Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Paris Torso Mystery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    The links that I posted show that you have continued to insert your suspect into the discussion after saying that you would stop.
    The one link you post where I comment on the carman is a post (173) to Private Investigator, who himself brought Lechmere into the discussion in his posts 158 and 163.

    After these posts of his and my answers to Private Investigator (not mentioning Lechmere) you wrote this in post 166:

    "It's interesting to see you say that, because Hebbert's analysis rather conclusively rules out your favorite suspect, Charles Lechmere.

    "The incisions were evidently made by design and were skilfuly performed, as by a man who had some knowledge of the position of joints and the readiest means pf separating limbs - such knowledge as a butcher or slaughterer would possess. They do not indicate a special anatomical knowledge of the human body." - Charles Hebbert​!


    In response to this, I wrote:

    I will answer this briefly, and point out to you that Jon Menges has specifically asked us not to discuss Charles Lechmere on this thread.

    The carman is not ruled out at all by the above. Hebbert is referring to the four "canonical" torso cases, and it may well be that he had acquired insights into these things before these murders happened. I beleive that the first murder we may be reasonably certain about is the 1873 Battersea murder, and there are other torso murders after that where he would have gotten practice. Equally, the family got involved the cats meat business at some unidentified stage, and so he may have gotten practice that way too. He also very likely delivered meat to butchers, where he may have picked up on how to go about it, pedagogically or manually.
    I always find that when we don't know if something was there or not, that is not evidence either way.

    And that effectively ends the Lechmere stuff on the thread. I, at least, will adjust to Jon Menges´ bid.​


    After that, Private Investigator wrote, in his post 171:

    "This looks very much like Kosminski, having been a hairdresser, knowing how to cut people's throats, or having worked in a hospital - for all we know, doing nothing more demanding than wheeling patients on trolleys - knowing all about anatomy, or Druitt, being the son of a doctor, having 'access' to all the knowledge he needed to do what the Whitechapel murderer did.

    It does not stand up."


    ... all of which brings us to my post 173, the one you are pointing to as an example of me "inserting Charles Lechmere into the thread":

    "It has nothing whatsoever to do wih Kosminski and haircutting. If he delivered meat to butchers, and at the same time was a member of a family that was deeply involved in the horse flesh business, there is every chance that he acquired an amount of training and insights about cutting and disarticulating.

    Cutting hair is a VERY different matter, as I am sure you are able to understand if you put your mind to it."


    From the above, it should be very clear that I did not insert Lechmere at all. You and Private Investigator did. In post 173, I gave a brief answer to why I thought Private Investigator was wrong when he seemingly denied how a layman could have been able to do what was done in the murders. The answer therefore had a direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not the two series may be connected. Furthermore, having given my view, I did not return to the subject, introduced by you and Private Investigator.

    Before I leave the matter, let me just say that I firmly feel that this kind of accusatory stuff, presented by you on no grounds at all, and seemingly with the intention to inflame, is about the very worst side I know of Ripperology. I would be grateful if you could refrain from repeating it in the future. And so I suggest that we do what were are supposed to do, instead of quibbling groundlessly over non issues: Discuss the matter of the thread as best as we can.

    Having exchanged with you before, I will add that since I know that there is a risk that you will carry this ridiculousness on, I will make it my aim not to answer any forthcoming post from your side on the matter. The above should clarify totally what my view is.

    Last edited by Fisherman; 12-20-2023, 08:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    Here is a start, Abby. Please understand that my research was ongoing so there are mistakes in some of my posts. I think you'll get the idea, though. Some posts also were dovetailing with other things that were on my mind at the time. i.e the stuff about Meiklejohn.

    Frederick Wildbore- Whitehall Torso Witness - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    The Whitehall Mystery and Jack the Ripper - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    The following is not Wildbore stuff but interesting. Whitehall Vault thread is a must to understand the size of the Scotland Yard basement and difficulty getting in and out!
    The Whitehall Vault - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    ​​​John Thomas Chappell - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    Robert Ward and Sons - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

    awesome! thanks jerry!

    all
    lots of fascinating stuff and incredible research re the torsos, ripper and related in these threads!!!

