The Paris Torso Mystery

[Fisherman]

I am signing off for a few days now, but I will check in and have a look next week.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The driving force behind them is either closely related or the exact same in my book.

That's how it looks to me.

But, my background isn't psychology nor studying people lopping other people's heads off.

The behavioural aspect of their research is complicated and it needs a lot more than reading a few articles before concluding anything (I'm talking about myself there by the way).

I do think I have it right in terms of what the research is suggesting, but do I have it right when applying their work to the WM and TM? I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, as I say, psychology isn't my background.

I think we'd need the people who have a good understanding of these things to have a look at both the WM and TM and tells us what they think and why.

What I would say from reading the articles, is that ruling them out as the same person without understanding the psychology behind these types of crimes, is uninformed opinion.

[Debra A]

Another interesting aspect of the Pinchin Street Torso, was the victim's overall physical features.

The torso was described as a woman of "Grand Physique"

Her limbs above the average size

Her approximate height was at LEAST 5ft 8" (tall compared to the average Victorian woman)

She was also described as an almost "abnormally developed female"


This description is rather fascinating because whoever she was, she would have stood out from the average crowd in physical terms.

Furthermore, there can't have been many women who disappeared around that time, who fit her description.


It also begs the question, why did the killer choose her?


RD

Hi RD

With the Pinchin Street victim Hebbert, who was present at the post mortem, noted in his Westminster Hospital lecture 1889 that "Her height, as calculated by the transverse measurements and forearm, about 5ft 3^1/3 in. …"

[Fisherman]

That's how it looks to me.

But, my background isn't psychology nor studying people lopping other people's heads off.

The behavioural aspect of their research is complicated and it needs a lot more than reading a few articles before concluding anything (I'm talking about myself there by the way).

I do think I have it right in terms of what the research is suggesting, but do I have it right when applying their work to the WM and TM? I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, as I say, psychology isn't my background.

I think we'd need the people who have a good understanding of these things to have a look at both the WM and TM and tells us what they think and why.

What I would say from reading the articles, is that ruling them out as the same person without understanding the psychology behind these types of crimes, is uninformed opinion.

Hi Fleetwood!

I am off to Germany over the weekend, but I thought I'd answer this post of yours before that.

You are correct about the psychology factor: it is fraught with danger to believe that we can read the mindset behind these murders, or indeed ANY unsolved murders, with any real certainty. We can, however - just as you say - conclude that any suggestion that a common originator can be ruled out on the existing evidence is simply wrong. The indications are instead that we are dealing with murders of a very similar kind, all led on by a will to aggressively mutilate/eviscerate/dismember, and so any suggestion of the two series having different mindsets working behind them will prove impossible to substantiate.
What we are left with is people claiming to know that one killer was more organized than the other - but with nothing even remotely conclusive to show for it.

Once we the turn to whether or not the instigating factors behind the two series were the same or not, we must immediately concede that we cannot possibly know that. We can have one perpetrator who had had dealings with prostitutes that left him wanting to retaliate, and who had a disposition that allowed for an expression in his crimes that lent itself to an interpretation of an aggressive mutilator/eviscerator/dismemberer. The other series, however, could have been led on by a very different mindset, for example one that involved an obsession with the insides of women, a curiosity, making his deeds exhibit that impression of an aggressive mutilator/eviscerator/dismemberer.

So although we have these aggressive elements on display, the bottom line is that they can never as such prove a common originator, technically speaking.

However, we also have the element of damage types inflicted, and that is where the scales tip things over extremely much in favor of a common originator. And in this case, the uncertainty of the psychology factor neatly goes away!

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

This factor alone speaks very clearly of a likely common originator - and it gets better.

Eviscerators come in various shapes, just as all killers do. They are not all about getting at the reproductive organs, for example - but some are. They will cut out different parts, and they will do so through different openings in the human body.

In our case, we of course have uteri cut out from women in both series, linking the series up in that manner.

