|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:58 am: | 
|
Hi Glenn,
I have to agree with RJ’s point about a criminal being capable of committing a variety of crimes for a variety of reasons.
For example, I don’t believe Christie killed his wife for the same reason (or in the same way) that he killed all his other female victims, although I have always assumed a connection - perhaps his wife was getting in the way too much or had become too much of a risk to his liberty.
But once someone has taken human life, or committed a crime of any kind, and for any reason, it appears that the barriers are then down for the future, if and when they see an advantage to themselves of getting rid of another person, or committing another sort of crime.
If some serial killers have been known to stop serial killing to signature for a number of years (I believe Dahmer was one), then I don’t see why they would be any less likely, or less capable than anyone else in the world of committing other criminal acts at any time – and that includes murder for profit or convenience.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I am off to London in a couple of hours, so I'll make this short, but I can't say I agree with you.
We are talking about two completely different murder methods here.
You say:
"But once someone has taken human life, or committed a crime of any kind, and for any reason, it appears that the barriers are then down for the future, if and when they see an advantage to themselves of getting rid of another person, or committing another sort of crime."
Yes, but -- once again -- we are talking about two killers here who made several murders in their own right systematically with their own complete different methods. If it was one exception I could maybe accept it, but Chapman poisoned at least three wives and the Ripper mutilated at least four or five, possible more -- each very distinctively different.
I don't buy it. The Ripper mutilated those women in a personal bloody and messy way because that was the fullfillment he was after.
Chapman needed to get rid of his wives and killed them in a cowardly manner -- he saw them die but never had to touch them.
I can't see any similarities and their connection is totally unbelievable. I have never seen a serial killer act this way, not doing both methods, and both for completely different so systematically. As I said, not a serious police officer today would even consider linking these two serial killers together.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t really ‘buy’ Chapman as the ripper either.
I was simply making the point that a killer who has mutilated several victims who could not be linked to him, could also, at any time, kill someone else who could be linked to him, if the need arose, or if there was something in it for him. And he could certainly do it again and again according to his need or greed.
Would a ripper-type killer say to himself, “Damn it. I can’t possibly get that pesky relative out of the way using poison – it’s just not my way”?
Love,
Caz
|
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:08 am: |
|
Hey Glenn,
I'm going to have to agree with Caz here. If Chapman was the Ripper, I don't think his MO change or most importantly, signature change was going through his mind during these murders. I think that he killed in these different ways because he wanted to experiment in different ways.
Peter
Hope your enjoying your trip. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Caz and Peter,
No sorry, Caz. I don't buy it.
I can't see it as plausible. And I am not basing it on criminal profiling -- a Ripper kind of killer is a lust murderer, Chapman/Klosowski did his things on other grounds. I can't see any reason whatsoever to link these two MO:s together.
(yes, I know that you don't buy Klosowski as the Ripper.)
Peter,
"I think that he killed in these different ways because he wanted to experiment in different ways."
Nope, sorry. I could agree if both used different methods to indicate a lust murderer. But not one raving lust murderer with no clear motive and on the other hand a rational poisioner with a certain motive and a cowardly method of killing (which is more common among female perpetrators). It doesen't add up. I am not sure of much in the Ripper case, but this is one point where I am fairly convinced.
Oh yes, Peter.
The trip was great and East End was a fascinating experience, although the area was quite smaller than I had expected.
I actually treated myself with a Guinness in the same pub where Klosowski is supposed to have had a barber's shop in the cellar (the pub "The White Hart", in the corner of Whitechapel High Street and Gunthorpe Street) from 1890 and onwards. From my window I overlooked the narrow street where Martha Tabram was found murdered. You really should have been there Peter!
I've sent you an e-mail.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
Well, I guess we will never agree on MO and signature, will we? What else is there to argue about regarding Chapman?
That poison purchasing coinciding with the Ripper murders starting is quite unique!
Glad you had a good trip Glenn; I really wish I was there.
Anyway, I e-mailed you. Talk to you later
Peter
P.S.-sorry for the delay. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hey Peter,
"What else is there to argue about regarding Chapman?"
Not much, I guess. I think we at least can agree on that he was a monster and a really icky, sinister character -- it is hard to speak against that. I for my part would choose another barber any day.
"Glad you had a good trip Glenn; I really wish I was there."
Thank you, Peter. Yes, so do I -- believe you me.
"That poison purchasing coinciding with the Ripper murders starting is quite unique!"
Yes, but I am afraid it is also a coincidence. 
All the best
No sweat. I'll send off an answer to you real soon.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
ME: "That poison purchasing coinciding with the Ripper murders starting is quite unique!"
YOU: Yes, but I am afraid it is also a coincidence.
Ah, I shouldn't bother trying to figure out saying something. We will probably go on about this forever just like the M.O.
Did you know we've been arguing about that since December?
Anyway, I posted some other things around the boards where you were at.
See ya Glenn
Peter
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:40 am: |
|
Hey Peter,
"We will probably go on about this forever just like the M.O.
Did you know we've been arguing about that since December?"
Hehehe, yes I know. Seems like we're both running out of arguments now about that one.
Well, I think we just have different views upon what is possible in that regards. I try to keep an open mind about things nowadays, but this is one of the points where I claim my right to be stubborn.