    RD
    you need to read through these, you will have a field day !!

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Here is a start, Abby. Please understand that my research was ongoing so there are mistakes in some of my posts. I think you'll get the idea, though. Some posts also were dovetailing with other things that were on my mind at the time. i.e the stuff about Meiklejohn.

    Frederick Wildbore- Whitehall Torso Witness - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    The Whitehall Mystery and Jack the Ripper - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    The following is not Wildbore stuff but interesting. Whitehall Vault thread is a must to understand the size of the Scotland Yard basement and difficulty getting in and out!
    The Whitehall Vault - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    ​​​John Thomas Chappell - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)
    Robert Ward and Sons - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

    Last edited by jerryd; 12-20-2023, 02:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    Hello Abby and all.

    Yes, the Board of Works sites are interesting to me. Some may not be aware there was a stone yard in the corner of Battersea Park closest to Albert Bridge. The BoW took over the maintenance of Battersea Park in 1887. The foundations of Scotland Yard were constructed from 1887-1888 with the superstructure following from 1888-1890. Of course, the Torso cases mostly spoken about here were through the dates I just mentioned, from 1887 to 1889. There was also the road construction in Whitechapel going on in 1888 overseen by the Board of Works. I think for any new person to the torso cases, the Whitehall Mystery in particular, you may want to read up on the National Opera House and James Mapleson. It literally lays the foundation for the Scotland Yard construction. There are a few "secrets" contained there also. Let me know what you find.The National Opera House, Thames Embankment, London (arthurlloyd.co.uk)

    Regarding the Pinchin torso, I have always been intrigued with John Arnold and Claude Mellor. For RD, there was also another prediction in 1888. This happened just before the Whitehall victim was found. Same circumstances as John Arnold, a man went to the newspaper inquiring about a dead body on the embankment. Nobody had heard of it and then BAM, there it is.

    Last interesting tidbit with the Pinchin torso was the story told by the journalist, Richard Harding Davis, when he toured the Whitechapel murder sites with Inspector Henry Moore.. Here, at the end of the story, is a brief clip of what he had to say.

    ...It had been a five hours' walk through more misery, vice and crime than can perhaps be found in as small a space, less than a square mile in any other great city. There had been only eight murders then. And as we neared the station I remember the inspector's pointing into the dark arches of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, and saying: "Now, what a place for a murder that would be. " A week later, while I was in mid-ocean on my way back, the body of the ninth victim was found just under those very arches, and not three minutes' walk from the police station.
    Absolutely exceptional post!

    So, BOTH the Whitehall torso victim AND the Pinchin St torso had individuals walk into the newspaper offices and declare a murder had been committed, and both times this was BEFORE the actual torsos had been placed.

    There are coincidences and then there's COINCIDENCES.

    So Jerry, just to confirm...

    Parts of Elizabeth Jackson's body were discovered in a park maintained by the Board of Works, with a stone yard located there.

    The Pinchin Street Torso was placed under a recently constructed railway arch of the Great Eastern Railway, next to a stone-breaking yard owned by the Board of Works.

    The Whitehall Torso was placed under an ARCHED portion of the cellar foundations of the recent construction of the foundations of the New Scotland Yard building.

    Elizabeth Jackson was last seen a few hours before she was murdered talking to a man with the appearance of a Navvy - a civil engineer who worked on the construction of the railways/waterways/tramways etc...

    Frances Coles was murdered under a railway ARCH of the same stretch of railway as the Pinchin St torso

    Israel Schwartz; the only man to see the attack on Stride and hear an anti-Semitic slur, chooses to run an irregular route to the train line. The theatrical-looking Schwartz then seems to disappear.

