The Paris Torso Mystery

[The Rookie Detective]

I confirm that Paul-Charles Ferdinand (also known as Antoine Vincenzini) was born in 1882, so he was indeed 28 years old at the time of the Parisian crime in 1910. Therefore, he could not have committed either the Montrouge crime in 1886 or the Rue Botzaris crime in 1892.

Hi Charlie


Thankyou so much for your reply and confirmation of that data.

I have spent some time reading up on the 1910 case and had initially found Charles Ferdinand, but then subsequently discovered his first name was actually Paul.

I find the idea that he confessed after the police found the key to the victims room in the drawer of his own room very interesting.
He initially denied all involvement but then confessed after the police found that room key.

At least we know conclusively that he couldnt have committed the Rue Botzaris murder or the Montrouge murder due to his age.

It does highlight that even though there the 1910 and 1892 dismemberment murders were committed in the same area of Paris, that there can be DIFFERENT culprits.

That may also be applicable to the Torso killings in London.

I have found something rather fascinating that nobody has discovered before...

I was going to start a new thread based on something I found, but I may post on here as it concerns the 1910 Paris torso killing.

RD

[Charlie]

You have the art of teasing, dear DR!
I can't wait to learn more about your discovery.
Charlie

[The Rookie Detective]

You have the art of teasing, dear DR!
I can't wait to learn more about your discovery.
Charlie

Charlie, I have just started a New Thread after all so as not to go off topic on your thread here.

Although that said, they are linked.


The new thread... "Bachert NEW timeline evidence...and a confession"


I have discovered that BEFORE Ferdinand confessed to the murder of Vandamme, a suspect in the Ripper case also made that claim...

Albert Bachert aka Albert Behaut confessed to the murder in March 1910 shortly after the killing.

It has been a mystery for decades as to where Bachert went...and I found he went to Paris... but then confessed to dismembering a prostitute.

Does that increase his likelihood of him having been Jack the Ripper?

I love this stuff ha ha


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD
I hope you will place a link to your findings here. I have terrible trouble finding new posts on Casebook, especially those that appear in threads that have no title on the main menu, which includes the Paris torso thread and the torso/ripper link thread. I never had these kinds of problems navigating Casebook until a couple of years ago, now I find it a nightmare. I know I'm getting older but I'm not completely senile yet but I feel it whenever I visit Casebook!

…apologies for going off topic but it's not really off topic because it concerns how many people can easily access these posts I guess...gawd I AM old, I'm rambling on now.

Hi Debra


Thank you kindly for your post.


I have discovered that Albert Bachert moved to Paris...and in 1910 he confessed to the murder, mutilation, and dismemberment of an 18 year old prostitute named Elisa Vandamme.

He went by the name of Albert Behaut

He jumped into the river Seine to "try" and commit suicide, but was saved and a note was found in his pocket.

He then openly confessed.

BUT... a few months later a man named Paul Charles Ferdinand (thanks to Charlie for confirming his name) also confessed and he was convicted of the murder instead.

But was Ferdinand wrongfully convicted?


So my question is...WHY did Bachert confess to the murder?

Was he up to his old fantasizing tricks again to get attention?

Or, by making such a confession, does it now promote him to being an actual official suspect in the Jack the Ripper killings? Bearing in mind that I believe the Paris murders and Ripper killings were linked.

I started a new thread entitled "Bachert NEW timeline evidence...and a confession..."


Please check it out and give me feedback.


kindest regards


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

I give you Mr Albert Behaut... (Bachert)...

*I posted this on the new thread


Interesting...

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Charlie, this photo of Behaut is from March 1910 but published in an English newspaper


It seems to be Behaut's only appearance in an English newspaper.


I was therefore wondering if you were able to work your magic and look into the French Newspapers and look for Behaut?

We are looking at March 1910 initially.

I bet you he appears in the French Newspapers, especially the Parisian publications.