Yes, I've seen you've been around here. Good man; keep it up.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 01, 2004 - 9:32 pm: |
|
How can Chapman possibly be #2 on the suspect list?
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 7:34 am: |
|
Beats me, Paul.
Your guess is as good as mine.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi, Glenn and Paul
I agree that the type of killer that wife-poisoner George Chapman was makes it unlikely that he was the Ripper. On the other hand, he was a bona fide murderer which is more than can be said for most of the other suspects, leading or otherwise: Kosminski, Druitt, Sickert, Maybrick.
All the best
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hi George,
Yes I know. But I think it's a bit too easy to pick someone just because he is a known murderer and at the same time refuse to acknowledge the differences in approach and character. There are a number of known murderers that would be more suitable as JtR suspects, like Bury.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 87
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Glenn! I'm baaaack...........
How are you?
Their crimes show no similarities whatsoever.
Glenn, this would be the point of a serial killer. You say signature can't change, but M.O. can. Well, when there is a change of M.O., there is a change in the killings. So, it wouldn't make sense to rule a suspect out just because of differences. M.O. and signature have the same basic principal and that is the simple idea of “change.”
Take care.
P.S.-bring Adam along if you happen to talk to him before I do or hopefully he'll see this post.
(Message edited by Peter on February 03, 2005) |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 165
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 2:26 am: |
|
Hello All!
Peter, you wrote:
"P.S.-bring Adam along if you happen to talk to him before I do or hopefully he'll see this post."
You know me, Peter. I wouldn't miss a thread on Severin Klosowski! Even if it does take me a while...
"Glenn, this would be the point of a serial killer. You say signature can't change, but M.O. can. Well, when there is a change of M.O., there is a change in the killings. So, it wouldn't make sense to rule a suspect out just because of differences. M.O. and signature have the same basic principal and that is the simple idea of “change.”"
Spot on, Peter.
The M.O. of a killer can change, we do know that much. Just because Severin Klosowski was a known poisoner, and not a known mutilator, doesn't mean that he should be discounted as a suspect. As I've pointed out in another thread before, we know that he was still using knives as late as 1894, when he threatened Lucy Baderski. Not only did she find the knife under the pillow, where he had attacked her, but when she questioned him about it, he said himself that he would have killed her. This can't be taken lightly, because if we can assume for a moment that Klosowski was the Ripper, then he was still using knives 6 years later. It was only after this that he was poisoning them.
Furthermore, he was suspected by atleast 3 police officers later on, who were all involved with the Ripper case. Even Inspector Frederick Abberline. And George Godley / Arthur Neil as well.
I know you have said before that the newspapers may have misprinted Abberline's interview, but if they had done that, one would think that he would have contacted them to make clear what he had said. And that thinking collapses anyway when applied to Arthur Neil, because he wrote of Klosowski in his own memoirs!
I know I've said this before on other threads, but it also fits on this topic, so I've re-posted it.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 89
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Hey Adam,
Well, exactly what I was thinking. You're totally right.
So, if we were to believe Glenn then the following must be true: there is no possible way Chapman could use a knife in a violent way because signature does not change. Does that not sound absurd?
And like you stated, he did pull out a knife. It shows a lot. First, he would have cut up Lucy if he wanted to. Second, and most importantly, he OWNED one and intentionally put it under the pillow. He had thoughts beforehand about doing harm with a knife. It wasn't a "spur of the moment" type thing. He had predisposition to use it. That says a lot.
And yes, it's important that we have three officials believing Chapman may have been the Ripper. That is why I find it hard, Glenn, that you place him as one of the worst suspects.
Take care guys.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hi Peter,
Firstly, threatening someone with a knife (how many accounts of this do we have in Chapman's case -- one? And do we know of any incident where he actually hurt someone with a knife?) does not make anybody a serial mutilator. If that was the case we would have a hell of a lot of serial mutilators running around. I would say threating someone with a knife was not that uncommon in East End in 1888. So did Kosminski for example, to take another suspect. Big deal.
Secondly, Chapman was never a contemporary suspect at the time of the murders. Chapman was suggested in retrospect, but so were others by other police officials. That hardly makes any of these suspects more credible than others. Three officials clearly thought Kosminski was a credible suspect as the Ripper -- two of those corrobarated each other on that. To me it is clearly obvious that the different police officials tried to crack the case, or give their views upon it, years after the actual events, which is really far from a recommendable approach. And many of them seemed to have their personal favourites in their own right.
I therefore can't say I give the personal retrospect opinions of the officials -- whoever they may be -- that much credence in that regards. What is interesting is those suspects that were investigated at the time -- in retrospect you can come up with any fluke theory.
Abberline clearly stated in 1903 that the identity of the Ripper was not more known than it was in 1888, and that was probably the real truth.
Of course a signature can change, but (without falling into the trap of profiling generalisations) signature and MO are NOT based on the same principals -- that is totally incorrect and a misunderstanding. In fact, they are -- from what we can establish so far -- not ruled by the same circumstances whatsoever.
It is in the signature the key lies to the killer's mind, gratification, compulsve needs and intentions. An MO is NOT connected to these forces at all, but is simply the practical means used to get on with the signature. An MO is not important in itself -- that could change from time to time.
