stabbed her as he broke into her kitchen. Moreover, if the victims had been stabbed while in an upright position, the blood from the jugular vein would have spurted, possibly to a distance of several feet. The lack of blood spatter at any of the crime scenes ruled that out.
Vacher’s “maneuver of choice,” wrote Lacassagne, was so efficient that he never was wounded or scratched. In two cases—those of Louise Marcel and Pierre Laurent—strangulation was incomplete, and although the victims struggled, as indicated by defensive wounds, they were not able to resist in any serious way. In only one case, that of Madame Plantier, did the victim escape as Vacher was executing the first part of his maneuver.
“It is certain that Vacher was behind the head or on one side of the victim [when he slashed them]; otherwise, he would have been literally covered with blood,” wrote Lacassagne. “The blood spread onto the earth without reaching Vacher. This would explain why there was very little blood on his clothing.”
Medical examiners noted that the backs of the clothing were blood-saturated and that the organs and hearts of the victims had been completely drained. As for the puddles of blood, Lacassagne deduced that the first one revealed the initial attack, where Vacher killed the victim and let as much blood as possible drain away. He would then drag the body out ofthe puddle to a second spot, where, now that it was lifeless, he would proceed with mutilation or rape. Finally, he would move the body to a hiding place—behind rocks, under bushes, or in a hollow covered with branches or leaves. In some cases, he would make a hasty attempt to cover the bloody puddles with dirt.
Then he would walk for many miles, often through the night, putting enough distance between himself and the crime scene to escape the initial search parties. He always carried a change of clothing and frequently shaved and then regrew his mustache and beard.
“One has to ask,” wrote Lacassagne, “if the constant repetition of this series of bloody maneuvers is the work of a cannibal—but a responsible cannibal—or, to the contrary, of an unconscious lunatic.” To the professor, the entire progression of the crimes, despite their perversity, indicated the kind of planning and presence of mind that only a sane man could possess. “There is no doubt he chose the hour, the victim, the place.” From the moment Vacher began stalking each victim, “he obeyed a preconceived plan that followed a deliberate and logical process according to systematic ideas.… He encountered numerous travelers along the main routes, but his rage never overtook him. It only happened far from habitation.”
His killing technique was fast and efficient, executed with a “precision and practice” that demonstrated a “calm, imperturbable intent.” The killer’s actions “would take audacity, sangfroid, a total self-possession.”
Lacassagne pointed out that during the course of Vacher’s peregrinations, there were particular episodes when he demonstrated the kind of lucidity one did not associate with a madman. After he killed the widow Morand, he locked her door and threw away the key, prolonging the gap between crime and discovery. Minutes after he killed Aline Alaise, when a farmer in a horse-drawn carriage came upon him, Vacher had the presence of mind to make up a story about having an accident that gave him a bloody nose. When a policeman caught up with him after he attacked twelve-year-old Alphonsine Derouet, he was clever enough to win the officer’s confidence and send him off on a chase for the “real” suspect.
Once Vacher killed his victim, he would sometimes slip into an erotic frenzy. Yet, even those actions, in Lacassagne’s view, would not exempt Vacher from legal responsibility, for they took place after his carefully planned executions. At that point, “the complete possession of the cadaver exalts him; then, and only then, can he freely
Vacher’s “maneuver of choice,” wrote Lacassagne, was so efficient that he never was wounded or scratched. In two cases—those of Louise Marcel and Pierre Laurent—strangulation was incomplete, and although the victims struggled, as indicated by defensive wounds, they were not able to resist in any serious way. In only one case, that of Madame Plantier, did the victim escape as Vacher was executing the first part of his maneuver.
“It is certain that Vacher was behind the head or on one side of the victim [when he slashed them]; otherwise, he would have been literally covered with blood,” wrote Lacassagne. “The blood spread onto the earth without reaching Vacher. This would explain why there was very little blood on his clothing.”
Medical examiners noted that the backs of the clothing were blood-saturated and that the organs and hearts of the victims had been completely drained. As for the puddles of blood, Lacassagne deduced that the first one revealed the initial attack, where Vacher killed the victim and let as much blood as possible drain away. He would then drag the body out ofthe puddle to a second spot, where, now that it was lifeless, he would proceed with mutilation or rape. Finally, he would move the body to a hiding place—behind rocks, under bushes, or in a hollow covered with branches or leaves. In some cases, he would make a hasty attempt to cover the bloody puddles with dirt.
Then he would walk for many miles, often through the night, putting enough distance between himself and the crime scene to escape the initial search parties. He always carried a change of clothing and frequently shaved and then regrew his mustache and beard.
“One has to ask,” wrote Lacassagne, “if the constant repetition of this series of bloody maneuvers is the work of a cannibal—but a responsible cannibal—or, to the contrary, of an unconscious lunatic.” To the professor, the entire progression of the crimes, despite their perversity, indicated the kind of planning and presence of mind that only a sane man could possess. “There is no doubt he chose the hour, the victim, the place.” From the moment Vacher began stalking each victim, “he obeyed a preconceived plan that followed a deliberate and logical process according to systematic ideas.… He encountered numerous travelers along the main routes, but his rage never overtook him. It only happened far from habitation.”
His killing technique was fast and efficient, executed with a “precision and practice” that demonstrated a “calm, imperturbable intent.” The killer’s actions “would take audacity, sangfroid, a total self-possession.”
Lacassagne pointed out that during the course of Vacher’s peregrinations, there were particular episodes when he demonstrated the kind of lucidity one did not associate with a madman. After he killed the widow Morand, he locked her door and threw away the key, prolonging the gap between crime and discovery. Minutes after he killed Aline Alaise, when a farmer in a horse-drawn carriage came upon him, Vacher had the presence of mind to make up a story about having an accident that gave him a bloody nose. When a policeman caught up with him after he attacked twelve-year-old Alphonsine Derouet, he was clever enough to win the officer’s confidence and send him off on a chase for the “real” suspect.
Once Vacher killed his victim, he would sometimes slip into an erotic frenzy. Yet, even those actions, in Lacassagne’s view, would not exempt Vacher from legal responsibility, for they took place after his carefully planned executions. At that point, “the complete possession of the cadaver exalts him; then, and only then, can he freely
Similar Books
