Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Paris Torso Mystery

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.​

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    I also find it commendable that Christer has kept to his word and refrained from mentioning the suspect who must not be named...(no, it's not Voldemort!)​
    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.

    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    The mutilations of the Torso victims are what gives us an insight into the killer's mindset at the time.

    He may (or may not) have intended for his victims to never be IDENTIFIED, but he had every intention of them being DISCOVERED.

    And that's the point right there. Not only did he intend for them to be DISCOVERED; Pinchin St and Whitehall Torso PROVE this, he supposedly encroached into the heart of JTR territory by DELIBERATELY dumping a torso in Pinchin St.
    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".

    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    The Ripper also tried and failed to DECAPITATE MORE THAN ONE of his victims
    The Ripper also obliterated Kelly's face...in an outrageous attempt for her to NOT BE IDENTIFIED.
    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.

    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    Because BOTH the Ripper and Torso killer MUTILATED, and BOTH ATTEMPTED a degree of DISMEMBERMENT, plus the Pinchin Street Torso dumped on RIPPER stomping ground, plus the mutilations inflicted on Jackson being similar to an already established victim of the Ripper, then the similarities are there.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    No victims were identified by moles. One victim was identified by a scar. That identification might have been wrong - not all of Elizabeth Jackson's family thought the body was hers. The other three were never identified because the heads were never found.

    The body was Elizabeths with great certainty. It was n ot only about the scar, it was also about her clothes, a gift that was traced to her. The fact that none of the other victims were identified by body marks was not something the killer could have banked on. He needed luck for it, and he could have avoided the risk. So what younger saying here is not clear to me - that the murders were of a defensive character since the killer guessed correctly about how the police would not identify the victims by way of body marks? If so, Jackson disproves that suggestion.

    No one has claimed the Torsoman was trying to hide what he had done. But the evidence strongly indicates that the Torsoman wanted to hide his victims' identities.

    Your claim that "just about all the parts thrown in the river floated ashore" serves only to illustrate your ignorance. The second victim was found because part washed ashore, but most of the remains were found in obscure places on land or even buried. The first and third victims were found because people fished bundles out of the water. The fourth was found in the Pinchin Street railroad archway. Some parts were buried, some abandoned in less visible spots on land, many were found floating in rivers or canals, and a few washed ashore.

    Ignorance? I wrote that almost all of the parts thrown in the water floated ashore and were found, not that all parts were thrown in the river. You need to read and understand what your fellow posters say, otherwise you could easily give an impression of being rude and illiterate.

    Body parts do initially sink, but they rise to the surface as they decompose. That includes human heads. One was found in the Colorado River in 1982. One was found in the Arizona Canal in 1992. One was found in the Everglades in 2007. One was found in the Mutha River in 2016. One was found in the Merrimack River in 2016.
    One was found in the Tamsui River in 2020.​

    It would seem it CAN happen. But I don't think it will or must happen. I can provide numbers of articles where human heads have been found in rivers and lakes, sometimes shortly after a murder but also a long period after it. I think we need to research the matter more thoroughly. As it stands, I believe the heads may have been thrown in the river and sunk. Then again, they may of course also have been kept by the killer, for various reasons of gratification - in which case an aggressive killer becomes even more probable.

    The simplest way of ensuring a victim wasn't identified was to remove the head. None of the victims was identified by moles or tattoos and flaying these parts off would only draw attention to those parts, and be additional effort for very little return. Only one victim was identified by a scar, Elizabeth Jackson. She was wrapped in a garment labelled 'L E Fisher", so either the Jackson identification was wrong, or the murderer used that garment to try to hide the victim's identity.

    As I remember things, it was established how the clothing had passed into Jacksons possession, I believe by way of gifting it to her.
    Yes, a defensive killer is quite likely to remove the head from his victim. But what should an aggressive killer do to make you factor him in? If he wants to take the head off, if it is a desire of his - should he refrain from doing it, so that he is not wrongfully determined to be a likely defensive killer?
    It is not about the heads only. Jackson had her uterus carved out together with its appendages and her heart and lungs, after a cut was made all the way down on her. These things and that cut has nothing at all to do with defensive dismemberment. Reasoning like it did would be, well, you know: headless.


    A killer failing to successfully hide the identity of one victim is not proof that the killer did not try to hide their identities.
    Of course not. And a killer taking a head off a victim in not proof that he did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie View Post
    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.
    ​​
    I totally agree about how the killer wanted his work found and recognized. The one thing I would perhaps take issue with is the assertion that he tried to eliminate identification of the victim by way taking the head off - if that is what you are suggesting. I tend to think that he was the standard type of serial killer in one way, namely that he killed strangers. And I also think that he killed prostitutes, although there are a number of cases where this cannot be proven. The one case where it WAS proven who the woman was, was that of Liz Jackson, a prostitute.