We then have the very, very rare inclusion of abdominal walls taken away in large panes in both series (Chapman, Kelly, Jackson). And that is where the already very weak suggestion of two eviscerating serial killers working side by side in London becomes even weaker - the idea that this kind of extremely rare inclusion would be present coincidentally in both series borders on the ridiculous. The option that it instead tells us that we are dealing with the exact same killer is of course the fact based and much better solution.
Add to this that we are speaking of two series where the involved and identified victims were all prostitutes and where two of the victims, one from each series, had rings stolen from her fingers, and there can be no realistic doubt. We also have medicos testifying about great cutting skills in both series. Item after item, therefore!
The two series either had the same originator, or they are a mindboggling new addition to criminal and statistical history. There are no other options to choose from. They are either what they seem to be, or they are a criminological abbhorition and uniquely rare coincidence. It´s either or.

I have long since realized that many will claim disagreement. That will probably owe to no small degree to how accepting a common originator between 1887 and 1889, rules a number of "suspects" out.
Life is like that, people will disagree, and there must be some little room to disagree on the point of a common originator. However, in my world, there is absolutely no room at all for the suggestion that the two killer scenario is somehow as or even more likely that the one killer scenario. There is an overwhelming array of evidence to disallow that misconception, and that needs to be accepted.

Poster "Charlie" wrote in an earlier post out here that it seems to him that the majority of the ripperological community are in favour of the one killer scenario. It makes me think that he may be unaware of how even suggesting such a thing was regarded as blasphemy for the longest time. It is only in recent years that the tide has started to turn - and it is about time it did. When I think about how our field of study has suffered from the uninformed and fact-defying cadre of people who claim that the two killer scenario is somehow the more probable solution, it makes me want to break something.

Und jetzt, Deutschland!

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am off to Germany over the weekend

Great place, mate. 'Been a good few times myself years back: Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt. Watching football (Schalke), off the beaten track camping, and down the southern part of Germany with my camera looking for Marsh Warblers and the like.

Always liked Germany, food always very good also: 'nothing pretentious, just a decent sized plate of food and always tasty.

Since Covid, I haven't been out of the country and can't really be bothered with it. Getting searched to death in airports and the like. Happy to just spend time 'round England and Wales these days, but if I do get out of the country at some point then Germany will be towards the top of the options.

Enjoy!

You are correct about the psychology factor: it is fraught with danger to believe that we can read the mindset behind these murders, or indeed ANY unsolved murders, with any real certainty.

From my perspective, I don't think the people who study those types of murders are simply 'mind-reading'. They're looking at what they actually do and drawing conclusions from patterns of behaviour. So, it's not magic but rather behavioural science. It seems it is accepted, among the people who study their crimes, that there are broadly four types of those murderers and within each type they share very similar patterns of behaviour and background; and so when they talk of those categories it's based on empirical studies.

The issue isn't with them but rather with people like me who have merely read a few articles. As I say, psychology isn't my background, and while I understand what they're saying in terms of the shared behaviour in each of those categories, and that which defines each of those four categories; do I know enough about it to then apply that understanding to the WM and the TM? No, not really.

I reduced it to its simplest terms, i.e. in the event you have a murderer mutilating and dismembering then that's similar to the WM in the sense that the motive and psychology is sexual gratification. I think it's correct to term the TM's crimes offensive dismemberment, but exactly how similar are those crimes to the WM?

Well, the Pinchin Street murder involved mutilation of the abdomen only. How does that marry up with the WMs mutilation? I think we'd need the people who have studied these types of murderers and their psychology to comment, and their comment would be very interesting.

One thing has become apparent to me, the WMs crimes cannot be understood without understanding the psychology of such murderers, and putting together possible suspects without that understanding; is akin to trying to put a jigsaw together with half of the pieces.

We can, however - just as you say - conclude that any suggestion that a common originator can be ruled out on the existing evidence is simply wrong.