So the problem does not lie in a possible shift from throat-cutting to poisoning. The problem is, that Klosowski was NOT a signature killer. He killed his victims for either benefit or to get rid of then, but there is no signature like in the case of the Ripper, who had the mutilations and the trophee-taking as his main goal.
Jack the Ripper was a signature killer and he probably also was a sexual compulsive killer, since no obvious motive behind his crimes can be discovered -- we don't find any of these traits in Klosowski, and those kinds of needs just doesen't go away, although they can stop for periods of time.
A serial posionist like Klosowski also has to be considered a sadist, something the Ripper certainly wasn't -- the Ripper's basic needs lay in the post mortem actions, not in the killing itself and he clearly felt no need to see his victims die a slow painful death. To say that he changed that just because he suddenly got married and committed his crimes at home is a fictional elaboration that really does not hold water and is a construction that really belong in the trash bins of armchair theorising.
The differences in character and crime between the Ripper and Klosowski are so many, that they exceed way beyond belief.
Nothing can be ruled out of course, but Klosowski IS possibly one of the worst suspects ever put forward in the Ripper case.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
You wrote: "Nothing can be ruled out of course, but Klosowski IS possibly one of the worst suspects ever put forward in the Ripper case."
Glenn, you do make an excellent case that signature-wise the crimes of the Ripper and Klosowski would appear to be radically different.
However, if we are talking about evidence (whether circumstantial or not) and likelihood of murderous tendencies, worse suspects than Severin Klosowski (George Chapman), a convicted murderer, are probably those who are never known to have committed any murder and those not even provably in London at the time of the murders, e.g., Messrs. Maybrick and Sickert.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi George,
OK, I agree: Sickert is probably even worse. And of course people like Lewis Carrol.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 493
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Whatever is said about Klosowsk and the Ripper, one thing is clear. Like Glenn already said, the Ripper’s needs were obviously satisfied by the mutilations and the taking of body parts, for which he needed his victims dead quickly, while Klosowski seems to have been the sadistic type who thrived on the pain and suffering of his victims, i.e. a slow death. This is a clear – and in my view significant – factual difference between the Ripper and Klosowski.
It wasn’t unusual at all for men of those days to own a knife, quite the contrary I’d say. The episodes involving a knife and a pistol certainly show that Klosowski was a very disturbed man. He most certainly beat his wives and abused them, but other than that it doesn’t prove a thing in the Ripper context.
The cold fact remains that, although he proved capable of murder, Klosowski did not kill and mutilate with a knife. As far as I know, it isn’t even certain if he actually raised a knife to Lucy Baderski. For all I care he may just as well have intentionally put the knife under the pillow for the very purpose of scaring the wits out of her, and nothing more.
Although I’m no expert, what I have learned from crime history is that sadistic serial killers are often liars and manipulators, for which they need other people (to interact with). Obviously, this is also true of Klosowski. Furthermore, most of the mutilating serial killers I’ve come across were men who kept to them selves and didn’t interfere much with other people. They were considered as rather timid and/or odd, but they certainly weren’t manipulative liars like Klosowski.
If the Ripper was anything like most of his ‘fellow’ mutilators, this would be another significant difference between the two of them. As we’re talking about behavioural basics, if you will, the Ripper would have to have become almost another man entirely if he were to eventually be anything like the Polish poisoner.
But, that’s just my humble opinion.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Extremely well expressed post with good arguments, Frank.
I couldn't have written it better myself.
Thank God I am not the only one who have seen these points.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 285
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
HI All,
I'm always a bit cautious about posting, because I am very aware that I haven't been on the boards very long and anything I post has probably been posted before but.............
I've just been reading through Chapman's biography again and Frank' s post did start me thinking.
As layman I too have always assumed that JtR needed to kill quickly so that he could get to his real objective, the mutilation of his victims. The idea of him being unable to relate to others and being extremely introverted seemed to fit, and this would probably include the inability to interact with women in any meaningful way. He would certainly not have the ability to control or dominate them.
Surely the fact that Chapman could dominate women so easily, to the point of having two living with him at once, would seem to make it unlikely that he would fit the bill as a killer who needed to murder and mutilate to gain control over them.
It would seem from the evidence that Chapman killed his victims for what he considered to be purely practical reasons.
He had total control over them in their lives and in the manner of their death. Death by slow poison would seem to be an extension of that control because he could watch them die. JtR seemed more interested in what happened after death.
I really can't reconcile the two, and would have to say that I can't see Chapman in the role of JtR, although of course it is not an impossibility.
Jane |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 529
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
I'm a little surprised that people claim that poisoners use poison because they want their victims to suffer a long and horrible death. Most poisoners use poison because they want to kill someone and make it appear accidental. The long and horrible death part is just an effect of certain poisons they had access to and/or would be less obvious as poison.
I think some people are all too willing to read in complex psychological motivations for things that really come down to a matter of practicality. Using these conclusions as if they were facts and then trying to claim they conflict with other assumed psychological motivations based upon often equally bad assumptions doesn't really prove anything.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3128
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Dan,
Poisioners do maybe not choose poison just to inflict a long and painful death on the victim as such -- the motive is generally, as you say, to get rid of them in a way they think a crime is harder to detect (although there have been cases where serial poisoners have used poison just because they enjoy to see people suffer).
