's last sighting, so when you combine all of these elements, the man seen with her is in all probability the Torso killer.

The connection I have suggested to the Ripper murders; comes in the form of the proximity to the CONSTRUCTION of the Railway lines and ARCHES, Canal ways, and the infrastructure of large civil service projects undertaken by the Board of Works.

The Torso killer IMO deliberately left the torsos next to structures that he was involved in building as a civil engineer or NAVVY.

That's also the reason why Nichols and Coles were left under or by the railway.

Coles was murdered under the same stretch of railway as the Pinchin St Torso. THAT is significant.


Ultimately, the best way to approach this is to think outside the box, and look at the bigger picture, and come at the case from different angles. By sticking to the Canonical 5, it's like having a few key ingredients to a cake; but missing out on including the sugar and icing.

I admire your viewpoints on this case and you seem to have a more objective and adaptable mindset, which is an imperative quality to have when investigating this case.


RD

[Fisherman]

No bother, Charlie.

The Torso Murders and dismemberment in general is not something I've read much about, but over the last few days I've read a few articles citing research in this area (prompted by your OP) which have been very interesting, surprising and illuminating.

The untrained eye, and I include myself in that, would assume that murders which involve dismemberment are similar murders to be grouped together and distinct from what we know of the WM's murders. That's not what the research suggests at all.

What's interesting about the article posted is as follows:

1) It is described as 'one of the definitive pieces of research' in the 'prestigious journal.....', which presumably is peer reviewed, and so it carries weight.

2) Dismemberment in an attempt to conceal a body, is entirely different to dismemberment of a body which has been mutilated. The psychology and the motive on the part of the criminal is entirely different.

3) Leaving a dismembered body in the streets will give the murderer a great deal of gratification as a result of the shock and horror on the part of the finder, something the murderer would have fantasised about.

So, in the event you have a Pinchin Street torso, the dismemberment of the body does not distinguish the crime from the WM's crimes, given that mutilation took place and the body was left in the street to be found by somebody who would have been horrified. The same psychology and motive underpins the crime.

[/I]

Welcome on board, Fleetwood. Let's hope others will manage to take it on board too! It´s all understandable that the victorians were unable to understand this, but it should be very obvious to us.

Have a Merry Christmas!

[Fleetwood Mac]

However, the man who dismembered Jackson did not intend for her to be identified.

I reckon there is an important distinction made in the article I posted citing research and in other articles I've been reading citing research, RD.

That being defensive versus offensive dismemberment.

The former is done to hide the body or conceal the identity, and ultimately to evade capture.

The latter is the result of the same sexual gratification motive that drives the mutilation of a body.

The distinction is important because it belies the motive and the psychology of the murderer.

In a case of defensive dismemberment you would not expect to find mutilation of a body because the motive for the murder is not sexual gratification, it's been done for some other reason and the dismemberment of the body is practical and an attempt to evade capture. As I say, in the case of offensive dismemberment the dismemberment is an extension of the mutilation, borne of the psychology of the murderer and the same sexual motive; and you would expect to see mutilation of the body in such cases.

This offensive type of dismemberment would be in keeping with what appears to be attempted decapitation, or at least almost decapitation such was the severity of the throat wound; seen in the WM murders.

Ultimately, defensive dismemberment is a rational choice, whereas offensive dismemberment is impulsive.

Having said of all that, I'm clearly no expert, and perhaps you can find research which involves cases of both defensive and offensive dismemberment undertaken on the same body.

The other point worth making, is that research into murders involving dismemberment is not widespread and sample sizes are relatively small. The people who have researched this area of murder acknowledge a need for further research.

Either way, in the event there is a murder involving mutilation, particularly of the sexual regions and abdomen, and dismemberment; around the time that the WM was active, and those murders were committed in the same area, it would be folly to discount them as the WM's work.

Research to date suggests that a man who mutilates and attacks the sexual regions, and makes an attempt to decapitate a victim during that same crime; is very much someone who would dismember a body on another occasion. There is more than enough there to suggest that the psychology underpinning his street crimes would lend towards dismemberment. I feel you would expect to see mutilation of the body as well as dismemberment, however, and in the absence of that you could rule out the WM with a degree of confidence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Welcome on board, Fleetwood. Let's hope others will manage to take it on board too! It´s all understandable that the victorians were unable to understand this, but it should be very obvious to us.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Hi Christer,

It's been interesting reading.

I'm not sure I'm fully on board at this point.