Fully agree. It is the psychology, and therefore motive, behind the crimes that would link them or distance them. Whether or not one series of murders was indoors and the other was in the street, is neither here nor there: that's merely a guessing game as to what has gone on there. We could posit that it was mere circumstance and one murderer could not always get what he wanted, i.e. convincing victims to go to his residence. Somebody else could argue otherwise. That's a guessing game based upon not very much at all.

As you said, the Victorians certainly weren't in a position to conclude they were different murderers given they did not have the benefit of empirical studies on those types of murderers.

Eviscerators are so very rare, and eviscerating serial killers are even more rare.

Agreed, and that point is meaningful in any consideration of whether or not this was one man or two.

As is the placing of the Pinchin Street torso. Behavioural studies I have read suggest that was a done for a reason borne of the psychology of the murderer, the reason being gratification from the horror that would generate. 'Seems odd to us, but that is a common emotion/trait among those who do that sort of thing.

Eviscerators come in various shapes, just as all killers do. They are not all about getting at the reproductive organs, for example - but some are. They will cut out different parts, and they will do so through different openings in the human body.

Agreed. I posted a study of sexual serial murderers on another thread: an empirical study of the behaviour of these people at the crime scene. Until recently, much of the commentary on signature and ritualistic behaviour and the like wasn't built upon much, it wasn't based on studying those types of murderers at all.

Recent studies of their behaviour suggest they display highly complex behaviour, they experiment and they do not display the same ritualistic behaviour or signature at every crime in a series.

Again, I don't think the WM's actual number of crimes can be estimated without having that knowledge from those studies. Using Alice as an example, ruling her out would be at odds with the behavioural studies.

I have long since realized that many will claim disagreement. That will probably owe to no small degree to how accepting a common originator between 1887 and 1889, rules a number of "suspects" out.

'Jack The Ripper' doesn't get his just desserts by and large. He is romanticised like some master criminal slipping in and out of the shadows, fooling the police and operating as a skilled, swift hunter. The reality is that these were brutal, evil crimes inflicted upon people in a vulnerable position and he's not going to be any different from the other brutal, evil murderers who get locked up for life because they're a menace to society. 'Nothing special about him, 'certainly shouldn't be romanticised, and none of these sexual serial murders are 'skilled, swift hunters' or particularly intelligent: they prey on weaker/vulnerable targets and then commit the most brutal of crimes.

My hunch is that some people wouldn't want him to be a person who dismembered some victims. That wouldn't conform to the romanticised version.

It is only in recent years that the tide has started to turn

In fairness, a lot of the information, drawn from behavioural studies of such murderers, wasn't available 30 years back. Much of the advance in this area has coincided with the advent of DNA, and most of the studies have been undertaken in the 21st century; and so people were viewing the WM's series of crimes based upon what is now outdated information/knowledge.

The behavioural studies mentioned, both in terms of their actions at crime scenes and the psychology underpinning their actions, lends towards a picture that is not in line with what most people thought and probably still think, e.g. the 'Canonical Five' conclusion is highly questionable to the point of being unlikely (as a result of such studies).

Enjoy Germany, mate!

[The Rookie Detective]

My hunch is that some people wouldn't want him to be a person who dismembered some victims. That wouldn't conform to the romanticised version.

Precisely. Totally agree.

The idea that the Ripper was also the torso killer, is often dismissed on these grounds alone.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD

With the Pinchin Street victim Hebbert, who was present at the post mortem, noted in his Westminster Hospital lecture 1889 that "Her height, as calculated by the transverse measurements and forearm, about 5ft 3^1/3 in. …"

Hi Debra


Thank you for your post.

This highlights how the press was often completely wrong and/or misleading in their reporting of the case.

It also teaches me a lesson in not basing my comment on some of the press reports, and to focus primarily on the more reliable sources of data, the likes of which you refer to in your post.

A sincere thankyou to you, for correcting me on the Pinchin Torso evidence.

I am always learning on this site, and I admire and respect your knowledge of this case.


