The Paris Torso Mystery

[The Rookie Detective]

I’m sorry, but could you also repeat how it is that we know this?

Don't mistake the word "FOUND" for the word "IDENTIFIED"

Fleetwood is correct

The Torso killer intended for the Pinchin St torso to be FOUND.

But intended for the victim to never be IDENTIFIED.

Hence why he took the head.


RD

[Kattrup]

It's worth repeating this: the Pinchin Street torso was placed in order to be found.

I’m sorry, but could you also repeat how it is that we know this?

[Elamarna]

If I misunderstood you, I am sorry - you wrote that you wished that everybody would wait until the publication of the Huntington book, and so I thought that you meant just that. Apparently, what you meant was that the book could change perspectives, which is fine.

Your preferred candidate was brought into the discussion for the reason that you have repeatedly over the years pointed out, here and on other forums, that you believe that I have a bias that disallows me to reason about the case in a fully credible way. I therefore made the point that having the bias of believing that Andersons Polish Jew suspect is the likeliest killer seems hard to combine with the fact that the torso killer must have had transport - Aaron Kosminski, if we look at him, seems to be quite unlikely to have had access to a horse and cart.

Consequently, the Polish Jew suspect appears to be a lot less likely suspect for the Torso murders than for the Ripper murders. And if you are going to persist in claiming that my take on who the killer was risks to lead me to faulty conclusions, then the exact same risk of course applies to anybody who believes in other suspects.

I am therefore thinking that there is an obvious risk that your claim that the upcoming book will be the definitive work on the Torso murders could to a degree be based on how the book will favour the suggestion that there were two killers - which is what I beleive it will do. I am reasoning that if the book was to conclude that the two series in all probability had the same originator, you may perhaps not have suggested that it would be the definitive work on the matter.

And that has nothing at all to do with whether or not the author believes that Andersons Polish Jew was likely the killer. It is instead just a reminder to posters out here that when somebody who has a favourite suspect of his own speaks of other people, with other favourite suspects, as having fallen prey to their respective biases, that may need to be taken with a small barrel of salt.

I look very much forward to the book, nevertheless, and the discussion it will doubtlessly create. I hope we may enter that discussion as two posters who both respect each others equal rights to be taken equally seriously, regardless of what suspect we believe in.

I did actually say, I have not seen the conclusions of the book, as it's not finished.
I therefore have no idea if it will conclude the two series were committed by the same hand or not.

What I have seen is remarkably well researched, and referenced, and covers all the Torsos from the early 1870s, until the turn of the 20th century, it will therefore cover the Torso cases to a greater scope and in far greater detail than previous works in my view.

It's a mistake to assume one can only appreciate new research if it supports views one already holds. Rather I read or watch all new ideas, providing support and encouragement to researchers who look at suspect who are not my choice. This includes the Recent Work on Edward Buckley, and new, as yet unpublished work on Robert Mann.

It's always the level of research i am attracted to in new work, rather than the suspect proposed.

I too hope that it will be possible to debate the Torso work, when it published, and judge it on its own merits, rather than does it fit our own ideas.

Steve

[Fisherman]

There are many common misunderstandings about the series of Torsos found over a near 30 year period in the London area, and the forthcoming book will cover those cases in far greater detail, than any previous book on the subject.

At this point I have no idea what conclusions will be reached by the author, as the work is not completed.

Why my preferred candidate is brought into the debate is puzzling. The author of the book does not share my views.

Steve

If I misunderstood you, I am sorry - you wrote that you wished that everybody would wait until the publication of the Huntington book, and so I thought that you meant just that. Apparently, what you meant was that the book could change perspectives, which is fine.

Your preferred candidate was brought into the discussion for the reason that you have repeatedly over the years pointed out, here and on other forums, that you believe that I have a bias that disallows me to reason about the case in a fully credible way. I therefore made the point that having the bias of believing that Andersons Polish Jew suspect is the likeliest killer seems hard to combine with the fact that the torso killer must have had transport - Aaron Kosminski, if we look at him, seems to be quite unlikely to have had access to a horse and cart.