However, the fact that they are capable of watching their victims die a long and painful death, do indicate that they are sadists. Most sane people wouldn't cope with this. If you are able to subject someone to poison, watch the person die slowly in agony, and you don't interfer, then you are practically on the same level as the ones that commit torture, and it takes a certain kind of individual. And that pretty much makes you a sadist.
After all, you could always choose another method.
So motive has really nothing to do with it.
It is really not complex at all and certainly not "bad assumptions".
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 530
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Glenn,
There's a difference between being an active sadist and one whose actions leads to suffering of other people as a side effect.
Either way, there's absolutely nothing in the idea of a poisoner being a sadist, active or not, that rules one out as a mutilator. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3131
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Dan,
"There's a difference between being an active sadist and one whose actions leads to suffering of other people as a side effect."
Absolutely not. It is pretty much two sides of the same coin, and if you don't take my word for it, you can look it up in any police text book. If you can subject someone to poison, especially your wife, and then watch her getting worse day by day and slowly deteriorate in pain, then you certainly have the same trademarks as a sadist -- because it is some kind of torture you're subjecting to the victim. It is not an ACTIVE sadist, but it is certainly sadistic just the same. You have to enjoy it in order to cope with it.
Either way, we don't see those traits in the crimes of the Ripper. The Ripper displays no interest whatsoever in inflicting pain to his victims -- in any case Klosowski and the Ripper are million miles from each other in criminal character.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 18, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 495
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
Since you addressed the post to me, I’m assuming you count me among the people that claim that poisoners use poison because they want their victims to suffer long and horrible deaths. If so, I’m a little surprised that you say this and would like to know where I said it. Perhaps many of the multiple poisoning kind aren’t sadists but have practical reasons, but that doesn’t mean that a sadist couldn’t be a poisoner. In fact, causing slow and agonising deaths through poisoning fits quite well with the notion of a sadist.
Regardless of the murders, to some people including myself, it’s obvious that Klosowki was some sort of sadist. Besides his knowledge of medicine, this characteristic may very well have played an important role in the way he committed the murders. I wouldn’t be surprised there.
But loosing all psychological implications, the cold facts remain that the Ripper killed quickly, mutilated and took some body parts, whereas Klosowki beat, threatened and abused his victims and in the end planned and executed their slow and agonising deaths.
Furthermore, although he had no friends, Klosowki was perfectly capable of interacting with other people, he was in fact able to manipulate and dominate them. That’s a fact. The fact that he’d worked in a number of barber’s shops and two public houses even suggest that he was a ‘people’s man’, a very disturbed one, but a ‘people’s man’ nevertheless.
A lot of things could be said about most of the mutilating killers I know of, but that they were ‘people’s men’ certainly isn’t one of them. Like I already said, they kept to themselves, didn’t interfere with people, were introverted and considered as timid and/or odd. That's just another fact.
Now, all I’ve been saying is that if the Ripper was anything like this, which - although unproven of course - I think is quite feasible at the very least, this would not fit at all with the behaviour displayed by Klosowski. I would find it very unlikely for the Ripper (if he was indeed the introverted, timid, odd man) to so completely change into someone who so clearly didn’t avoid interacting with other people, but rather did the opposite.
So, it’s really just a matter of displayed behaviour and really hasn’t got to do anything with complex psychological motivations or bad assumptions. The only debatable thing is whether or not the Ripper actually was the introverted, timid, odd man or not.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
in addition
Chapman poisoned his ``so called`` wives to avoid detection, that comes across so clearly.
only a fool would mutilate these women realising he would be under great suspicion, why? because during police investigations, they'll find out that the ripper murders started soon after chapman arrived here and ended after he left..OH DEAR.
and also..guess what? he matches the Hutchinson sighting..OH DEAR OH DEAR.
the only way he can disguise a casual lover, that somebody else might or might not know he's having one of his many affairs with; is as per the torso murders, but he cant mutilate these because he's trying to put his careeer as the Ripper behind him, but you notice i didn't say long term live-in lover.
that's totally different, because live-in lovers are victims that other people know intimately; PARENTS,these murders have to be disguised far better than torso murders, just in case they recognise birth marks..Chapman was a surgeon/clever; he'd definitely realise this.
and if they aren't positively identified by parents/family/friends, suspicion will still remain focused on Chapman; because of the Whitechapel torsos/ ripper murders/ hutchinson
but why couldn't he kill them at home/on holiday etc and then dump their bodies somewhere quiet? he probably thought of this, but considered poisoning the best way
dont dismiss Chapman so lightly, because everything fits except this switch of M.O, we say everything fits; so would the police if he was suspected, because like us they'd research his whole life
total change of M.O? YES its exactly what's required!
would you mutilate these later women if you were the ripper? would you hell, no way. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3134
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
mal x,
A serial killer that mutilates women, mutilates because he HAVE to. Mutilation on the streets is NEVER that safe or practical to begin with.
Mutilaton is a signature connected to the killers' inner gratifications, not a method of killing among others.