    Consequentially, I do not think that he had any reason at all to fear that an identification of a victim would lead the police to his doorstep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    It is quite obvious that the Whitechapel Murderer took internal organs from his victims as trophies.

    It is not a matter of interpretation.

    The rest of your comments quoted above are remarks of a personal nature.

    I suggest that they are uncalled for.
    No, it is NOT "quite obvious" that the Whitechapel killer took internal organs as trophies at all. When we cannot know, we can never speak of something being "quite obvious". Andrei Chikatilo cut out uteri and used them as chewing gum, for example.

    You need to cut down on your "quite obvious´es". It is and remains a useful SUGGESTION that he took organs as trophies, but we cannot say to whatbdegree it must be true, on account of how we do not know how the killers mind worked.

    What we need also look at in this context is how this killer cut out an abundance of potential "trophies" from the body of Mary Kelly - and then left all or mot of them as he left. Ergo, we KNOW that he did cut organs out without having any intention of using them as trophies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I will again refer to the study ("by qualified people") showing that "profilers" had identified "rituals" and "signatures" from crime scenes that were not related.

    Caution is advised.
    I reckon caution extends both ways.

    There was a case in the United States I was reading about, 'not sure on the year but reading the article I was left with the impression that it was at a time when M.O. and signature advocates were in their heyday, so maybe 1990s/2000s. Anyway, the serial murderer undertook bizarre ritualistic behaviour, even by serial killer standards, but M.O. and signature advocates could not agree on whether the crimes were linked (as a result of differing ritualistic behaviour from crime to crime); to the point that at least one such commentator was called by the defence to testify that these crimes weren't the serial work of the defendant. The defendant was found guilty as a result of other evidence.

    So, aye, that's only case, and one swallow doesn't make a summer; but it is an example of how such rigid views can be dangerous.

    On the other hand, I seem to remember you labelling it 'quackery' or at least citing somebody else who labelled it 'quackery'. Caution should be exercised in relation to that view also. As ever, when you have two polar opposite inflexible views at the extreme ends of a spectrum, the answer lies somewhere in between.

    I'm not sure which study you're talking about, but I posted a study which I think was published in an American journal, 'can't remember now. They looked at the actions of various serial killers and concluded that they display highly complex behaviour at crime scenes, the behaviour from crime to crime is not always consistent and they experiment within a crime series; that experimentation can happen anywhere within the crime series, they may experiment only once or several times.

    But, they concluded that serial killers do display ritualistic behaviour and that ritualistic behaviour does at times follow a discernible pattern, although not consistent in every crime in a series.

    The idea of a rigid M.O. is outdated also. M.O. is beholden to situational and contextual factors which has an obvious inference.

    Take a look at the Yorkshire Ripper, probably the closest serial killer to the conventional WM in this country. You would not find a consistent M.O. and signature in his crime series. In fact, had he not been caught, it would be a free-for-all guessing game as to how many crimes were at his hand, much more so than the WM and you'd have a range of anywhere between 5 and 40.

    Anyway, I did the say that 'the hand on the gash' was speculation and in the end I agree that a headless, legless body lying face down can't tell us anything about ritualistic behaviour.

    I suppose what all of this means for the WM and TM, is that the 'removal of limbs' equates to can't be the same person argument, is short-sighted; particularly as other studies/research conclude that the WM's acts of extreme violence are closely related to the removal of limbs and they're underpinned by the same psychology.

    And, in terms of the conventional WM, five victims would seem to be an underestimation, given that those five are deemed to follow a discernible pattern while research concludes that there will be others that do not conform to that discernible pattern.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.
    No victims were identified by moles. One victim was identified by a scar. That identification might have been wrong - not all of Elizabeth Jackson's family thought the body was hers. The other three were never identified because the heads were never found.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    2. The killer apparently did not throw body parts in the Thames with the intention of hiding what he had done. Instead, just about all the parts thrown in the river floated ashore. There were four victims in the canonical tally, and so even if the killer somehow thought that they would not float ashore but instead sink, he would find out that they did not do so. Regardless of this, he carried on. A reasonable conclusion was that he intended for the parts to be found. No effort was made in any case to weigh the parts down. And why put parts on land if he thought that throwing them in the river made them disappear?
    No one has claimed the Torsoman was trying to hide what he had done. But the evidence strongly indicates that the Torsoman wanted to hide his victims' identities.

