Much of what I told this reporter about the possibility of a relationship between the Zodiac case and the Monster, conspiracy theories involving groups of men and Satanism did not make it into the article. I don’t know if he plans to do a follow-up at some point though.

Hi,

Here is a longer article on the profile of the Monster of Florence. It is from a publication called L’Eco di Toscana:

Monster of Florence, there is a new track coming from the United States. The investigative writer Michael Rodelli, known in the United States for his investigative book on the Zodiac killer, continues it. Rodelli, in his literary experience, worked with leading American profilers. For this reason he wanted to analyze the criminal psychology of the Monster of Florence from a different perspective.

"For years- said Rodelli – the investigators, the media, and more generally all those who followed the story of the Monster of Florence, have suffered the fascination of the gun. I think we should try to change our point of view: it is the blade that we should focus on in my opinion. The blade and the mental deviations that come from the blade. In my opinion, the thing that to some extent has protected the Monster over the years has been the collective fascination for the Beretta 70 series pistol and the Winchester H-Series shells over the years."

The American writer’s thesis starts from the analysis of the various cases to arrive at a new hypothesis compared to those examined over time and analyzed also by all the writers who have worked on the subject. Based on the knowledge acquired over time, he focused on classifying serial killers based on the emotional reactions that trigger the instinct to kill. "For this kind of crimes – added Michael Rodelli – we regulate four main categories of murderers. Two are based on the need for power of these criminal minds, two on the need to express anger."

But the Monster of Florence for profilers in which category could be inserted? By way of example, the Zodiac, the serial killer who killed five people in California in the late 1960s, would kill for the sake of power and control of power; while they were killing excited by anger Jeffrey Dahmer (the Milwaukee monster) or Jack the Ripper. "These last kinds of serial killers – said Michael Rodelli – love to torture their victims. They can evolve over time along their criminal paths, so much so that they practice necrophilia (such as Ted Bundy, or Jeffey Dahmer) and, finally, cannibalism (Dahmer).

A paraphilia practiced by some sexual sadists is known as piquerism. This is the derivation of sexual arousal from stabbing or otherwise penetrating into an individual’s body, either with a knife or perhaps, according to some profilers, from a sniper activity. Jack the Ripper was a classic piquerist, whose knife mutilation has progressed continuously throughout his crimes culminating in the near-complete annihilation of his latest victim, Mary Jane Kelly.

The Monster is a lone killer suffering from piquerism
According to the American writer, the Monster of Florence is a solitary piquerist who drew sadistic and sexual satisfaction from the use of the knife. "The monster of Florence – said Rodelli – left his signature in the blood at every crime scene. There is one in particular that is the key to dismantling the thesis of "snack companions" as an organized gang that collected fetishes on commission for a hypothetical higher level, or a sect that used them for their dark rituals. We must put behind us the concept of ‘behind-the-scenes’ and its complexities. The case is not so complex and looking at it in a way that leads to more murderers and secret cabals tarnishes the picture. In my opinion, the Monster was, according to his crime scenes, a solitary sexual sadist, and on this we must orient ourselves"

The crime scene would be that of Borgo San Lorenzo in September 1974, when the Monster killed Stefania Pettini and Pasquale Gentilcore. "In Borgo San Lorenzo – said Rodelli – the Monster left by shooting the two victims. He then dragged Stefania Pettini out of the car and stabbed her more than ninety times. Only three of those wounds were potentially fatal, the rest being superficial wounds, as if he wanted to "prick" her body with the knife. Pubis excision was not performed.

because? If fellow snackers had been paid by their rich "satanic benefactors" to collect these organs, why did they take the time to stab the poor girl so many times but didn’t collect the only item that would bring them the money they allegedly were looking for? what was presumably their goal? The Monster also unnecessarily stabbed Pasquale Gentilcore, despite having already died. Why did he do it if the goal was anything else?"