Consequently, the Polish Jew suspect appears to be a lot less likely suspect for the Torso murders than for the Ripper murders. And if you are going to persist in claiming that my take on who the killer was risks to lead me to faulty conclusions, then the exact same risk of course applies to anybody who believes in other suspects.

I am therefore thinking that there is an obvious risk that your claim that the upcoming book will be the definitive work on the Torso murders could to a degree be based on how the book will favour the suggestion that there were two killers - which is what I beleive it will do. I am reasoning that if the book was to conclude that the two series in all probability had the same originator, you may perhaps not have suggested that it would be the definitive work on the matter.

And that has nothing at all to do with whether or not the author believes that Andersons Polish Jew was likely the killer. It is instead just a reminder to posters out here that when somebody who has a favourite suspect of his own speaks of other people, with other favourite suspects, as having fallen prey to their respective biases, that may need to be taken with a small barrel of salt.

I look very much forward to the book, nevertheless, and the discussion it will doubtlessly create. I hope we may enter that discussion as two posters who both respect each others equal rights to be taken equally seriously, regardless of what suspect we believe in.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's worth repeating this: the Pinchin Street torso was placed in order to be found. That gives us an insight into the psychology of that murderer, somebody who took pleasure from the shock and horror generated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Another caveat is that they were only studying cases of sexual homicide. That means they were only studying offensive, not defensive actions.

It's not a limitation.

The reason being that this study of 762 cases wasn't aimed at differentiating between 'offensive' and 'defensive' mutilation. Those terms and the nature of the acts underpinning them are widely agreed upon in the world of studying murder and dismemberment. You will find various texts and research to confirm that, including one posted on this thread.

The study of 762 cases was aimed at analysing sexual serial murder and the extreme acts of violence involved (what they term 'unusual acts'), providing an insight into the background of the type of murderer who undertakes such 'unusual acts' and exploring the motive/psychology underpinning those acts; which is why they begin their conclusion by stating:

The current study shows that these behaviours—although unusual—can be interpreted as a form of dismemberment as well as may be used as indicators of a sadistic and organised offender. The findings suggest that contrary to what has often been assumed, the commission of unusual acts on a victim does not seem related to mental disorders, such as psychosis. Instead, these unusual behaviours are closely related to sexual sadism, which is a subtype of the organised offender. Therefore, investigators facing these crime scene behaviours should not rule out that the offender may be someone who has a job and who is well-integrated into the community. Overall, these findings may help investigators gain a better understanding of these crimes as well as how to organise their investigation.

When the authors state: "unusual behaviours can be interpreted as a form of dismemberment", they spell out what those unusual behaviours are at the beginning of the article/study and they include: carving on a victim's body, evisceration and skinning the victim.

[Fisherman]

Your theory quickly falls apart - if the killer wanted recognition for committing both series of crimes, then why didn't he do anything to get that recognition?

I was of course not suggesting that the killer wanted his name revealed. What a serial killer who wants recognition is likely to do, is to see to it that all of his victims are found, and this was something that was always going to happen in the Ripper and Torso cases alike.

Murders like the ones in the Hillside Strangler case are a useful comparison here - the victims are dumped, but not on remote locations where they are likely to remain unfound, but instead in populated areas where a shock value is ensured. It seems to me that the Ripper as well as the Torso deeds were very much the same kind of deeds, making it sure that what had transpired would be made as public as possible as quyickly as possible.

That is the recognition I am speaking about. And that is why your strange idea that my theory is quickly falling apart is ridiculous.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Luck no doubt played a part in the Torso Killer not being caught, but he took a lot less risks than the Ripper.

The limitation here is that we're getting into speculation.

M.O. has been talked about on this thread. M.O. is subject to situational and contextual factors and it follows it is underpinned by options (to a degree), e.g. transport, living alone and so on.