What I have gathered at the very least, is that research undertaken by qualified people suggests that the nature of the WM's crimes is underpinned by the same psychology and motive as murders involving mutilation and dismemberment.

Add in that these types of crimes are extremely rare, the same location and at a time when the WM was active; and you simply cannot dismiss the idea that at least the Pinchin Street murder is connected.

At this point, it's time to read more about the Torso Murders, particularly the Pinchin Street one.

And aye, the Victorians weren't in a position to draw a conclusion given what they didn't know about the psychology underpinning these types of crimes. They didn't have the benefit of information derived from studying such crimes.

All the best!

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

It's been interesting reading.

I'm not sure I'm fully on board at this point.

What I have gathered at the very least, is that research undertaken by qualified people suggests that the nature of the WM's crimes is underpinned by the same psychology and motive as murders involving mutilation and dismemberment.

Add in that these types of crimes are extremely rare, the same location and at a time when the WM was active; and you simply cannot dismiss the idea that at least the Pinchin Street murder is connected.

At this point, it's time to read more about the Torso Murders, particularly the Pinchin Street one.

And aye, the Victorians weren't in a position to draw a conclusion given what they didn't know about the psychology underpinning these types of crimes. They didn't have the benefit of information derived from studying such crimes.

All the best!

What you will find when reading up on the torsos, is that Charles Hebbert said that the four cases 1887-89 (Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street) were in every detail perfectly similar when it comes to the cutting employed. He was in no doubt whatsoever that they had the same originator. So if you take the Pinchin Street deed on board, I ´m afraid you will get stuck with the other three too, unless you can find a way around Hebbert. I can´t.

You will also find out, when reading up on the Pinchin Street deed, that Pinchin Street was the very street where Charles Lechmere grew up and spent formative years, a street that the Lechmeres always returned to. It is inevitable. And you will find that the day after the Pinchin Street woman was dumped, a bloody apron was found up at the building site of St Phillips church, close by the London Hospital. And the building site lay in an absolutely exact line between the railway arch with the body and Lechmeres home in 22 Doveton Street, a mile to the northeast. This too is an inevitable find you will make. And if you dig further, you will doubtlessly note that Lechmeres mother and her second bigamous husband, Joseph Forsdike, once lived in quarters in Splidts Terrace, quarters that were subsequently torn down to give way for the railway arches where the Pinchin Street woman was found.
The last thing you will find out is that there are heaps of people who address these three astounding items by way of crying loudly ”coincidences, coincidences!!”
After that, it is up to yourself what you think about the combination of coincidences and ripperology.

You wrote in your post to The Rookie Detective that he may be able to find somebody who combines offensive and defensive dismemberment in deeds. That is of course absolutely correct. But let´s not forget that such a man must be labelled an offensive dismemberer anyway - that is the driving force and the motivation for the deeds. If he then takes advantage of the option to make a body harder to identify or even find, that is a subordinate matter and has nothing to do with why the murder was carried out in the first place.

These are fascinating matters, and they have a very apparent bearing on the combined cases we are looking at, so I am joining you in making further studies of it.

Take care and thanks for the exchange!

[The Rookie Detective]

I reckon there is an important distinction made in the article I posted citing research and in other articles I've been reading citing research, RD.

That being defensive versus offensive dismemberment.

The former is done to hide the body or conceal the identity, and ultimately to evade capture.

The latter is the result of the same sexual gratification motive that drives the mutilation of a body.

The distinction is important because it belies the motive and the psychology of the murderer.

In a case of defensive dismemberment you would not expect to find mutilation of a body because the motive for the murder is not sexual gratification, it's been done for some other reason and the dismemberment of the body is practical and an attempt to evade capture. As I say, in the case of offensive dismemberment the dismemberment is an extension of the mutilation, borne of the psychology of the murderer and the same sexual motive; and you would expect to see mutilation of the body in such cases.

This offensive type of dismemberment would be in keeping with what appears to be attempted decapitation, or at least almost decapitation such was the severity of the throat wound; seen in the WM murders.

Ultimately, defensive dismemberment is a rational choice, whereas offensive dismemberment is impulsive.

Having said of all that, I'm clearly no expert, and perhaps you can find research which involves cases of both defensive and offensive dismemberment undertaken on the same body.

The other point worth making, is that research into murders involving dismemberment is not widespread and sample sizes are relatively small. The people who have researched this area of murder acknowledge a need for further research.

Either way, in the event there is a murder involving mutilation, particularly of the sexual regions and abdomen, and dismemberment; around the time that the WM was active, and those murders were committed in the same area, it would be folly to discount them as the WM's work.