The 1974 crime for the American writer was the first evolution of the accomplished maniac. The superficial "sting" of Stefania Pettini’s body with the knife would represent piquerism, which is a kind of curious survey of the body with the blade. "The desecration of the girl’s body – said the American writer – with a vine snock may not necessarily have been the sign of helplessness (as evidenced by the first profile of the monster made by the FBI in the late 1980s) but piquerism.

The Monster of Florence and its criminal evolutions
This man didn’t wake up one day and suddenly became The Monster. It has evolved over time. Moreover, it has been proven by profilers and forensic psychologists that piquerism, almost completely unknown in 1974 but today known and accepted paraphilia, includes not only the two stab wounds to the male victim but also sniper activities (that is, gunshots) and in some cases bites or other modes of penetration. That’s why Borgo San Lorenzo was the turning point. After Borgo San Lorenzo, the killer had seven years to fantasize about what he had done, then evolved to the next level: the collection of female fetishes, like his trophies".

The theme of ‘trophies’ is further to be explored. "This is a sensitive issue – said Michael Rodelli again – that should be addressed by an elite profiler. To date, no one has wanted to try their hand at this difficult task precisely because these are the most difficult cases. There are many questions on the pitch. What was the use of these fetishes? Did they serve to relive his crimes and perhaps feel pleasure in contemplating them while staying safe inside the house? Or could it be much darker than that? There could also be another aspect, an abyss in truth: could those fetishes have been consumed?

Cannibalism as a way to make victims part of him. There are many questions that remain open even about the identity of this serial killer who could be identified in my opinion by examining his evolutionary path in the years before 1974. What was he doing ten and twenty years before 1974? What kind of crimes could he have been arrested for? What mistakes or youthful behaviors may have revealed who would eventually become? 2) Since the last murder in 1985 has it evolved once again into something else? And most importantly, is he dead or maybe he’s still alive somewhere?"

The Final Appeal
"We should try to move public opinion – concluded Rodelli – trying to ask the people who lived through that era to think of someone who as a young man was fascinated by knives, not guns. Maybe someone who liked to stab or impale small animals or even randomly sting relatives or other people with pins or small tools or knives. I think people with such strange inclinations could still stand out in the minds of family and friends. I also think that one of the best professional profilers on the square could revisit the whole case all over again. Because in my opinion stabbing the signs found at the crime scenes clearly represent piquerism, as well as sniper activity. The monster’s fascination was for a knife, not a gun. Let’s try to get the Beretta out of his hand and arm him with a knife. Thinking about it when I was young. It could be a new point of view.

Pretty sure that Pacciani and his mates were the monster. They were peeping in the woods at the time. Also, the original recordings and trial testimonies leave no doubt about how disturbed Pacciani was. I do not like this way of pretending that we have no clue about who the monster was. Though non conclusively, there’s a high probability we do.

I could not disagree more. The motive for Pacciani was what? They were collecting pubic skin for Narducci for Satanic rituals for payment? Narducci was not in the grave then they dug it up and switched bodies? Dietrologia. The Monster was not among those who included the village idiot of San Casciano and a torsolo. Yes, Pacciani had killed someone as a young man but that was under much different circumstances from what drove the Monster. One murder is not like the next. If the group did not kill for money it would be very odd for a few people to have the same strange desire to mutilate women in a bizarre way like that. But you are free to believe what you like. And the judges excoriated the prosecutors over their "evidence" when they exonerated the defendants, right?

Do serial killers have motives? That’s new to me.

Pacciani was the leader, it’s quite clear from the testimonies. He probably was the one with paraphilias.

Two witnesses identified Pacciani and Vanni as the killers. Both witnesses were deemed mentally able, though not having a high IQ. One later incriminated himself and served 30 years.

Pacciani is a dead ringer for the police sketch.

He was awaiting a third trial when he died.

You know all these things. To me, they seem pretty straightforward, unless two people made up their testimonies, one of them spending the rest of his life in prison.

Hi,
The judge excoriated the evidence against Pacciani, no? "Half a clue and half a clue make no clue?," something like that? Lotti said Pacciani and Vanni did the Scopeti crimes together. Could either of them have chased Jean-Michel and caught him from behind? Vanni was no spring chicken either. Pacciani was riddled with ailments. Pacciani was not 1.8 meters tall, as determined from TWO crime scenes, not just Giogoli.