Both the TM and the WM, whether the same man or otherwise, had to get close to their targets and allay any possible suspicion. Would the TM have found it easy to convince women to go with him to his home or workshop, i.e. get close to him in that environment? I doubt it, and that includes women selling sex. I reckon he would have had a job on his hands and more often than not he wouldn't have been successful.

So, you have a factor there that could well have dictated mode of attack including indoors or outdoors.

And, I don't think the WM took the risks that other people suggest, particularly when you consider his options and the primitive means of detection in his age.

Either way, speculation on what may have happened in terms of mode of attack is interesting but it's of no use when assessing whether or not it was the same man. You (general you) will learn far more from the latest research on these types of murders, i.e. motive, the psychology underpinning them, extreme forms of violence that latest research suggests are linked (removal of limbs being one form of dismemberment but not the only form) as opposed to distanced.

[Fisherman]

And that commonsense difference--fully appreciated by James Monro back in 1889, despite what you and Christer seem to believe--is precisely why Monro rejected the Pinchin Street case as the work of the 'Ripper.'

To quote the man himself:

"There is no mutilation as in previous cases, altho' there is dismemberment. There is no evisceration. There is no removal of any portion of the organs of generation or intestines. The murder was indubitably committed neither in the street, nor in the victim's house, but probably in the lodging of the murderer. Here where there was as in the previous cases of murder in a house, plenty of time at the disposal of the murderer, there is no sign of frenzied mutilation of the body, but of deliberate & skillful dismemberment with a view to removal."

"With a few to removal."

Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm couldn't have written it better herself.


In other words, despite the murderer having all the time in the world, he made no attack on the abdomen or the genitals, etc., even though this was his apparent focus in Mitre Square, in Hanbury Street, in Miller's Court, etc..

Here the murderer's motive appears to be entirely different.

As for the cut down the midsection Monro writes:

"The inner coating of the bowel is hardly touched, and the termination of the cut towards the vagina looks almost as if the knife had slipped, and as if this portion of the wound had been accidental. The whole of the wound looks as if the murderer had intended to make a cut in prepatory to removing the intestines in the process of dismemberment, & had then changed his mind."

Does anyone truly think the Ripper, having hours at his disposal, would have made such a vague attempt at the victim's vagina that it could be interpreted as an accidental 'slip'? Look again at the Kelly photo and claim that this is a rational conclusion.


As I see it, Dr. Helina Hakkanen-Nyholm's observations dovetail perfectly with the observations made by James Monro back in 1889, and do not support, as is being implied or claimed, the idea that the injuries to the Pinchin Street victim demonstrate the same underlying 'sexual' motive as in the 'Ripper' cases.

Christer is forced to ignore this and instead veers his analysis over to an entirely different case, such as that of Elizabeth Jackson, though I hasten to add that that case adds its own difficulties to Christer's theories.

Or if not entirely ignore it, come up with the strange idea of a 'hybrid' to avoid facing the reality that no sexual mutilations had been attempted.

One other point. Christer further writes of the Pinchin Street case:



The previous statement by Monro shows that that is not the case, and Christer is misusing the word 'emulate.'

What Monro actually wrote, as an alternative theory to his previous observations, is:

"It may also be that the gash was inflicted to give rise to the impression that this case was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer..."

Monro is clearly not saying that the Pinchin Street murderer was "emulating" the Ripper (which means to meet or exceed his behaviors) but to counterfeit the Ripper, with the strictly analytical motive of throwing the police off the scent.

Personally, I suspect that Monro just threw this out as a 'spitball' possibility---he had already given his own primary reasoning at greater length.

All in all, I think it is really poor form, investigatively speaking, to take two very different case (the Kelly murder and the Pinchin Street case) and then to try to link them to the same perpetrator by interjecting a third case (say, Elizabeth Jackson).