The French newspapers will either support my claim that he's Bachert, or confirm I am talking twaddle and have made a gross error.

I am confident that I am correct though and am predicting that Behaut turns out to be Bachert and that I have finally discovered what happened to him.

I have no access to the French newspapers, neither am I able to translate, and so I am at a standstill with my findings on Behaut.

Are you able to take this to the next step and find Behaut in the French publications?


Kindest regards

RD

[Charlie]

Charlie, this photo of Behaut is from March 1910 but published in an English newspaper

It seems to be Behaut's only appearance in an English newspaper.
I was therefore wondering if you were able to work your magic and look into the French Newspapers and look for Behaut?
We are looking at March 1910 initially.
I bet you he appears in the French Newspapers, especially the Parisian publications.
The French newspapers will either support my claim that he's Bachert, or confirm I am talking twaddle and have made a gross error.
I am confident that I am correct though and am predicting that Behaut turns out to be Bachert and that I have finally discovered what happened to him.
I have no access to the French newspapers, neither am I able to translate, and so I am at a standstill with my findings on Behaut.
Are you able to take this to the next step and find Behaut in the French publications?
Kindest regards
RD

Hello RD,

I had already started searching on the Gallica website of the Bibliothèque nationale de France yesterday, which has digitized a vast amount of 19th-century newspapers. I also checked RetroNews, a press archives site. I just repeated my search, but unfortunately, I can't find any mention anywhere of an Albert Behaut in the French press.

I tried "Behault," "Behaud," "Behaux" just in case there was a typo in your English article, but found nothing.
I'll try another way.

Charlie

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Charlie


Absolutely brilliant!

I appreciate you working with me on this, as my capabilities as a researcher are very much limited in comparison to yours and so I am very grateful for your input and guidance.

My hypothesis is dead in the water without your help.

I noticed there were also the names "Brehaut" and "Berhaut" that could be possibilities.

I think it's almost certain that Behaut is a mis-spelling.

It would ironic if it was actually Bachert or Backert and his name had been in the French press all this time without anyone having made the connection before.

ha ha


RD

[New Ford Shunt]

Charlie I just wanted to congratulate you on your excellent article in Ripperologist 171. A fascinating read with so many parallels with the 1887 to 1889 London torso investigations.

I've got a couple of questions for you if you don't mind. I'll number them for ease of commenting:

1. Do you have an opinion on which French newspapers were more reliable than others? I'm assuming Le Figaro is the equivalent of The Times in the UK, but with regard to the other newspaper mentioned, were they more for scandal or accurate news reporting?
2. You mention that the body showed evidence of having been into contact with Phenol? When you say Phenol are we talking about readily available 'domestic' carbolic acid that could be brought over the counter at this time and that the body had been cleaned/wiped with it? Or are we saying the body has been soaked in pure Phenol as a means of preserving the body? I am not sure what anatomy schools in France used at this time to preserve bodies, so the point I'm trying to get at is was the use of 'Phenol' indicative of the victim having been killed in a domestic environment or if she had been an anatomical subject from a medical school?
3. Following on from the above point, one of the newspapers mentions that the inside of her thorax had been wiped clean with Phenol. Does that mean her lungs and heart were missing? I can only find reference to her intestines being removed (and presumably her womb). Were any other organs removed?
4. The left breast that was found in the Seine, given the medical men stated it wasn't from the Montrouge victim, but had come from the body of a woman with cancer, this would suggest that the woman whose breast it was had had an operation to have the breast removed. How then did it end up in the river? Did Parisian hospitals have a history of discarding body parts illicitly?

Many thanks

Edit: thought of another question!

[Charlie]

Thank you for your message, which I have just seen. I'm glad the article caught your interest. As soon as I have a few minutes, I'll try to answer your questions. Thanks again!

[Charlie]

Charlie I just wanted to congratulate you on your excellent article in Ripperologist 171. A fascinating read with so many parallels with the 1887 to 1889 London torso investigations.