I say it was just one person with a sick perversion who was the criminal. No need for Satanists or compagni di merende. Time will tell if I’m right or wrong. Who was a piquerist? That is the question.

I agree completely about the fact that piquerism is the salient trait of the Monster of Florence (MdF). I have had this idea in mind for a while, and I am pleased to see that I am not alone believing this. Like you, I have always been convinced that the particular type of stabbing in the 1974 killing of Stefania Pettini represents a clear, strong clue of the sort of paraphilia that is central to the psychology of the MdF. Consider that, on discovering the bodies, the police initially assumed that the killer had used a screwdriver. This gives a clear sense of the peculiar and deliberate way in which the knife had been used. The mutilations of the female victims that took place in the following killings constituted a further stage in the evolutionary path of a piquerist. I suspect that, had the MdF killed again after 1985, at some point he might have also eviscerated the women. I also agree that the use of a gun (the Beretta 22) in the initial phase of the killing was little more than instrumental, it was a means to an end (which was that of obtaining pleasure by using the knife).

Unfortunately there is very little scientific literature on piquerism. This is a pity, if only because it is difficult to speculate on its pathogenesis and on its possible behavioural correlates. Nonetheless, some recent research seems capable of providing useful information. For instance, a very recent survey study involving a large community sample (published in the journal "Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity" by Vander Molen and her colleagues) has found a strong correlation between an interest in cutting someone’s skin and an interest in defecating on someone (scatophilia), and also with an interest in having sex with an animal. Further investigation on the nature of these correlations might be really useful in terms of formulating more specific hypotheses on the MdF’s psychopathology.

It is important to note, however, that the context within which the MdF sought to fulfil his piquerist motives was very specific: That of an heterosexual couple performing (or about to perform) some type of sexual activity. The MdF wanted to kill both members of the couple and then exert his piquerism especially, albeit not exclusively, on the dead woman. This is the exact scenario he was after. Consider that when, in 1983, he shot dead two men (almost certainly by mistake), he eventually left the scene without using his knife on the bodies at all. This very distinctive aspect of the MdF’s killings should not be overlooked by profilers.

All the ideas about the "compagni di merende", the "setta esoterica", etc. represent, in my opinion, a colossal mistake. A lot could be said about the reliability of some crucial witnesses against Pacciani, about the many wrong assumptions upon which certain theories were based, and about the cultural milieu (with which I am familiar, being Italian myself) that has fed these theories. But, admittedly, I find these conspiracy theories so bizarre and implausible, that I am not even that interested in discussing them.

Hi Epicurean,

Very interesting reply. I am assuming that the paraphilias you describe of defecation and sex with animals have to do with living sex partners and live animals? Thus the distinction you made of the Monster’s preference for dead female victims? Yes. I do wonder if the defecation and animal sex are transferable to someone who prefers deceased victims. Interesting point.

The monster virtually screams out picquerism, as did Jack the Ripper, for that matter. As for the conspiracy theories the police pursued, I believe that those are endemic to Italian culture and to dietrologia, as Preston talks about in his book. They do tend to take the case way off the rails, I think we agree. As did the Pista Sarda. However, I have no problem wit the initial thought of tracing the gun. It is just that I think they went too far down the path, like the people digging for treasure on Oak Island in maritime Canada, if you know what I mean.

Hi Mike,

We certainly have very similar ideas about this case. But let me tell you a bit more about my general view.

The MdF’s behaviour indicates a very complex psychopathology. Piquerism is certainly the central aspect of this pathology. He clearly finds strong pleasure from sinking the knife into the flesh of his victims. However, the MdF is not content with ‘simply’ using the knife on people. The MdF wants to exert his piquerism on dead people. He uses his knife to cut the clothing of his dead victims, to pick and cut portions of their dead bodies (i.e., the woman’s left breast ad pubis). As a consequence one could say that, in the MdF, piquerism is combined with necrophilia. In fact, in many ways he appears to fall into the categories that Rosman and Resnick (who studied necrophilic acts and fantasies of 122 individuals) call ‘fetishistic necrophiles’ and ‘necromutilomaniacs’. What needs to be emphasised here is that the MdF does not seem to be particularly interested in killing in itself. Although, if necessary, he would use his knife to finish off a victim, it is only after they are dead that he can begin to enact his fantasies.