Research to date suggests that a man who mutilates and attacks the sexual regions, and makes an attempt to decapitate a victim during that same crime; is very much someone who would dismember a body on another occasion. There is more than enough there to suggest that the psychology underpinning his street crimes would lend towards dismemberment. I feel you would expect to see mutilation of the body as well as dismemberment, however, and in the absence of that you could rule out the WM with a degree of confidence.

Brilliant post Fleetwood and I now understand the difference between Defensive and Offensive dismemberment.
In the most basic of terms, it's the difference between a killer either NEEDING to dismember a body (defensive,) or WANTING to dismember a body (offensive)

The Torso Killer was the latter because he placed at least 2 of his victims and dumped others in the water, possibly in the knowledge the remains would be likely found.

Using that same concept you could say that the Ripper was an offensive mutilator.

And so the important aspect is the killer either needing or wanting to inflict wounds/dismember their victim.

I am not sure a defensive mutilator would work in the same way as a defensive dismemberer, but the thought process is essentially the same.

Perhaps a defensive mutilator could be deemed as someone who cuts off a finger to steal a gold ring etc...

The bottom line is that the Ripper and the Torso killer enjoyed their respective mutilation and dismemberment of their victims, and that could indicate they were the same man because their inherent intent and outcome is the same.


RD

[jmenges]

Let’s all try to keep this thread on topic.
The last thing we need is for it to devolve into yet another Cross/Lechmere debate.

JM

[Abby Normal]

Brilliant post Fleetwood and I now understand the difference between Defensive and Offensive dismemberment.
In the most basic of terms, it's the difference between a killer either NEEDING to dismember a body (defensive,) or WANTING to dismember a body (offensive)

The Torso Killer was the latter because he placed at least 2 of his victims and dumped others in the water, possibly in the knowledge the remains would be likely found.

Using that same concept you could say that the Ripper was an offensive mutilator.

And so the important aspect is the killer either needing or wanting to inflict wounds/dismember their victim.

I am not sure a defensive mutilator would work in the same way as a defensive dismemberer, but the thought process is essentially the same.

Perhaps a defensive mutilator could be deemed as someone who cuts off a finger to steal a gold ring etc...

The bottom line is that the Ripper and the Torso killer enjoyed their respective mutilation and dismemberment of their victims, and that could indicate they were the same man because their inherent intent and outcome is the same.


RD

hi rd
all the torso victims had mutilations above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment and had vertical gashes to the midsection like the ripper victims. so yes, def offensive dismemberment.

some other similarities between the two series:

same victimology
same time frame
same location
all post mortem mutilation
knife/ cutting instrument used
abdomans targeted
flesh removed from midsection in flaps
heads/ faces targeted
internal and external body parts removed
bodies/ parts displayed
no sign of torture
no sign of sexual abuse
ruse involved with victims
unsolved

also, both series end about the same time with pinchin and mckenzie.. another coincidence?

Obviously torsoman had a chop shop (bolt hole) to do his work, but perhaps the apparent differences between the two series can be explained by the ripper series victims were when he didnt have access to his chop shop and had to kill on the street?

I lean toward the ripper and torsoman being the same killer, and have for a while now.

[Fisherman]

Let’s all try to keep this thread on topic.
The last thing we need is for it to devolve into yet another Cross/Lechmere debate.

JM

Yes, let´s. Personally, I would say that since the carman is linked to Pinchin Street, he is on topic, but I have no problems leaving him out. What I would then do, would be to point to a possibility that I have pointed to before.

The Pinchin Street victim differs from the other three ”canonical” torso murders in a geographical respect - whereas it seems that most of the other three victims was dumped or thrown in the water in the western part of London, making the suggestion of a killer living in that part of town a tempting suggestion.

So why Pinchin Street, if Charles Hebbert was correct and we have a single killer for all the four torsos from 1887-89? Why would a western based killer travel to the East End to dump a body, if the victim had been approached and killed in the west?

My suggestion is that we indeed have a single killer responsible for the two series, the Ripper series and the Torso series. And I believe we may be looking at a killer who answers to the description of a typical sexual serial killer. These perpetrators are to a very high degree (around 90 per cent) psychopaths, and they are to a degree of some 70 per cent also narcissists. And narcissists are people who demand recognition for what they are and do.