Besides, there have been several cases of domestic mutilation cases, perpetrated by the victim's husband, so that pretty much rule out your theory. Once case even ocurred close to the Ripper murders, namely Bury's murder and mutilation on his wife. He certainly didn't chose any other method in order to avoid detection.
Mutilation is not MO, mal x -- it is signature, and signature is something that is what is the important thing to a killer like the Ripper, not the killing as such! Learn the difference!
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Hi,
Chapman was 23 years old in 1888 he was a small man in stature.
Mr Broad shoulders...No
Hutchinsons man ..No
Mrs Longs man....No
Lawandes man...No
The man seen opposite Millers court[ a stout man]..NO
So case dismissed.
Regards Richard. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 176
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi again all,
Peter, thanks for the support of my post, I appreciate it.
Glenn, you wrote:
"Firstly, threatening someone with a knife (how many accounts of this do we have in Chapman's case -- one? And do we know of any incident where he actually hurt someone with a knife?) does not make anybody a serial mutilator. If that was the case we would have a hell of a lot of serial mutilators running around. I would say threating someone with a knife was not that uncommon in East End in 1888. So did Kosminski for example, to take another suspect. Big deal."
It is a big deal.
First, it wasn't in 1888, it was in 1894.
Second, you are under-estimating Chapman. While we all know it was no uncommon thing for women to be threatened with knives in the late 1800's, the fact that within the 8 years after that, Chapman would kill 3 of his wives just makes it all the more suspicious. If this had been a one-off for Chapman, then little could be made of it, but the fact that he started murdering his wives not long after that, proves that he was a very dangerous man, and for him to attack Lucy and have a large knife under the pillow, and later told her that he would have killed her, is not only abnormal behaviour, but also very suspicious behaviour.
"Secondly, Chapman was never a contemporary suspect at the time of the murders. Chapman was suggested in retrospect, but so were others by other police officials. That hardly makes any of these suspects more credible than others."
It does help the case against him, though.
There are dozens of suspects who were never suspected at the time. Chapman wasn't only suspected by Abberline, who was in charge of investigating the case, so that's very important in itself, but also George Godley and Arthur Neil. It wasn't some fluke remark by a police officer at 1 point, because almost 30 years after Abberline said he suspected Klosowski, Neil backed it up in his memoirs. This can't be taken lightly, and therefore the argument can't be used that it was only because of his murder trial that he began to be suspected as JtR.
"So the problem does not lie in a possible shift from throat-cutting to poisoning. The problem is, that Klosowski was NOT a signature killer. He killed his victims for either benefit or to get rid of then, but there is no signature like in the case of the Ripper, who had the mutilations and the trophee-taking as his main goal."
The killings of Jack the Ripper victims weren't exactly perfect matches of each other either, Glenn. Each victim changed in some small way, some more than others. As I've said before, Klosowski couldn't have killed his wives like JtR killed, because how quick would he be found out as the killer? By poisoning, he wasn't found out straight away. It took grave exhumation to find the poison he had given them, and a fair while later. So it is a pretty much pointless argument to say that he isn't JtR just because he poisoned his wives instead of cut them up like JtR. That would make no sense.
"Nothing can be ruled out of course, but Klosowski IS possibly one of the worst suspects ever put forward in the Ripper case."
And yet, you have said before that you are interested not in favouring certain suspects but other aspects of the case. You don't have a favourite suspect, and yet you throw out very plausible suspects like Klosowski as if he was nothing. A contradiction of yourself once again, Glenn.
Richard, you wrote:
"Chapman was 23 years old in 1888 he was a small man in stature.
Mr Broad shoulders...No
Hutchinsons man ..No
Mrs Longs man....No
Lawandes man...No
The man seen opposite Millers court[ a stout man]..NO
So case dismissed."
Are you even slightly serious?
Sorry Richard, but that has to be the worst reasoning for dismissing a suspect I have ever heard!
First of all, witness statements varied quite a bit, and aren't always the most reliable source of information. And Klosowski isn't indifferent to some witness sightings, anyway.
OK, now you've dismissed him without looking at the plus side, let's do just that:
Age - Age group fits reasonably well. He was 23, average witness descriptions were 30-35, but Klosowski, in the existing photos of him, does look older than his age.
Location - Klosowski was living in the area of the Ripper murders throughout August - November 1888, when the killings were taking place.
Occupation - A hairdresser. Therefore, he was used to using sharp instruments on a daily basis. Also, he had enough money to buy a yacht of his own, which explains witness descriptions of "prosperous-looking" and "shabby genteel", which also fits Klosowski.
Other murders - Yes. He killed 3 of his wives. Unlike many suspects, he is a known murderer.
Medical training - Yes. He had studied medicine before he came to England. Therefore, he would still have had atleast a good knowledge of the human anatomy, something widely believed that the Ripper also had, even by doctors at the time.
Single - Yes. He wasn't married or, as far as we know, in a relationship during the Ripper killings, which allowed him to move around freely.
Suspected by police - Yes. Inspector Fred Abberline, George Godley and Superintendent Arthur Neil all suspected Klosowski at one time or another. Whilst Abberline's interview has been questioned, Neil's cannot be, since it his own memoirs.