    George Lusk had previously worked for the Board of Works

    George Lusk renovated and built theatres

    George Lusk was the focus of the alleged Ripper correspondences... including "Dear Boss" and the phrase "Right Track"

    The Commercial Street Tram Line was constructed by "Navvies" over the duration of the Ripper murders in 1888.

    ...

    Would I be fair in suggesting that there is a link between the WM and the Torso killings?


    We are looking for a suspect who worked as a Navvy and/or Stone mason, and who was involved in the construction of the arched structures of the railway and NSY foundations. This man worked/previously worked for the Board of Works and perhaps for George Lusk at some stage.

    The construction of the Commercial St tramway brought Navvies flooding into that area at the time, which may explain why the Torso killer took an autumn of terror break from dismembering, and spent the time making himself famous by becoming the Ripper.

    He then alternated accordingly, but left a few signature moves that hinted it was the same man.


    The Board of Works
    The Stone Yards/Stone Masonry
    The Navvy
    The Railway/Tramway/Canalway construction
    Arches
    George Lusk
    The Theatre/Renovations

    Put all the above together...and there's the link.


    And there's this of course...


    Nichols - signature proximity to train line - early kill away from lodgings - testing the water - interrupted.

    Chapman - proximity to location of killer's lodgings - hence later kill time - attempted and failed decapitation due to the presence of Cadoshe/light- torso killer signature

    Stride - lived at 38 Dorset St, a Stone Mason named John Donnelly ran a private workshop in the cellar of 38 Dorset St, and was named (oddly) as the man who killed her - was Donnelly Stride's lover? - interrupted.

    Eddowes - Claimed to know the killer and was silenced - calls herself Mary Kelly and address of 6 Fashion St - was the killer a local client of hers?

    Kelly - Theatrical connection, French connection, murdered indoors, attempted decapitation - proximity to killer's lodgings hence why indoors- nearly caught.

    Elizabeth Jackson - murdered by Navvy/torso killer, who made the mistake of Jackson's identity being discovered - Jackson had spent time in Whitechapel.

    McKenzie - Back to basics/ safe-zone - body posed almost identically to Nichols

    Coles - murdered under railway arch the killer helped to build - the same stretch of the railway as the earlier Pinchin St torso - his clue to us that he was both the Ripper and Torso killer

    There's also a chance that the Torso Killer was a gardener who kept the parks and church grounds maintained, whilst working for the Board of Works.


    Lots to work over here...but there is a link there if we choose to open our eyes and take a closer look.


    Thank you for your remarkable post


    RD



    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post

    Abby.

    I have a feeling this thread would take a very wrong turn if I did that. Hope you understand? I am more than willing to share everything I know about him by referring to threads I've started regarding him or even in a PM.
    no worries. yes, please point us to your threads on him!

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    thanks Jerry!
    and good to see you on here again!! great stuff!

    can you talk a little bit about wildbore and his intriguing circs re the torso/s? thanks buddy!
    Abby.

    I have a feeling this thread would take a very wrong turn if I did that. Hope you understand? I am more than willing to share everything I know about him by referring to threads I've started regarding him or even in a PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    thanks Jerry!
    and good to see you on here again!! great stuff!

    can you talk a little bit about wildbore and his intriguing circs re the torso/s? thanks buddy!

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Regarding Faircloth, this piece from the Times, 26th July, 1889 seems pretty certain the police had done their job tracing his whereabouts before and after the murder.

    As soon as the body was identified the police directed their attention to finding the man Faircloth, and a woodcut from a photograph of the man taken at Ipswich, together with his description, was got out and circulated in every town and village in England, and by means of this description he was traced through Dorsetshire into Devonshire until he was found in Ottery St. Mary by Inspector Moore. He at once gave a detailed statement of his movements from the time he left the woman on the 28th of April until he was found, and since he had given his evidence before the Coroner Inspector Moore and Sergeant Turrell went over the ground said to have been traversed by Faircloth, visiting Biggleswade, Hitchin, High Wycombe, St. Albans, Great Marlow, Reading, Odiham, and other places. It had been conclusively shown that on the night of the 3d of June (the last time the deceased was seen alive) Faircloth was staying at the Goat at High Wycombe, and he had spent the two previous nights at Watford. He was traced to all the places he had named, and at all of them he had been calling at various mills with the view of getting employment, and the police had quite satisfied themselves that he had not been in London or near London for at least ten days before and after the disappearance of the deceased. Throughout the whole of the time he had been wearing the conspicuous striped jacket in which he left London, and had been passing in his own name.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Hello Abby and all.