I've got a couple of questions for you if you don't mind. I'll number them for ease of commenting:

1. Do you have an opinion on which French newspapers were more reliable than others? I'm assuming Le Figaro is the equivalent of The Times in the UK, but with regard to the other newspaper mentioned, were they more for scandal or accurate news reporting?
2. You mention that the body showed evidence of having been into contact with Phenol? When you say Phenol are we talking about readily available 'domestic' carbolic acid that could be brought over the counter at this time and that the body had been cleaned/wiped with it? Or are we saying the body has been soaked in pure Phenol as a means of preserving the body? I am not sure what anatomy schools in France used at this time to preserve bodies, so the point I'm trying to get at is was the use of 'Phenol' indicative of the victim having been killed in a domestic environment or if she had been an anatomical subject from a medical school?
3. Following on from the above point, one of the newspapers mentions that the inside of her thorax had been wiped clean with Phenol. Does that mean her lungs and heart were missing? I can only find reference to her intestines being removed (and presumably her womb). Were any other organs removed?
4. The left breast that was found in the Seine, given the medical men stated it wasn't from the Montrouge victim, but had come from the body of a woman with cancer, this would suggest that the woman whose breast it was had had an operation to have the breast removed. How then did it end up in the river? Did Parisian hospitals have a history of discarding body parts illicitly?

Many thanks

Edit: thought of another question!

Hi New Ford Shunt
Here are some elements of response. I hope this will satisfy you.

1. All the newspapers mentioned were highly read at the time, but they covered a fairly wide spectrum of political opinions. It's important to remember that in 1886, only 15 years had passed since the end of the war against Prussia and the tragic end of the Paris Commune (a civil war that caused nearly 20,000 deaths in the capital). As a result, the press included both republican newspapers (such as Le XIXe siècle, La Lanterne), monarchist ones (Le Gaulois), conservative publications (Le Figaro), and even some from the far-left (Le Cri du peuple). As for La Gazette des Tribunaux, it was a newspaper specifically focused on legal affairs, with its editorial work entrusted to legal professionals, particularly lawyers.
Among the so-called "popular" dailies, the most well-known was undoubtedly Le Petit Journal, distinguished by its low cost (making it accessible to the working classes) and its apolitical stance. The Troppmann affair, named after the assassin who killed an entire family in September 1869, caused a surge in its sales. In the same vein, one could mention Le Petit Parisien and La Petite Presse.
However, while these popular newspapers were more interested in sensational stories than the more political ones, none were known to distort reality to sell more copies.

2. Yes, it's phenol, also known as "carbolic acid" or "phenic acid," primarily used as an antiseptic but also for meat preservation. This antiseptic is no longer used today due to its high skin irritability.
I hope I'm not mistaken in stating that it was available over the counter in France at that time. By comparison, for instance, I found that carbolic acid was listed in Appendix B of the 1885 pharmacy law in Quebec, meaning it was among the list of drugs that could be sold without a pharmacist's license, provided it was labeled clearly with its contents.
In 1890, carbolic acid moved to Appendix A, making it a substance that only pharmacists, or doctors with a pharmacist's license, could prepare and sell to patients.
Therefore, the presence of phenol on the debris doesn't necessarily mean the body was dismembered in a medical environment. Phenol could have been found in a back kitchen or a cutting workshop.
If the police pursued the hospital lead at some point, it was more out of desperation, as the smell of phenol might have suggested the body was being preserved for medical study by students.

3. Unfortunately, without an autopsy report, it's hard to be precise about this. However, the writers of Le XIXe siècle and Le Matin simply state that the chest was washed, without specifying with what (they don't mention phenol). With water, pure or soapy? From what I understand, the murderer mainly focused on cleaning away the blood so not a single drop would remain. Was it to avoid leaving traces by moving the body? Out of fetishism?
As for the missing internal organs, I can confirm only the intestines and genital organs were absent. For the rest, it seems that the lungs and heart were present in their usual places.