From all that I have read, murder squad detectives consciously avoid this sort of thing because it only leads to wrong interpretations and false assumptions and, at its worse, pinning the crime on the wrong person.

I was not going to comment any further on this until after the holidays, but I feel I need to after having read this post.

The idea that it would be ”poor form” to weigh in all the victims in a series when assessing the overall implications is alien to me. I would suggest that we MUST look at all we know about a killer when we try to weigh that killer up. And there is an excellent way to show why built into R Js post.

We are told that Monro said that the lack of mutilations and eviscerations on the Pinchin Street victim, suggested that the originator was not the same as in the Ripper cases.

As is pointed out in an answer to R J, the killer DID mutilate the abdomen (and not least the vagina) of the Pinchin Street victim, but R J fends that point off by saying that the shallow cut to the abdomen seems to possibly implicate a hesitating killer, who could not stomach the idea of opening the abomen up on his victim.

Now, if we consider it ”poor form” to look at the earlier victims in the Torso series, R J has some sort of a point.

But once we look at the Rainham victim, the Whitehall victim and Liz Jackson - who were with great certainty victims of the same killer as per Charles Hebbert - we can see that there was never any problem to stomach cutting his victims up on the killers behalf in those three cases. On the contrary, the abdomens were sliced open in two of these cases, and the victims were all cut in pieces. The trunks of two of the victims were cut in three parts, and in the Jackson case, we know that the uterus and itīs appendages were cut out of the body and wrapped up in two large jagged panes of flesh from the abdominal wall. We also know that Jacksons lungs and heart were removed, arguably by the killer. And the Rainham victim also lacked heart and lungs, making our insights from the Jackson case suggest very clearly that the killer lay behind this matter in the Rainham case too.

Once the suggestion is made that the Torso killer seems to have been a hesitating cutter, unable to bring himself to open a victim up, how on earth can it be ”poor form” to prove that we actually know that this was never the case? If anything, our knowledge about the earlier victims tells us that the lacking eviscerations in the Pinchin Street case must have had another reason - the killer chose not to eviscerate although he could have done so. That is interesting per se, and should create another discussion altogether than one of the killer being squeamish and therefore not the same man as the Ripper.

[Kattrup]

he was mainly a dismemberer, but he was also most definitely a post mortem mutilator.

Hello Abby

I disagree; the torso victims had no unnecessary cuts (besides the Pinchin victim, as mentioned).

The killer did not play with their bodies, he merely cut them up.
Whereas the ripper spent mutilating and exploring his victims’ bodies.

[Fiver]

We cannot know - but we can speculate: the killer wanted recognition for being the originator of both series.

Your theory quickly falls apart - if the killer wanted recognition for committing both series of crimes, then why didn't he do anything to get that recognition?

[Fiver]

The only caveat I'd make is that the authors of the '762 cases' called for further research, and so I'd place it in that context.

Another caveat is that they were only studying cases of sexual homicide. That means they were only studying offensive, not defensive actions.

[Fiver]

You may have, Fleetwood! I have commented on this matter numerous times. We know that it was suggested that the killer of Mary Kelly tried to decapitate her by way of knife. There were deep notches to the vertebrae to make that suggestion.

That is evidence against Kelly being murdered by the Torso Killer. A man who had the skills to perform decapitations in 1887 wouldn't be fumbling about and failing at the task like the man who killed Kelly.

[Filby]

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:

.







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.

I have enjoyed reading this forum and too find it a bit refreshing. You have enlightened me, for certain, on offensive/defensive dismemberment. Perhaps I may have missed this, but my concern is that knowing what we don't know, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive during one killing. Do they? I would imagine either can evolve from either in a killer's mind.

[Abby Normal]

Very good post, RJ.

I too have argued that the mention of the gash being preparatory to dismemberment invalidates the claim that the Torso killer was an eviscerator or postmortem mutilator or whatever.

he was mainly a dismemberer, but he was also most definitely a post mortem mutilator.