So you see, although what you wrote makes Chapman out to be a poor suspect, he has many of the characteristics we might expect someone like the Ripper to have. He can't be dismissed lightly, and in my opinion, he shouldn't be dismissed at all.
Also, an interesting side note is that Chapman is also #3 on the Casebook suspect list, so obviously he has gained a fair few votes.
Not a reason to make him a stronger suspect, I know, but interesting, none the less.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Adam,
OK, I better shift back to Internet Explorer while I am on the Casebook, in order to be able to use the bold and cursive formatting.
"It is a big deal.
First, it wasn't in 1888, it was in 1894.
Second, you are under-estimating Chapman. While we all know it was no uncommon thing for women to be threatened with knives in the late 1800's, the fact that within the 8 years after that, Chapman would kill 3 of his wives just makes it all the more suspicious. If this had been a one-off for Chapman, then little could be made of it, but the fact that he started murdering his wives not long after that, proves that he was a very dangerous man, and for him to attack Lucy and have a large knife under the pillow, and later told her that he would have killed her, is not only abnormal behaviour, but also very suspicious behaviour."
It doesen't matter, Adam. Sorry, but it still doesen't make him a mutilator. Chapman never hurt anyone physically with a knife, what we know of, and it certainly was so common so that really tell us nothing. You are drawing a detail way out of proportion here.
"There are dozens of suspects who were never suspected at the time. Chapman wasn't only suspected by Abberline, who was in charge of investigating the case, so that's very important in itself, but also George Godley and Arthur Neil. It wasn't some fluke remark by a police officer at 1 point, because almost 30 years after Abberline said he suspected Klosowski, Neil backed it up in his memoirs. This can't be taken lightly"
Still, the same argument -- as I tried to point -- could be applied to Anderson's, Macnaghten's and Swanson's corroborating statements about Kosminski. And Swanson delivered his note quite many years later. What makes Chapman and Abberline/Godley so special in that regards? I don't get it.
"The killings of Jack the Ripper victims weren't exactly perfect matches of each other either, Glenn. Each victim changed in some small way, some more than others."
OK, come on, Adam!
Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had very small changes to them; the main features are still the same, and they were all killed by a signature killer! That was my point. Once again, Adam. Chapman was not a signature killer! You don't choose to use a signature because it suits you, or dispose of it because you don't need it anymore. That is still MO talk! Can't you see the difference?
Signature is connected with the killer's psyche and needs, therefore it very seldom disappear unless the killer stops to kill at all. Every killer is different from the previous or the next one, but the fact that signature killers need to inflict signature to their victim is fairly accepted and is their main reason for killing in the first place -- it is more or less a compulsive act that has nothing to do with reason or rational thoughts, and this does not stop just because they get married or their circumstances become different.
It can change and evolve, though, but that has little relevancy in Klosowski's's case, since he had no signature in his crimes at all.
"As I've said before, Klosowski couldn't have killed his wives like JtR killed, because how quick would he be found out as the killer? By poisoning, he wasn't found out straight away. It took grave exhumation to find the poison he had given them, and a fair while later."
Considering how signature works, that doesen't make sense at all. Furthermore, it is totally unfounded speculations, not supported by any facts or other criminal cases we know of whatsoever. A total creation of imagination, and -- as I see it -- a virtually incredible scenario that do not make sense at all.
"And yet, you have said before that you are interested not in favouring certain suspects but other aspects of the case. You don't have a favourite suspect, and yet you throw out very plausible suspects like Klosowski as if he was nothing. A contradiction of yourself once again, Glenn."
Sorry, but it is no contradiction at all. Defending a personal pet suspect is something completely different than ruling out more or less likely ones. If you have a favourite suspect, then you usually in the end starts to twist the facts in order to make them fit theories concerning that particular suspect. When you're ruling out suspects, you can still remain objective towards the material, because you still have no one particular to defend.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Adam,
Sorry to disagree with you a twenty three year old man simply does not fit any..descriptions that any witnesses described.
Yes he looks older simply because in the photograph you are refering to he was.
His stature was small build, a person visiting him [ sorry the name escapes me ] states 'I was surprised at the mans small appearence.[ Or words to that effect]
He simply could not be Mrs Longs 'over forty'
Mr broad shoulders.
The man seen with Eddowes' Of sailor like appearence and fair.
Hutchinsons man aged mid thirties.
Chapman was approx Hutchinsons age in 1888, so it is unlikely he would be that bad a judge.
And Hutchinson was considered stout by description or the person seen loitering outside Crossinghams was, and in no way was chapman of that appearence by any stretch of imagination.
So sorry i stand by my original post .
Case dismissed.
Regards Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 90
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Richard,
I'm siding with Adam once again. Adam, you were totally correct: Dismissing Chapman based on witness descriptions wouldn't be smart. And I also have trouble understanding, Richard, how just because one man may be the same age as the other, he can somehow get the age right. We all know age estimates are probably the worst to rely on. And it's important to note that Chapman didn't really look like his age.
