|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 250
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 6:30 am: | 
|
Hi again all,
Sorry I haven't been in touch on this thread for a while now, just wanted to let you know that I have been keeping up with it though, and will be back with a full response to the latest posts very soon.
Suffice to say for now that Glenn, after reading some of the ridiculous things you've posted on here recently, I'm going to jump from saying the usual disagreements with you, to saying that you are outright wrong in a lot of what you're saying.
Anyway, I'll get back in detail in my next post.
Regards,
Adam. 
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3669
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Adam,
Ridiculous... yes, for you perhaps.
Why am I not surprised.
I am afraid that you're the one who's utterly wrong in many of your deductions.
As for full responses, don't bother on my account; I know what you're going to say already.
That Chapman changed method from the Ripper's mutilation to poisoning because he killed his wives in a domestic context, and that Abberlinewas one of the greatest geniuses the police force has ever produced in crime history.
It has never made any sense the other times you've said it and repeating it doesn't make it more correct. I have heard it all before.
And to tell you the truth; I simply don't care.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 251
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
Glenn,
"Ridiculous... yes, for you perhaps.
Why am I not surprised.
I am afraid that you're the one who's utterly wrong in many of your deductions."
Why am I the one who's not surprised that you're saying something like that.
Glenn, to be perfectly frank with you, it seems that you'll do anything to try and show that your opinions are 'correct', even if it comes to the point of disputing known facts, and calling highly respected policemen such as Inspector Abberline liars.
Newsflash, Glenn: Your opinions may not be correct, and in my opinion, they aren't. Opinion isn't fact, Glenn, and facts can't be shunned to suit opinion.
"That Chapman changed method from the Ripper's mutilation to poisoning because he killed his wives in a domestic context, and that Abberlinewas one of the greatest geniuses the police force has ever produced in crime history.
It has never made any sense the other times you've said it and repeating it doesn't make it more correct. I have heard it all before.
And to tell you the truth; I simply don't care."
Don't care? Yes, I've heard that before, too.
Glenn, despite what you might think, there's always something new to add.
Let me raise just one for you now to try and weave around. You have suggested that Abberline may have been lying, and therefore, his saying that he believed Chapman was the killer can't be taken seriously.
OK. Fair enough.
But just assuming that's the case for the moment, then if you're going to go along that path, you must also try and show that not only Inspector Abberline was a liar, but Sergeant George Godley and Superintendent Arthur Neil were also liars, since they also suspected Chapman. I don't believe there is any other Ripper suspect except Chapman who had 3 high-ranking police officers who were in the force at the time suspect him later on.
So, can you explain that one?
Are you willing to call not 1, but 3 high-ranking police officers liars?
If you are, then your thinking is even more far fetched than I though, and that's saying something!
So I'll leave you with that one for now, but your posts won't be the only ones I'll be getting back to when I reply next, there's been several other great posts I'd like to reply to. So, that'll do for now.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Adam,
Dont know if this has been asked before on this thread (though I have asked somewhere else), so my apologies, but....
.....Abberlines supposedly infamous quote inferring Chapman as Jack, did he actually state this?
Was it in any official report with his signature or is this account a third party account, presumably from Godley?
Im just trying to find a grain of fact in this idea that Abberline felt Chapman was Jack.
Can you help?
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3670
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Adam,
Where have I said that Abberline was a 'liar'?
And why should he be?
I only said that he wasn't the supernatural detective mastermind that some makes him out to be, and that his personal opinions might not weight that heavily compared to others of his contemporaries.
Don't put words in my mouth I havent said; I clearly stated that I find no reason to doubt that he believed Chapman to be a good Ripper suspect at that particular time.
Monty,
The only statement I know that confirms Abberline's thoughts on Chapman is from a newspaper interview in Pall Mall Gazette. He was approached by a couple of journalists while attending his roses. To my knowledge no official document contain such information, but then I believe Abberline was retired anyway. Klosowski was not a contemporary suspect.
Then we have Arthur Neil, of course, who is said to have supported the Chapman theory, but I am not too well read up on that one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 04, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
you lot have made this thread too personal, it's not about Adam vs Glenn, we need to stick strictly to the topic in question and not try and outscore each other, ignoring the speculation about Chapman is the main problem here; because instead, you're concentrating on criticising each other.
this is no good is it...i dont want to read about you two squabbling all the time! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 4:45 am: |
|
Glenn,
Many thanks for the interview information.
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Hi Adam.
Before you go overboard about Abberline, I suggest that you have a talk with A.P.Wolf, about his credentials as a so-called great detective, and also about his honesty & integrity. You might be surprised by what you read.
Glenn's opinions about Chapman, are based on a sensible breakdown of a killer like Chapman, and the type of killer that we know the Ripper to have been. The personalities of these two men are as different as chalk & cheese, but if want to continue to try and fit a SQUARE peg into a ROUND hole, then it's only your own time that you'll be wasting.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 625
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Glenn,
In his autobiography, Manhunters of Scotland Yard, Arthur Fowler Neill (who was involved in the arrest of Chapman) suggests Chapman as the Ripper for several reasons.
1) That Chapman was in Whitechapel at the time of the murders.
2) That as a "barber surgeon" Chapman would have had the requisite surgical skills.
3) That Chapman was ambidextrous as was the Ripper.
4) The "[t]he only living description ever given by an eye-witness of the Ripper, tallied exactly with Chapman, even to the height, deep-sunk black eyes, sallow complexion and thick, black moustache."