Therefore, I agree with you that people who lived through the MdF era could be asked to think of someone who as a young man showed an interest in stinging people with pins, knives, or other sharp tools. But I believe that, in addition to that, people should be asked about someone also showing an interest in nailing, pinning, cutting, mutilating, and eviscerating warm dead animal bodies. He would often need to kill the animals himself, in order to operate on their dead bodies, but the killing would have probably been painless as killing was not in itself what he was interested about.

Having said that, the MdF almost certainly had other paraphilias (it is a well-known fact that paraphilias rarely come on their own – people with one paraphilia typically exhibit other paraphilias). Therefore, it is interesting to speculate on what other paraphilias the MdF might have had, in order to make further predictions about the sort of behaviours he might have exhibited as a young man. Some research might help here. Studies have shown that most people with necrophilia also have zoophilia and coprophilia (Rosman & Resnick, 1989). Also, a study found a desire to cut someone’s skin to be often associated with coprophilia and zoophilia (i.e., the study I mentioned in my previous post). Therefore, although piquerism and necrophilia were his central traits, the MdF might have had an interest in coprophilia and zoophilia too. In fact, I would probably go as far as hypothesising that, as a young man, he might have shown an interest in behaviours somehow combining all these paraphilias together.

Why the MdF wanted to act upon the dead bodies of a heterosexual couple who, before dying, were having (or were about to have) sex is very hard to say. One can imagine, however, that this has to do with interpersonal events and dynamics concerning his childhood and adolescence. I have ideas about this aspect of the case, but they are inevitably very speculative and I will not discuss them here.

Concerning the conspiracy theories endorsed by the police (and by a large part of the Italian public), I completely agree with you. Dietrologia is entrenched in the Italian culture. Italians are always looking for something behind the surface of things. They love "mysteries" and will seek one even when the simplest explanation is a perfectly logical and plausible one. Incidentally, this Italian obsession is wonderfully portrayed in “The Foucault’s pendulum”, possibly the best of all Umberto Eco’s novels.

Given my limitations being an amateur researcher with exposure to behavioral profiling I was reluctant to label the Monster a necrophile. The reason for that is that I thought that necrophiles, as the name suggests, loved or made love to the dead. And certainly the Monster showed no love to his deceased female victims merely mutilating them and then walking away.

However, I read Dr. Aggrawal’s article as you suggested and it does appear that the Monster falls into one of his categories of being a necrophile. I’ve written to Dr. Aggrawal to ask him some questions that I hope may shed more light on the Monster and hope that he will respond to me.

In case you receive a response from Dr Aggrawal, I will be really grateful if you let me know what he thinks, either through this forum or, if necessary, by e-mailing me privately. Thanks.

Sure. Will do.

So to make a long story short I have been speaking with dr. Aggrawal and I’m reading his very interesting textbook on necrophilia. I ran some new ideas by him that I had on the case and he was very enthusiastic about them. I’m hoping that I can have another article published in Italy on some of the new ideas I have but until that time I don’t want to preview them.

Because of my limitations as an amateur profiler I did not realize that what the Monster was doing does qualify as necrophilia so I stand not so much corrected on that but it’s just that I was reluctant to speculate on that issue a few weeks ago. But I’m now on board with the fact that he was in fact a necrophile. And I believe that that opens many new doors for identifying him.

I am glad the conversation with Dr Aggrawal was stimulating, and that you are now persuaded that the MdF was essentially a necrophile (with a strong piquerist component). I have little doubts about this interpretation of the Monster’s behaviour. (I am not a profiler myself, but I am a university psychology professor with many years of research experience in the field of psychopathology).

I am looking forward to reading your next piece once this is out!