4. I admit this detail also leaves me a bit skeptical. It's known that corpse trafficking has existed for ages to provide medical students with study specimens, but I don't see why body parts would be thrown into the Seine (they're mostly incinerated). However, we shouldn't exclude the possibility of a tasteless joke here. The case of the dismembered woman was front-page news, and it was known they were searching for the left breast. A medical student might have amused themselves by tossing a breast from a recent operation hoping it would be found and create a stir.

[New Ford Shunt]

Thank you Charlie for the clarification. It's intriguing that the perpetrator removed the head, genitals (and presumably reproductive organs) and one breast.

[SchirrGenius]

Hi Jeff,
You're right, it's likely that the murderer had a means of transportation, whatever it may be. The newspapers report that the night before, a employee noticed a carriage with several packages moving slowly through the deserted streets of the neighborhood.

Furthermore, several other people claimed that around 11:30 PM, they saw an individual dragging a heavily loaded handcart. As for the order I suggested (1 = Avenue d'Orléans, 2 = rue d'Alésia, 3 = rue Giordano Bruno), it seems to have been adopted by the Parisian police (the equivalent of the London CID).

As for why the packages were left visible to passersby (except for package 3, which is why I believe it was disturbed and thrown into the bushes), it's a mystery... and I think it will remain one...

I've been wondering if you would follow up on The Petite Ceinture cave-in with evidence that the murderer was attempting to hide the body in the Catacombs. I've been told by three Parisiennes now that the abandoned rail line remains the best way to (illegally) access the Catacombs. Has that been something you've heard as well, or is that Internet bravado?

Is this concept something you intend to discuss in your next Ripperologist article? I loved your first and am eagerly awaiting more of your thorough research.

Thank you so much for your inspiration.

[Charlie]

Hello SchirrGenius, thank you for your message!

There is very little information regarding the collapse of the tunnel on the Petite Ceinture line that occurred in August 1886, shortly before the discovery of the body parts. Tunnel collapses of this kind were not uncommon in the 19th century. Since the Parisian basement is riddled with countless quarries (commonly referred to as "the catacombs"), especially in this area of the 14th arrondissement, engineers from the General Inspection of Quarries (IGC) were very concerned about such accidents. One of their missions since the late 18th century was precisely to reinforce sections of the underground that were considered too unstable.
In my opinion, the killer did not intend to hide the body parts in the catacombs. As I mentioned, I believe they were more interested in making a sensation and leaving the parts in places where they would be easily seen.

However, your message caught my attention, and I went to dig through my (unofficial) maps of the catacombs. There are some very detailed ones created by “cataphiles” (urban exploration enthusiasts). They have catalogued the current access points to the underground quarries in the districts south of the Seine (Left Bank). The result is clear: the three sites where the body parts were found are all in close proximity to a "service shaft with rungs", meaning one of the access points to the catacombs.

In the catacombs map below (excerpt), I’ve marked with red stars the locations where the body parts were found and with red arrows the nearest catacomb access points. There’s barely 100 metres between Saint-Pierre-de-Montrouge Church and the access at the corner of Rue d’Alésia, and similarly, there’s barely 100 metres between the beginning of Rue Giordano Bruno and the two catacomb access points. For the urinal at the corner of Rue des Plantes and Rue d’Alésia, the access is just three or four metres away!
What to make of this? Did the killer have an in-depth knowledge of the labyrinth of the catacombs and plan to escape through the underground galleries in case they were caught in the act? It’s possible. And, to be honest, your message allows me to consider the case from a new perspective...

As for the three Parisian women who told you that the Petite Ceinture line was the best way to access the catacombs, they are only partially right. While it’s true that the line’s path contains several access points to the catacombs, they are by no means the only possible access points. There are many others...