In fact, since you seem to side with Hutchinson, you must then agree with his description of the man with Kelly. In fact, that description Hutchinson gave was pretty much EXACTLY how Chapman looked like! The man with Kelly was a flashy dresser. Levisohn also described Chapman as a flashy dresser as well. If Hutchinson was telling the truth, this could have actually been Chapman. And it wasn't just the flashy dressing. It's as though Hutchinson looked at a picture of Chapman and described him from that alone.
Regarding Lawande’s witness, once again, you can’t rule out Chapman. In fact, there is a picture, where you yourself can find here in the suspect section, of Chapman with wife Bessie Taylor. And there you can find Chapman wearing a sailor’s cap. Doesn’t take much to look like one.
And it’s important to note that Levisohn, Lucy’s brother, and Lucy’s sister all said that Chapman’s “general appearance” didn’t change much while he was living in England.
Glenn, speaking of that picture, you may also find, in the background, a wall filled with two revolvers, a shotgun, and two flags that seem to have a knife like handle. What does this tell us? Well, it does tell us that Chapman could have and most likely would have murdered his wives with either a gun or knife. And what a change of style this would be from his poisoning. And isn’t it a coincidence that he threatened to murder his wife with a knife that he kept under his pillow? You in no way can dismiss this with the average person living in Whitechapel. Chapman was violent. He beat his wives and would have used a knife or gun to murder them if he had wanted to.
And agreeing with Adam’s comments, you can’t just put the fact that Chapman was suspected under the table so easily. This is huge. He was suspected by three men in the case. That’s a lot. One of them was the most important men to the actual Jack the Ripper case.
And Adam’s point is great and this point has been made here plenty of times before, yet you guys seem to both dodge and ignore it: It would be foolish for Chapman to go cut up some women again. If he had in fact done that, it would quickly catch on to the police, So, like Adam pointed out, he used poisoning because it offered little detection and made him free of suspicion for quite a while.
(Message edited by Peter on February 22, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3163
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Peter,
"Glenn, speaking of that picture, you may also find, in the background, a wall filled with two revolvers, a shotgun, and two flags that seem to have a knife like handle. What does this tell us? Well, it does tell us that Chapman could have and most likely would have murdered his wives with either a gun or knife."
Oh come one, Adam. It would be just like putting Sickert under the gun just for painting pictures of murderous themes. No, Peter, that picture doesen't tell us anything, but if you want Klosowski to be guilty, you can probably make that into anything you want it to be, right?
Sorry, but those things means absolutely nothing.
And threatening his wife with a knife does STILL not make him a serial mutilator, Peter! No way.
It is a very large difference from threatening someone with a knife, and there were a lot more suspects that Chapman who did this. That in itself not only proves nothing, but it is furthermore nothing that is unique for Chapman.
You are saying me and others dodge and ignore certain points, but so are you and Adam.
Kosminski threatened his sister with a knife, Cutbush attacked women with a knife etc. That in itself doesen't prove them to be serial mutilators.
Not to mention the fact that you choose to totally discount and ignore the fact that Klosowski was not a signature killer, but the Ripper certainly was.
Not to mention the fact about the opinions of the policemen. As I said, and which you ignored, Kosminski was suspected by three men on the case; two of them confirmed each other about the name of the suspect.
So once again, Peter, what makes Klosowski so special if we only see to that particular point?
"It would be foolish for Chapman to go cut up some women again. If he had in fact done that, it would quickly catch on to the police, So, like Adam pointed out, he used poisoning because it offered little detection and made him free of suspicion for quite a while."
And I have said it before, that is only imaginary stuff, not supported by any facts whatsoever. Only wild speculations that don't even work properly. It is constructed logic in order to make it fit a suspect, and probably something of the most fanciful I have ever heard on these Boards. I could just as well believe in Santa Claus. And as you also chose to ignore, we have killers like Bury, who cut up and mutilated his wife only a few years after the height of the Ripper scare. So if he could, so could others and that shows that such constructed scenarios doesen't hold up. If a killer needs to mutilate, he usually does so -- regardless of the circumstances; it has nothing whatsoever to do with logic or cunning behaviour. To mutilate is NEVER especially clever or NECESSARY under any circumstances; they do it because they have to, even if they risk detection!
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
mal x
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
besides, there have been several cases of domestic mutilation cases, perpetrated by the victim's husband, so that pretty much rule out your theory.
you what? so you state that other killers have butchered their wives in a similar fashion to the the original murders (you are not clear about exactly what you state here)..therefore the ripper would've done the same too, and my theory is therefore null and void...comeon, get real, where is the proof that this is always the case...none, absolutely none!
mutilations because they have to?....twaddle..``because they have to``..what does that mean? or is this your `stereotypical` interpretaion of the serial killer....again i tell you; that not everybody is the same, how many murders are solved according to your theories and how many murders go undetected?..many..oh so many..
be careful about your preaching, however intelligent you are (it's obvious you are; i've been reading your postings...a long time)
who in this room is a serial killer Glenn, who cannot change tactics, evolve; learn from their mistakes, because isn't this the mark of a more intelligent life form, he who lives and learns....i don't know, but you dont know either.
Regards Mal x |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
“…there's absolutely nothing in the idea of a poisoner being a sadist, active or not, that rules one out as a mutilator. Quite the contrary, in fact.”