RD

[Abby Normal]

Precisely. Totally agree.

The idea that the Ripper was also the torso killer, is often dismissed on these grounds alone.


RD

hi rd
similarily it has also been dismissed because the apparent differences, ie that torsoman was a dismemberer and the ripper wasnt.

But ive always asked... Is cutting off noses, breasts, ears, almost decapitating at least two victims, cutting and taking away internal organs really that different than dismemberment? not to me anyway, and probably less so to a post mortem mutilator.

and just by way of modern example, the closest ive found to the ripper is dahmer. who was an eviscerator AND dismemberer.

To me Mary Kelly and pinchin are the crossovers that point to a single killer. Given time alone inside with mary he completely dismantled her, dismembering her breasts, nose, almost decapitating her, removing stomach flesh in flaps (like jackson).

Pinchin.. vertical abdoman gash, like all the ripper victims and found in ripper territory.

I think the only real difference is, use of weapon, mitigated by access to a chop shop. Because of the difficulty in carrying a saw and dismembering in a public place he had to resort to knife alone. As iv mentioned before, i think the difference is that torsoman didnt have access to his chop shop and had to kill out on the street. I lean towrd they were the same man, but if chapman or kelly had been found fully decapitated, it would be game over imho, def the same man.

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rd
similarily it has also been dismissed because the apparent differences, ie that torsoman was a dismemberer and the ripper wasnt.

But ive always asked... Is cutting off noses, breasts, ears, almost decapitating at least two victims, cutting and taking away internal organs really that different than dismemberment? not to me anyway, and probably less so to a post mortem mutilator.

and just by way of modern example, the closest ive found to the ripper is dahmer. who was an eviscerator AND dismemberer.

To me Mary Kelly and pinchin are the crossovers that point to a single killer. Given time alone inside with mary he completely dismantled her, dismembering her breasts, nose, almost decapitating her, removing stomach flesh in flaps (like jackson).

Pinchin.. vertical abdoman gash, like all the ripper victims and found in ripper territory.

I think the only real difference is, use of weapon, mitigated by access to a chop shop. Because of the difficulty in carrying a saw and dismembering in a public place he had to resort to knife alone. As iv mentioned before, i think the difference is that torsoman didnt have access to his chop shop and had to kill out on the street. I lean towrd they were the same man, but if chapman or kelly had been found fully decapitated, it would be game over imho, def the same man.

I agree with literally every word you've just said Abby.

An excellent post from start to end.


RD

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the interests of balance, there is a dearth of sexual serial killers who alternated between dismemberment and stopping short of that during a crime series. It seems that when dismemberment is involved, it is pretty constant throughout the series of crimes.

The only one I can find who sometimes dismembered victims and sometimes didn't, is Ted Bundy.

Any other examples?

[Charlie]

Hello,
Your posts are fascinating, and I learn a lot from reading them. Just for that, thank you.

The so-called "Mr Cleary" has been discussed countless times before, yet I still find it baffling how this hasn't been looked into even further.

I had forgotten about this episode; it is indeed very intriguing. It pushes me to look further.

[Charlie]

I don't have the erudition and factual knowledge level of many participants on this forum. The language barrier, in my case, also makes it more challenging for me to access certain untranslated texts in French. What I can do, however, is shed some "French" light on the matter, considering that, during that time, French forensic science was at the forefront of criminal dismemberment. As mentioned in a previous post, between 1888 and 1902, I cataloged no less than three works or university theses on this subject, all written by Alexandre Lacassagne and his disciples.

It's clear that, at that time, dismemberment was mostly considered motivated solely by the need to dispose of the victim's body. The intervention of the Brazilian physician Raimundo Nina Rodrigues (read here) was necessary for the concept of offensive dismemberment (as opposed to defensive) to emerge. However, Nina Rodrigues, like many scientists of the time, had some eugenic tendencies and a touch of racism, viewing everything through the lens of the "degenerate mind" and the harmful mixing of races. Unfortunately, such theories had significant consequences in countries like Brazil.