    Yes, the Board of Works sites are interesting to me. Some may not be aware there was a stone yard in the corner of Battersea Park closest to Albert Bridge. The BoW took over the maintenance of Battersea Park in 1887. The foundations of Scotland Yard were constructed from 1887-1888 with the superstructure following from 1888-1890. Of course, the Torso cases mostly spoken about here were through the dates I just mentioned, from 1887 to 1889. There was also the road construction in Whitechapel going on in 1888 overseen by the Board of Works. I think for any new person to the torso cases, the Whitehall Mystery in particular, you may want to read up on the National Opera House and James Mapleson. It literally lays the foundation for the Scotland Yard construction. There are a few "secrets" contained there also. Let me know what you find.The National Opera House, Thames Embankment, London (arthurlloyd.co.uk)

    Regarding the Pinchin torso, I have always been intrigued with John Arnold and Claude Mellor. For RD, there was also another prediction in 1888. This happened just before the Whitehall victim was found. Same circumstances as John Arnold, a man went to the newspaper inquiring about a dead body on the embankment. Nobody had heard of it and then BAM, there it is.

    Last interesting tidbit with the Pinchin torso was the story told by the journalist, Richard Harding Davis, when he toured the Whitechapel murder sites with Inspector Henry Moore.. Here, at the end of the story, is a brief clip of what he had to say.

    ...It had been a five hours' walk through more misery, vice and crime than can perhaps be found in as small a space, less than a square mile in any other great city. There had been only eight murders then. And as we neared the station I remember the inspector's pointing into the dark arches of the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, and saying: "Now, what a place for a murder that would be. " A week later, while I was in mid-ocean on my way back, the body of the ninth victim was found just under those very arches, and not three minutes' walk from the police station.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Period police lacked many modern tools, but they weren't the complete idiots that the newspapers claimed, either.

    In the Nichols murder, witnesses who worked together were interviewed separately. Witnesses were called on to identify other witnesses at the inquest. The surrounding areas were searched. Door to door interviews were ordered for Bucks Row and surrounding streets.

    So unless evidence appears showing that Faircloth's alibi was false, I'd assume his alibi is true.
    I am working on his alibi as we speak.

    What is rather odd about his movements before and after the murder of Jackson, is his ability to cover hundreds of miles in a relatively short period.

    There are so many contrasting reports from various newspapers, and even his inquest testimony feels a little suspect.

    I am in the process of putting together a timeline of his movements, which highlights his inconsistency.

    It is essential to point out at this juncture that Debra A is the leading light on Faircloth, and all that I have come to know about him has stemmed initially from her exceptional research on him.

    I am very much standing on the backs of giants with this, but at the same time, I think it allows me to potentially dig a little deeper.

    What I will say at this point, is that I believe that Faircloth DID have time to kill Jackson, and more importantly, I believe I may have worked out HOW he did it.

    There was a recent comment on this forum regarding Faircloth, that used his being in the West Country as an alibi for being too far away from London...but Faircloth wasn't in the West Country when Jackson was killed, he was much MUCH closer.

    His testimony is what we like to call a game of "show and tell"... whereby he tells us everything, but shows us very little in the way of transparency.

    It's all smoke and mirrors.

    He manages to cover over a dozen locations in various counties, all as a ruse to confuse and deflect.

    One thing we have learned over the years from the police service in England, is that they have always found cross-border communication rather challenging.