>>There’s also no empirical evidence that Klosowski had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders. His is the typical pookahtologist candidacy. We essentially get Klowsowski from Abberline, who sagely remarked that a man wicked or sadistic enough to poison his “wives” was wicked or sadistic enough to mutilate. But how is any connection established by these different M.O.’s?
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn & Richard.
I have to agree entirely with both of you. I could never understand how Chapman came into the reckoning at all, on all the grounds that you've both quoted.
A big surprise to me, is that Philip Sugden, of all people, appeared to be suggesting that Chapman was the likliest of all the known major suspects. Like you, I'd have put him one of the last.
Best wishes to you both.
DAVID CARTWRIGHT. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I have to agree 100% with you on this one.
The gap between Chapman and the Ripper is too wide to close. When all aspects are considered carefully, It's imposslble to reconcile the two.
Chapman was a cold, calculated poisoner, a cruel man who seems to have enjoyed his victims' suffering.
Whatever the Ripper was, he certainly wasn't cruel. He killed his victims almost instantly. What followed death was his "thing". He was, as you say, a signature killer. I can't imagine why Abberline should suddenly choose Chapman 15 years on.
I can only conclude that it was a desparate shot in the dark, by a thoroughly defeated man in his later years. Even his statement about Chapman at that time is highly questionable.
What beats me, is that Philip Sugden, of all people, appears to consider Chapman as the likliest of the known major suspects, unless he's changed his mind in the latest edition of his book, which I don't yet have.
Whatever, I think your summing up of Chapman is spot-on.
Best wishes Glenn.
David c. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 537
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi David,
You quoted me and then responded:
"Mr. Norder wrote:
“…there's absolutely nothing in the idea of a poisoner being a sadist, active or not, that rules one out as a mutilator. Quite the contrary, in fact.”
>>There’s also no empirical evidence that Klosowski had anything to do with the Whitechapel murders."
Hello, why are you quoting what I said and then saying that? I am just pointing out that there's no good reason to discount someone who poisoned some other people at another time as possibly being the Ripper. I never said there was any empirical evidence linking Chapman to the crimes. Heck, my point isn't even concerned with Chapman really, it's more focused on not ruling suspects out for unrealistic reasons.
You are apparently so desperate to argue with me any chance you get that you don't seem to mind arguing about things I'm not even talking about.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Hi Dan.
I'm sorry, but I'm totally mystified. I don't recall arguing with you about anything. My above messages about Chapman are the first I've ever sent on this subject.
I merely said that I had to agree with Glenn's summing up about Chapman, as I too cannot equate
the cold, cruel, and calculated poisoner, with the mutilating signature killer that the Ripper was.
Dan, I can only imagine that you've confused me with someone else.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 543
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hi David Cartwright,
No, I didn't confuse you with anyone else. I was responding to D(avid) Radka above. The quote I posted and responded to was from his message, not one of yours. While he didn't place his full name in his message, he's notorious around these parts. Sorry you got confused there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3186
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
David C.,
Thanks for the kind words.
I am glad you agree.
Of curse, we can never know 100%, but I see the possibility as very unlikely.
Regarding the confusion above... see why I usually call by your full name? "David" is unfortunately common on these Boards. But I'll refer to you as "David C". OK?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3187
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
mal x,
You better post that again, because something seems to have happened to it in cyberspace and it makes no sense to me whatsoever (at least not all of it). I prefer to answer to a post that is complete, in order to avoid misunderstandings. So try again.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hey Adam!
Regarding Chapman, let's also not forget the possible NYC connection. He's definitely worthy of anyone's Top Twenty suspects list.
http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/americanmurders.html
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
we can never know 100%, but I see the possibility as very unlikely
I agree with you.
But, some month ago, you said that it is absolutely impossible that Chapman is Jack the Ripper (on the Cream thread). Should I conclude that you have slightly changed your mind?
Olivier
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3205
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Hi Olivier,
I haven't changed my mind at all; I still pretty much think it is garbage and out of the question, although I just prefer to NOT use the word "impossible" anymore since people got too hung up on that and the points got lost. I have changed my mind on lots of other things in this case since I once started out here -- not this one, though.
Then, the simple fact that nothing is impossible is of course something we always have to consider.
I still don't give the idea any more credence than I did before, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 547
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hiya Sir Robert,
Wolf Vanderlinden's July 2004 essay in Ripper Notes uncovered evidence that indicates that Chapman was still in England at the time of the Carrie Brown murder, so that part of the Chapman theory at least seems pretty doubtful.
Oh, and nobody really commented on it yet, but the "When the People Were in Terror" article in the January 2005 issue ended with the thoughts of a reporter who contacted people who used to know Chapman.
You're probably familiar with those references, but I thought I'd mention them anyway, because they both contain details not normally brought up during the back and forth about Chapman on these boards.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Dan,
What exactly is the "When the People Were in Terror" article you are speaking of? I've never heard of it. If you could direct me to a link or reference me to a magazine, that'd be helpful. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi Dan.
Thanks very much for your message.
It seems that it was ME who got confused.
I just hope I didn't get YOU confused with my message, if that makes any sense. Good luck with the "notorious" Mr. Radka.
Best wishes Dan.
DAVID C. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