On the other hand, I found an astonishing article from 1901 by Dr. Albert Prieur published in Le Mercure de France, which is incredibly modern. The guy understood it all, challenging and putting Lacassagne and Nina Rodrigues on equal footing. For those who can read French, here's the link to a French site that provides the article.

Here's the translation of some excerpts:

The offensive form is older: it stems directly from the almost reflex impulsivity of savages and can currently depend on either hatred, the concentrated and postponed form of anger, or a violent, though uncontrollable, outburst of acute anger, or even a completely unconscious morbid impulsivity, depending on whether it manifests in a healthy individual or a patient. This form of dismemberment includes dismemberment practiced by the insane and epileptics, vindictive dismemberment where the criminal serves the mutilated remains of a loved one as a stew to their enemy, and finally, dismemberment by violent criminals who, not content with taking the life of their victim, still derive pleasure from mutilating the corpse

.

There we can conclude the first category of modern dismemberment that Mr. Nina-Rodrigues has qualified as offensive. From the few examples I've given, it can be seen that it subdivides itself into secondary categories that, however, only have apparent importance, a common general character solidly connecting them all: dismemberment is either the end the actor aims for, or the logical consequence of murder, the latter continuing through a kind of increasing exaltation or an association of ideas whose dominant features are hostility against the dead, indifference to one's own peril, or certain delusional impressions that can graft onto anything. It is in this category of offensive dismemberment that one can place these sadistic mutilations, the two great modern protagonists being Jack the Ripper and Vacher, mutilations taken in the literal sense of the word, localized to a very limited and always the same part of the human body, whose realization is part of a predetermined course of action and only varies in its most negligible details. All psychic activity is focused on the desire for the almost always identical sadistic act, the mind immobilized by the desire to appropriate or violate an organ that is always the same. Jack and Vacher are dismembers just like the superstitious bloodthirsty ones we've just talked about: what brings them closer is either that they do not mutilate because they have killed, or that death is only an incidental, frequent but negligible complication, sometimes even an indispensable means in the implacable realization of their erotic desire for a piece of living being.

As much as the offensive dismemberer is varied in his actions, if the characteristics of his act obey a kind of law, the defensive dismemberer is often banal, often contrasting with the supernatural horror characteristics that can accompany the crime. [...] Because preventive dismemberment is the effect of an always same cause, fear, this depressing phenomenon par excellence even annihilating sometimes up to any trace of activity or lucidity in brains that are nonetheless clear and active, it generally translates into a series of acts of short duration, almost always the same, and whose episodes seem copied from each other.

Defensive dismemberment, which consists of making the principal trace of a crime disappear by fragmenting it, is born, strictly speaking, not out of fear of justice, which, good or bad, serious or ridiculous, paternal or ferocious, has always existed... but out of fear of the police.

Now, I remind you, we are in 1901 and the theoretical foundations to understand these crimes are now laid out. I don't know if, in Great Britain, the level of expertise on the subject was significantly different and if doctors or others had already, before the texts I just mentioned, written things that would help understand, or at least better define, the profile of these killers.

[Abby Normal]

another interesting note in terms of similarities. The tottenham head, the face was disfigured eerily very much like eddowes, and was deposited in a very public and risky place. imho torsoman was responsible for this victim also.

[Charlie]

another interesting note in terms of similarities. The tottenham head, the face was disfigured eerily very much like eddowes, and was deposited in a very public and risky place. imho torsoman was responsible for this victim also.

And I imagine that the female torso found in Battersea in September 1873 must also be linked to the series. If I remember correctly, the head was found, but it had also undergone mutilations.

[Abby Normal]

And I imagine that the female torso found in Battersea in September 1873 must also be linked to the series. If I remember correctly, the head was found, but it had also undergone mutilations.

the face was peeled off. they actually found it and put it on a mannekin head for id purposes. im still on the fence if the 70s victims were tje work of torsoman.