In “The killers of women and the introuvable addiction”, the Poitevin historian draws up a gallery of portraits of the great French criminals of the 19th century. And asks: why did these feminicides then go unnoticed?
Frédéric Chauvaud is a professor of contemporary history at the University of Poitiers, specializing in criminal justice. Author of numerous works devoted to violence against women, he publishes “Les tueurs de femmes et l’addiction introuvable, an archeology of serial killers” published by Le Manuscrit on April 19. He granted us an interview.
France 3 :
Until not so long ago, we weren’t interested in female killers. This is the postulate of your departure from your book. You write that in 19th century society, “women victims, except in so-called crimes of passion, are of little interest and are invisible“. Seen from the 21st, it is quite shocking…
Frederic Chauvaud:
Women killers, and in particular serial killers, have long passed completely under the radar of society. Word “féminicide” in itself only entered the dictionary in 2015, proof that it is a very recent interest. So yes, this lack of interest is shocking. From the 19th century to the day after the First World War, a few crimes of passion were reported in the newspapers and again, these were mainly those that took place in social circles or the aristocracy. The great court reporters, who shape public opinion and sell paper, are then invited to the trial. But when the victim is a woman from a modest or ordinary background, we don’t talk about it. And more surprisingly, when it’s a prostitute, the police completely botches the investigation and we move on.
At that moment, no one realizes that it is, each time, the same assassin. It was not until his arrest that we realized that it was he who had killed all these unfortunates.
France 3 :
And for serial killers, is it the same thing?
Frederic Chauvaud:
Yes. The first to be detected was Joseph Philippe, in the Paris of the years 1850-1860. It’s a bit like the ancestor of Jack the Ripper who raged in London at the end of the 1880s if you will. Like him, he attacked prostitutes. Philippe cut off their necks. In the press of the time, we find a discourse more than misogynistic, almost contemptuous where the victims are described as “amorales” and of “filthy beasts”. As if we considered that what happened to them was part of the inconveniences of the job. Without looking any further. So at that moment, no one realizes that it is, each time, the same assassin. It was not until his arrest that we realized that it was he who had killed all these unfortunates.
–
France 3 :
Have there been other similar cases?
Frederic Chauvaud:
Around the same time, under the Second Empire, there was also Martin Dumollard, the assassin of servants. Like Joseph Philippe, he always attacked the same type of victims, but he was the servants in the Lyon region. Dumollard knew that if the maids disappeared without a trace, it wasn’t going to be of much interest to the courts. We are not sure when he committed his first crime, we do not know either how many victims he had, but we think that he probably acted for ten or fifteen years before being unmasked, tried and then sentenced to death.
France 3 :
And at that time, neither Dumollard nor Philippe were qualified as serial killers?
Frederic Chauvaud:
No, and yet, a great fantasy begins to win over the police and justice of the time: it is the question of recidivism. There is great concern that a certain number of criminals may start again. But for these killers of women, no one mentioned the fact that they were serial killers.
Each time, it is put on the account of an exceptional crime. We say to ourselves “yes, he killed several people” but the reflection does not go further.
France 3 :
Is it the word that did not exist or was it simply inconceivable?
Frederic Chauvaud:
The two. At that time, each time, it is put on the account of an exceptional crime. We tell ourselves “yes, he killed several people” but the reflection does not go further. We do not question the repetition of the gesture, and its meaning. Going back to Dumollard for example, it’s obvious: it’s really the same modus operandi. He picks them up in Lyon, takes them to the countryside with their trunk containing all their belongings and their savings. He walks them around and then he kills them. The autopsies aren’t very accurate, but it’s believed he probably sexually assaulted them before burying their bodies.
France 3 :
If the operating mode was the same, justice and the police had all the data in hand to make the link. Why did the hypothesis of a serial killer have such a hard time establishing itself?
Frederic Chauvaud:
Several reasons can explain this. Firstly because at the time, it was unthinkable. I remind you that in 1970 in France, it was still said that the serial killer did not exist in France, that it was an American invention that could not happen here. So you can imagine that a century before, it was even less possible. And then, we must not forget that in the 19th century, women were not considered equal. The judicial society is uniquely male. In the jury of twelve people, there are only men. The magistrates are all men. Ditto for lawyers, clerks and court experts. If a woman disappears it’s less serious than if it’s a man. And if, in addition, she is not married, it is considered that she is not worthy of interest. It’s not expressed like that openly, but we can see it.
–
France 3 :
Which would explain why society at the time didn’t want to see what was going on…
Frederic Chauvaud:
Those who had the means did not want to see, but there are also those who could have seen. For example, in court, the juries could have information via the report of the psychiatric experts. Already at the time, some crimes truly defied comprehension. We were looking for explanations. But the experts and other psychiatric specialists did not point in the right direction, because they did not want to see. What interested them at that time was to try to explain the acting out. Fixed idea, degeneration, there have been several theories.
France 3 :
And you, what are you interested in?
Frederic Chauvaud:
In this book, I wonder about the meaning of the criminal act. While digging into the question of feminicide, which I have been interested in for a long time, I wondered if there were older traces of what in the 19th century was called crimes of passion. When I came across these Dumollard, Philippe, and other cases, I realized that feminicides were not contemporary phenomena at all.
I try at my level to bring an expert look at the dysfunctions of the society of the past so that the past does not repeat itself.
France 3 :
What resonance can your book have today?
Frederic Chauvaud:
If in the 19th century, we had pushed the investigations further, that we had tried to make links between the different cases, we would have realized that they were the work of the same criminal. And we might have been able to save a few unfortunates. The question arises in the same way today and for all feminicides. There has to be an awareness, a will. There must also be coordination between all those who can carry out the investigations for It’savoid taking action. However, we have seen it again lately, sometimes unfortunately not everything has been done. An actor in the channel was not up to his task, we did not give credit to the word of the victim. Even after the “metoo” movement, this awareness has not yet been fully realized. I try at my level to bring an expert look at the dysfunctions of the society of the past so that the past does not repeat itself.
–
–