    This would have been even more of a challenge in 1888 and 1889.

    I will put together a post over the next couple of days which I hope will highlight what I am trying to say.


    Lots to ponder


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie View Post

    Completely agree

    If one tries for just a moment to put oneself in the shoes of a killer tasked with disposing of a victim's body, it seems obvious that the simplest option is to bury the body somewhere (a forest, a garden...) or to toss it into the river to let it decompose there.

    Of course, if one lives in a metropolis like London or Paris, venturing into the streets with a corpse proves exceedingly risky, especially in an era where the carriage was one of the few means of transportation. Hence the temptation to dismember the corpse into pieces, which would be easier to transport discreetly.

    But even after the dismemberment, it remains that, if one is solely driven by fear of the police and the courts, the pieces will have to be either buried or thrown into the river (once weighted to ensure that the pieces will sink into the depths).

    By proceeding as he did, it seems evident that the Torso Killer wanted the limbs to be found. Moreover, if, as is believed, he had organized himself to have a place for dismemberment, it would have been quite easy for him to locate this "cutting workshop" above the river, near a quay, to discreetly drop the weighted pieces into the water.

    The same goes for the Paris Torso Killer. Dispersing packages in public urinals (twice) and along an urban railway track (once) near which, due to a tunnel collapse the night before, street cleaners and police officers were patrolling, is a sign of a desire to "show" the horror of his crime.

    One could argue that, since there is a recurrence in the act of dismemberment, the murderer was primarily driven by the sadistic pleasure of dismemberment. However, I can cite the case of Victor Prévost, a policeman at the time of his two murders (1876 and 1879), but who had previously worked as a butcher (hence his nickname "The La Chapelle Butcher​"). Prévost was judged and sentenced to death. During the trial, it was demonstrated that his crimes were primarily motivated by the lure of gain: his first victim was his own mistress to whom an old man in her care had just bequeathed 30,000 francs, his second victim was a jewelry broker whom he had asked to visit him with a sample of his finest goods. In both cases, Victor Prévost scattered the body parts in the sewers and buried the head in the embankment of the fortifications. There was no impulse in him to ensure exposing the relics of his crime to everyone. His sole and only concern was to make the traces disappear.​
    hi charlie
    thanks! and this is for RD as well, re his last post.

    ive often wondered if where torsoman dumped his bodies/ parts had special significance to him. As ive mentioned, jerry dunlop has pointed out many links to the Board of works and i am especially intrigued by his suspect Wildbore, the worker who was a witness in the New scotland yard torso. Lots of odd things witj him, one being where he lived and his route to NSY brought him by or near where parts were found and the weird circs of him "finding" the torso.

    wildbore or not, did torsoman have a beef with BOW? was he snubbing his nose at tje police with the NSY dumping? was he making a macabre statement by throwing a part in the shelley ( of frankenstein fame) estate? did he feel like he was polluting or marking his spot by continually throwing parts in the river? did the places he left them have special significance to him?

    something definitely is going on here, i just havent quite put my finger on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    ​​
    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.
    Period police lacked many modern tools, but they weren't the complete idiots that the newspapers claimed, either.

    In the Nichols murder, witnesses who worked together were interviewed separately. Witnesses were called on to identify other witnesses at the inquest. The surrounding areas were searched. Door to door interviews were ordered for Bucks Row and surrounding streets.

    So unless evidence appears showing that Faircloth's alibi was false, I'd assume his alibi is true.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Actually, Fisherman argued with jemenges that the suspect should be discussed in the thread.

    Fisherman then used jmenges post to try to keep other posters from refuting his theory.

    Then after saying he had stopped discussing his suspect, Fisherman continued to insert his suspect into the discussion.

    I suspect he will continue to do so in later posts in this thread.



    No need to be so shouty. Give your caps lock a break.

    Parts thrown in the river are clearly parts the killed did not want discovered. Parts that were buried are clearly parts that the killer did not want discovered.

    The Pinchin Street Torso could have been a lot easier to find.