    Your claim that "just about all the parts thrown in the river floated ashore" serves only to illustrate your ignorance. The second victim was found because part washed ashore, but most of the remains were found in obscure places on land or even buried. The first and third victims were found because people fished bundles out of the water. The fourth was found in the Pinchin Street railroad archway. Some parts were buried, some abandoned in less visible spots on land, many were found floating in rivers or canals, and a few washed ashore.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    ​3. The main disposal method of the parts was to chuck them in the river. If he did the same to the heads, they would sink. That would not mean that it must have been about hiding identities, only that the heads did not float.
    Body parts do initially sink, but they rise to the surface as they decompose. That includes human heads. One was found in the Colorado River in 1982. One was found in the Arizona Canal in 1992. One was found in the Everglades in 2007. One was found in the Mutha River in 2016. One was found in the Merrimack River in 2016.
    One was found in the Tamsui River in 2020.​

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    ​The commonest reason for dismemberment murders is a wish to hide what has been done, or a wish to hide an identity. In such cases, however, there are no eviscerations and no bellies cut open from sternum to groin. Nor are name-marked clothes left on the body of the victims, and scars, tattoos and moles are typically cut away if there is an intention to hide the identity. Nowadays, the hands or fingers are also removed to disenable finger printing. That was not a problem back in 1887-89, though.
    The simplest way of ensuring a victim wasn't identified was to remove the head. None of the victims was identified by moles or tattoos and flaying these parts off would only draw attention to those parts, and be additional effort for very little return. Only one victim was identified by a scar, Elizabeth Jackson. She was wrapped in a garment labelled 'L E Fisher", so either the Jackson identification was wrong, or the murderer used that garment to try to hide the victim's identity.

    A killer failing to successfully hide the identity of one victim is not proof that the killer did not try to hide their identities.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    The Thames Torso killer dumped one of his victims smack bang in the middle of Ripper territory. That carries huge weight when discussing a connection between the series.
    Agreed. This fact alone justifies the validity of discussing a connection between the cases.

    The possible connection stems from the killer deliberately placing the Pinchin St torso in the middle of Ripper territory, underneath a recently constructed railway arch situated directly next to the Board of Works (Stone breaking yard) that George Lusk had worked for previously as a builder, and choosing to time his placing of the torso, on the beat of a policeman who had had his beat swapped at the last minute.

    And let's also not forget the man who appeared to predict the dumping of the Pinchin St torso; BEFORE the torso was even placed at the same location.


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie
    replied
    Sorry for the duplicate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    another hint whether the torsoman was a defensive or offensive dismemberer is to see how he disposed of the parts. I dont think a totally defensive dismemberer is going to be leaving parts strewn about in public, a part thrown into the backyard of the shelley estate, a head left in public on tje sidewalk in front of a heavily guarded building, torso left in the street, a torso left in the basement of new scotland yard, body parts thrown in and continued to be thrown in tje river when the the parts are being found. torsoman may have wanted to hide the identity of the victims, but he most certainly was NOT trying to hide the parts. its bleeding obvious something more is going on here than a defensive dismemberer.
    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.​

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie
    replied
    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.
    ​​

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Nor do we know that the Ripper took uteri as ”trophies”, I ´t is one interpretation of a number of interpretations.

    Since you seem to think you know these things ...

    We cannot reason like you do ...


    It is quite obvious that the Whitechapel Murderer took internal organs from his victims as trophies.

    It is not a matter of interpretation.

    The rest of your comments quoted above are remarks of a personal nature.

    I suggest that they are uncalled for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    The heads of the Torso victims were never found, which is a sign of defensive mutilation to hide the victims' identities.
    Or a sign of trophy collecting.

    In the event he had the means to make a head disappear, then presumably he had the means to make all of the body parts disappear. Why would a 'defensive mutilator', whose sole purpose in undertaking dismemberment was to avoid being apprehended, place a torso under a railway arch advertising that there had been a murder; when he could have disposed of the other body parts in the way he disposed of the head, i.e. unnoticed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    another hint whether the torsoman was a defensive or offensive dismemberer is to see how he disposed of the parts. I dont think a totally defensive dismemberer is going to be leaving parts strewn about in public, a part thrown into the backyard of the shelley estate, a head left in public on tje sidewalk in front of a heavily guarded building, torso left in the street, a torso left in the basement of new scotland yard, body parts thrown in and continued to be thrown in tje river when the the parts are being found. torsoman may have wanted to hide the identity of the victims, but he most certainly was NOT trying to hide the parts. its bleeding obvious something more is going on here than a defensive dismemberer.

    cmon other side, surely you can at least see that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Bear in mind the throat cutting was just a theory, but there was no actual forensic evidence to confirm it
    Not direct evidence, no, but then again: there was no head to confirm it.

    It is clear from Dr Phillips' inquest testimony that he believed the victim died as a result of a cut throat. Furthermore, it wasn't mere 'theory'.

    The loss of blood could not have come from either the lungs of the stomach? - Certainly not the stomach, and I could not trace any sign of its coming from the lungs. I have a strong opinion that it did not.

    The draining of the blood from the body was such that it must have been a main artery that was severed? - Undoubtedly; and was almost as thorough as it could be although not so great as I have seen in some cases of cut throats.


    Call it a process of elimination as opposed to having direct evidence. Either way: Dr Phillips wasn't relying on theory. He arrived at that conclusion as a result of an assessment of the remaining part of the corpse he had in front of him.​

    And, it contradicted Monro who believed that the cause of death was not due to hemorrhage.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X