I believe that the killer was frustrated by how the police and the medical/psychological expertise opted for a belief that the two series would not be connected. This in it´s turn was based on a lacking insight about offensive dismemberment - at the time, it was thought that dismemberment was either about hiding a deed or disenabling an identification of said victim, all practical measures. The insight about how somebody would dismember for dismemberments sake was alien to the experts of the day. Krafft-Ebings ”Psychopathia Sexualis” (1886) had only just begun to seep into the knowledge basis in Europe, and there was still a long way to go.

So what reaction could we expect from a narcissistic killer who was not granted the full extent of his exploits by the police and experts? I suggest that such a killer may well take it upon himself to send a message to correct the misconceptions. And so I believe that the Pinchin Street murder was a hybrid murder, if you will, where the killer provided a geographical Ripper setting for a Torso murder, and where he did not cut the abdomen open, but instead supplied only a Ripper calling card by way of shallowly outlining the typical Ripper cut on the abdomen of his victim, while dismembering the body à la the Torso murders, by way of cutting away the legs and head of the body. The effort really mixes the typical elements of the two series into a single murder.

I also think the killer must have been frustrated by how the police reacted to the victim by suggesting that the Torso killer tried to emulate the Ripper murders!

They were unaware of the concept of offensive dismemberment, but we are not. To me, it is very, very obvious that the Ripper research has wasted a hundred years and more of insights that were always within reach to us. The three cut away abdominal walls of Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson make for an overwhelmingly good reason to link the series, together with our insight that we are dealing with murders with inclusions of eviscerations. Rare, rare elements, therefore - but clearly and evidently present in both series.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would be interested to know whether the police at the time thought there could possibly be a connection between the two series of murders and also when the idea that they might be connected first appeared in print.

[Charlie]

Hi all,

What you're saying about the concept of offensive-defensive dismemberment is very accurate, Fisherman. Indeed, it's a notion that was not yet defined by the physicians of that time, and the police did not have access to it. In recent days, I've been consulting the texts of the great French specialist, Dr. Alexandre Lacassagne, forensic doctor, expert in court, and one of the founders of criminal anthropology. In the 1888 issue of the journal "Archives d'anthropologie criminelle," he devotes an entire chapter to "criminal dismemberment" – that's what they called the dismemberment of a murder victim back then. According to Lacassagne, in our modern societies – before that, he described for several pages the dismemberments carried out as sacrifices in certain cultures called ancient or "primitive" – dismemberment has the sole purpose of making the object of the crime disappear.

What's funny is that he then presents a table representing 30 cases of criminal dismemberment recorded since 1721 in Europe. Except for the first 9, all the others are modern cases, meaning committed after 1867. He even comments by saying:

This way of operating and creating assassins has become fashionable, and it was easy for us to gather about thirty observations that will allow us to present a complete overview of the issue. It has even been wondered if there wasn't a special condition here related to what has been called the contagion of murder.

However, by consulting these 30 cases, it becomes very clear that the Petit-Montrouge crime (1886) stands out for the simple reason that the victim was never identified, and the murderer's goal was clearly to show the horror he had committed, not at all to conceal the remains to try to hide his crime. But since the concept of "defensive-offensive" was not yet defined, Lacassagne missed that.

In conclusion of his thesis entitled "Du dépeçage criminel," defended on January 13, 1888, Louis Ravoux, a disciple of Lacassagne, clearly wrote:

The purpose of dismemberment is the fragmentation of the corpse to facilitate its disappearance.

It was only in 1906, in his "Précis de médecine légale," that Lacassagne introduced the long-awaited notion:

Our colleague from Bahia, Professor Nina-Rodrigués, fortunately distinguished 'offensive' or passionate dismemberment (those caused by anger or born of hatred, madness, or love) and 'defensive' dismemberment (that which arouses fear, fear of retribution, panic in the face of an embarrassing corpse).

As you say, Fisherman, I think it took time before Krafft-Ebing's theories—and others—seeped in and changed ways of thinking.

[Charlie]

What do the abbreviations you use refer to? For example, WM? Should I read it as "Whitechapel Murders"?
And OP?…

[Fisherman]

I would be interested to know whether the police at the time thought there could possibly be a connection between the two series of murders and also when the idea that they might be connected first appeared in print.

There were those who reasoned about a single perpetrator, but they were outnumbered by the ones who spoke of two. And the science of the day simply did not allow for a single killer solution.
Arguably, the press would have liked the idea of a single perpetrator. The fact that such an agenda - if that is the word - was not pursued with any vigour tells us a lot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There were those who reasoned about a single perpetrator, but they were outnumbered by the ones who spoke of two.

Can you name any?