    "About 25 minutes past 5, I came from the direction of Christian-street to Pinchin-street. I went across the road from the northern side, in the direction of the railway arch, and had no particular reason for so doing. As I was crossing I saw, in the arch, something that appeared to be a bundle. The arch, which was filled with stones belonging to the Whitechapel District Board of Works, led on to a piece of waste ground, on which were three arches abutting onto Pinchin-street. Two of these arches were closed in with fencing to some considerable height. In front of the arch that I first referred to there remained only the uprights of some fencing, which had been taken away. The aThe Ripper also tried and failed to DECAPITATE MORE THAN ONE of his victimsrchway had a large quantity of paving stones in it, and these were piled up. There was also a carriage entrance to the arch from Backchurch-lane. The bundle was, I should say, from four to five yards in the archway, measuring from the pavement. The bundle was near the wall of the arch, on the western side. On going up to it I found that it was a portion of a human body." - PC Pennett.

    The torso wasn't lying in the middle of the street. Pennett only noticed the bundle because he crossed from the north side for "no particular reason".



    So you agree the Torsoman removed heads to prevent identification?

    This against shows a stark contrast between the Ripper's inept failed attempts to decapitate and the Torsoman's practiced skill noted by the doctors.



    Near, perhaps, but calling it on the Ripper stomping ground seems a stretch.

    There's another possibility you haven't considered. Rather than being the same man, the Torso Killer might have dumped a body near the Ripper's territory in an attempt to pin the Torso killings on the Ripper.
    Excellent post.

    And that's not me being "shouty," it's me being uneducated with the etiquette of typing on a social forum, my apologies ha ha!

    I can accept most of your comments, because you make some very valid points, although, to suggest that the Torso killer tried to conceal the Pinchin St Torso; because it could have been easier to find, is not something I can concur with.

    He dumped the torso under the archway in Pinchin St for a reason.

    If he instead dumps all the dismembered parts into the river, then that is a different intent than deliberately placing body parts under a railway arch.

    A man who is trying to conceal his actions, and hide his victim's identity, as part of a defensive strategy, would not have chosen to dump various body parts from different victims on the street, over a fence, in a park, in a cellar...etc...

    The torso killer knew that all the body parts he distributed would likely be found; because that was part of his end-game intent.

    The mistake he made was with Elizabeth Jackson, because he never intended for her identity to be found out,

    He wasn't trying to conceal his work; or the physical bodies of his victims.
    He was trying to conceal the identity of his victims.

    That is a very clear but subtle difference.


    I believe that he took the heads to avoid the authorities discovering the identity of the victims, but he did not intend to hide the actual bodies themselves, and so by proxy, he had no other choice but to take the heads for fear of being rumbled by the police.


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • New Ford Shunt
    replied
    Getting back to the original post, I've done a bit of research on how the British newspapers reported on this and it would be interesting if you Charlie (or indeed anyone able to speak or read French) could cross-reference the information given to British readers and compare it to the French newspapers. I've also highlighted aspects I feel need further clarification or are of key importance to our understanding of this crime. For me, there is no point speculating on other crimes, be they related to the torso cases in London or the Whitechapel murders or any other cases in France or northern mainland Europe until we know more about the crime itself.
    1. The First Find - The find is described as two arms and two legs. No mention is made about the urinal, only that the parcel was discovered on the corner of Avenue d'Orleans. That is possibly due to a reticence on the part of the newspapers to spell out she was found where men have a wee. She is described as being wrapped in oilcloth or waxcloth, accounts differ. The majority of the British papers state she was found by two men just before midnight who were returning from work. Other variants include they were going to work or returning from the theatre. Another version has an omnibus conductor on his way to work discovering the parcel. Her hands are mentioned in many reports, and state they were small and delicate. They didn't display any evidence of manual labour but the papers speculated that she may have been a seamstress - or at least had recently done some sewing as the forefinger on her right (or left - accounts differ) hand had needle prick marks on it.
    2. The Second Find - the predominant version of this find, in the latter reporting, is that of the police, having been made aware of the first find, searching the area and coming across it around 3am on the Wednesday morning. An alternate version is a 'chiffonnier' discovering it. I also had to look that up, from what I can understand this was a type of nocturnal scavenger in Paris - is that correct? No mention is made of Monsieru Tecquer the customs office employee working at Vaugirard Station or the urinal, only Rue d'Alesia is given as a location. No real mention of the parcel being wrapped is made, but there are so many accounts of this I may have missed it. The papers state it was the lower torso that was found, they don't go into any other details.
    3. The Third Find - all the newspapers agree that this was found by a policeman, that it was on a grassy area not hidden from view, and some, but not all, newspapers state it was wrapped in grey paper. All state it was found at 4am on Rue Giordano Bruno. Some mention a tramway, most do not, I've not noticed any report which mentions the fence. I'm not particularly surprised by this, and I don't feel that means it wasn't deposited where the French papers say it was, I think this has more to do with the relevancy for the British readers of detailing this information - it's not really that relevant to them.
    4. The Dissection and post mortem analysis - the papers report estimates of her age as between 23 - 26 and 'well-fed'. She may have had blue eyes and had been dead for around 18 hours (as we know, TOD is notoriously difficult to determine, even now), this however maybe confused with the little girl detailed below. They state she had a deep scar, which depending on the report was on her leg or her left arm. They do not mention anything about a uterus being removed, only that the the viscera from the lower half of the trunk had been 'wholly removed'. They state the body consisted of two arms, two legs (minus a thigh) and a torso cut in two. The lower torso also had the left thigh attaching. The right breast was missing, the head and the right thigh. They speculated that this was because these body parts had identifiable features on them (clearly a head would mean the victim was instantly indentifiable but the idea is somewhat contradicted by the scar still being in place on the leg/arm). All newspapers are consistent in their reporting when it comes to how the victim was dismembered; namely that it was done by a 'narrow knife' and when it came to the point of disarticulation the perpetrator twisted and tore the limbs so they detached from the body. This, they concluded, indicated very little if no skill. From the very first reports it is suggested that the 'murder' was actually an abortion which had gone wrong and that a local midwife had dismembered the victim and had been assisted in the disposal of the body parts by a carman or man with a hand cart. There is no mention of any broken ribs, or other injuries. We do not know if the thorassic viscera remained intact. How consistent is this with the French papers, and do they specifically state only the uterus was removed out of the lower torso, with the rest of the viscera remaining? Is there any clarification as to whether it was just the uterus or did it include the vagina and vulva?
    5. The Little Girl - A curious addition to the case (or nothing at all to do with it) was the discovery of a small girl, aged 5 - 6 in the Rue Saint Martin. This happened on Friday 30th July 1886 and the location is described as a 'staircase'. If it is the same Rue Saint Martin that exists today, it is on a direct route to the location of the first find, but is around 5 km away. The girl was found wrapped in green serge material which had been knotted at the corners and then carefully stitched between them. She may have been blue eyed and fair haired. The reporting is confused as she may have been a girl who died rather appallingly when an intestinal worm grew too big and came up into her throat resulting in suffocation. Her parents, assumed to be too poor to bury her, dressed her and presented her in a passageway so she could be found and buried accordingly. I suspect this is the case, and the reports are one and the same but are you able to shed any light onto that?
    6. The Wrappings - following on from the above point, and getting back to one of Charlie's earlier posts, it is interesting to note that the little girl was wrapped in green material - I suspect this is where the confusion came from when Charlie states that the French newspapers contradict themselves on whether the Montrouge victim was wrapped in green fabric. None of the British newspapers mention anything about the first two finds being in anything other than 'oilcloth' or 'waxcloth' and some, but not all, mention the third find as being wrapped in grey paper. On the subject of 'oilcloth' or 'waxcloth' and Charlie's translations of it being English, I am curious as to what that means. Is this something familiar to you Charlie as a terminology? Are the French newspapers stating that the police know that the oil/wax cloth came from England? Or is it similar to say our use of the phrase 'French fries' ie nobody thinks that all fries are French, it's just the style of potato? Having looked up oil and wax cloths, the nearest equivalent I can find to waxcloth is the type of material used in Barbour jackets, with the wax being rubbed into quite sturdy material to ensure it is waterproof. Oilcloth is more difficult to pin down. Today it is used as a terminology for those tablecloths you have which are plastic on one side so you can wipe them clean, and it's also used to describe the material used for sou'westers. The terminology in Victorian times is less clear, the nearest I can find to it is this picture here, taken from Etsy, and I have no way of knowing if this reflects what the victim was wrapped in. Whatever the wrapping it is certainly heavy duty:Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	104
Size:	21.2 KB
ID:	827868​. Finally, the cord wrapping, I also a bit confused about that. In your translations you have used the phrase 'English whipcord' and 'braided rope'. In the British newspapers it isn't really mentioned and I once again need some clarification whether 'English whipcord' is a specific evidential phrase ie this whipcord came from England, or if it is a colloquial terminology. I incidentally had to look up what whipcord was, and apparently it is four braids of rope which are plaited together with the use of bobbins and have been used since medieval times, it was often used to tie up the ends of larger ropes to stop them from fraying - although this wasn't their sole purpose. I wonder if we can gauge anything from this evidence?
    7. The Hair - there are numerous mentions of a little girl discovering a packet of dark hair where she had been playing outside a shop 'in the neighbourhood'. Amongst the hair was a half-burnt letter. Nothing more is mentioned about this and it is unclear from the newspaper accounts if the victim was fair, blond or dark haired. She is however noted as being 'fair' in appearance. Do the French papers have anything to say about this?
    8. The Medical Personnel - when they are mentioned, the papers are quite mocking in tone towards the abilities of the French authorities in general, but mostly they fail to mention them at all. We are all aware of the rivalry between the two nations so the tone is perhaps not surprising, but if you scrape away at the Nationalistic Willy-wangling, you can see that the French appear to be more advanced than the British in post-mortem pathology. They, for instance, had freezing apparatus for the body parts in a centralised morgue - neither of which were available to London Doctors. London did not have pathologists at this time, the nearest we get to dedicated pathologists are Thomas Bond and his 'team' at Westminster. My question therefore is: did France have dedicated pathologists at this time or was it like England, which had Divisional Surgeons or General Practitioners doing the job? And I can see that Dr Vibert played a key roll in the post mortem - what sort of background did he have? What sort of experience? And finally are there any French equivalent texts available similar to Dr Charles Hebbert's accounts for the 4 torso cases between 1887 and 1889?
    9. If You Want To Run With A Theory - just a bit of fun, or who knows, something significant (I doubt it though), on Wednesday 11th August 1886, just over a week since the murder, a Monsieur Paul Wurth committed suicide in the bedroom of a coffee shop on Borough High Street, by shooting himself with a revolver. He is described as working as a 'traveller' and living in Montrouge. He'd arrived in London at the start of that week. He gave no indication as to why he took his own life. Is this a coincidence or something more? Mwah...
    Big post I know, but we really should look at these points before we make any judgements. My final point (promise) is that all the above information has been obtained really from only a few Press reports. Although widely reported on, the origins of these reports clearly came from a small number of journalists, paid to wire their accounts to their respective employers in Britain. Of these reports, some have been edited, either deliberately or accidentally, before they were published, so like your comments on the French Press, it is difficult to ascertain which are reliable and which are not.


    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    That is pretty daft. I have on two occasions told you that Jon Menges requested that we don´t discuss Lechmere on this thread. That is not inserting Lechmere, it is avoiding to discuss him. At least in most universes.​
    The links that I posted show that you have continued to insert your suspect into the discussion after saying that you would stop.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X