5) The Whitechapel crimes ended when Chapman left for America and a series of similar crimes began in America upon his arrival.
Of these, # 1 is probably true, 2&3 are open to debate at the very least, 4 seems to match no good witness description with which I am familiar (though as a now renowned witness-description artist you may know of one) and the American crimes mentioned in 5 now seem discredited.
Fowler did have enough sense to at least discuss the change in MO, ascribing it to Chapman's "diabolical cunning, or some insane idea or urge to satisfy his inordinate vanity."
As it is, Fowler hardly makes a case for Chapman.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3674
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Don,
Good post and I fully concur with your comments to A F Neill's five 'reasons for suspicion'. And I naturally agree with you on the witness description thing; peaked cap was a headgear worn by a large quantity of the male working class, and if we disregard Hutchinson's Mr Astrakhan, the male descriptions that have been put forward on different occasions have all mentioned SMALL brown or fair moustaches. And as we know, practically every man over the age of 20 wore a moustache anyway during this time period so that gives us very little to work on.
The same goes for the 'foreign looking' argument (another one that has been put forward), in an area that was completely littered with East European Jews.
As in the case of any suspect, the witness description argument is particularly dangerous ground.
As for Neill's arguments, I'd say #1 and 2 are those that feels somewhat worth considering, but it is still very thin and cannot in my view weigh up the numerous serious difficulties with Klosowski in the Ripper context.
David C,
Hi there.
When are you going to register, friend?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 05, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 626
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
All,
Mea culpa! I just looked at my last post again and noticed that in my last sentence I called Mr. Neill "Fowler." Glenn and a few others may know why I made the mistake (Dan Fowler resonate with anyone?) but in any case an embarrassing error. Sorry if it confused anyone.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 254
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi again all!
OK, as promised, here comes my reply to some previous posts on this thread. Obviously, because of the amount and length of posts, I can only respond to a certain amount though. Here goes...
Mal and Jeff, first of all, congratulations and well done on some great posts, and I agree with most of what you both have said. I just wanted to say that, since I think your points speak for themselves and I don't think I could add much else except echo my own thoughts. Of course there's several of your points that I'm not so sure about, but on the whole, well said, and I'm in agreement with you.
Sir Robert Anderson:
"I think Klosowski certainly deserves to be on the list of suspects. Personally, he's Top Ten material if not Top Five on our hit parade."
Thanks, Sir Rob, and I agree with you.
I know it doesn't mean much, but it's interesting to note that on a suspect poll on this very website, George Chapman is the 2nd favourite suspect, out of I think 22 suspects. James Maybrick is first, but Chapman is only a few votes behind him. And Chapman has been 2nd or 3rd for as long as I can remember on there, too.
Interesting, huh?
"It seems to me that circa the 1880's, the whole idea of poisoning was to make it appear that your victim was simply taken ill; hiding the body would only serve to make folks more suspicious, no ? So almost by definition, a poisoner wouldn't be a concealer..."
Good point, but let's not forget that Chapman to a degree also made himself suspicious. He was almost completely unemotional during the illnesses and deaths of his wives. On one occasion, he almost instantly went back downstairs and opened up his pub after his wife had died. He also lied to distressed friends of his wives, as has been mentioned on here before, such as Elizabeth Painter.
So I think Chapman made himself suspicious enough, anyway.
"Personally, I think the idea of a killer changing M.O.s AFTER a long lay off makes some degree of sense. Or more accurately, it requires less of a stretch of the imagination. I can picture an older, "wiser" Jack tiring of the old ultra violence and killing in a more hands off way."
Yes, good point, and I agree.
It would be a different story if, say, Chapman had killed all 3 of his wives in 1889, for example, not long after the Ripper murders, with poison. But there is a 7 or 8 year gap between the Ripper murders and Chapman's first poisoning murder.
W.H. Bury, on the other hand, killed his wife in a different fashion to the Ripper murders just 3 months after the last Ripper murder.
OK...here we go again...
Glenn:
"Clearly this is not the same person and personality as the shrewd, patient and sadistic Klosowski, who tried to hide his crimes (as all poisoners try to do). Poisoners uses their heads (or think they do) and enjoys to see their victims suffer (or simply don't care about it), which we can assume was not the Ripper's cup of tea, judging from his approach. Klosowski can not be regarded as a compulsive killer, and there is no indication of him having such personality traits, but instead had very rational reasons behind his crimes."
Well it seems that Klosowski was more concerned with keeping his pub open than watching over his wives dying, Glenn.
There is nothing to suggest Klosowski couldn't have changed, and IMO, it's far from impossible.
You speak about indications of Klosowski's personality traits. Fair enough. However, there is not much known about Klosowski for a few years of time, which somehow manage to fit in between the Ripper murders and the murder of his first wife. So we can't be sure of Klosowski's personality. But if events in between the Ripper murders and Klosowski's poisonings such as his attack on Lucy Baderski in 1892 which involved the knife are anything to go on, then it's possible that Klosowski was changing.
"I don't even give Klosowski the benefit of a doubt and Abberline's retrospective drivel doesn't make him any more credible, on the contrary; Klosowski is one of the worst Ripper suspects ever produced, next to the Royal Conspiracy, Lewis Carroll and Jill the Ripper. I admit nothing is impossible and every killer is a mystery, but Klosowski is certainly not top ten material."
According to you, Glenn. However, believe it or not, your opinion is not fact!
I ask you to take a look at the suspect poll on this site, to see how popular he is as a suspect. I challenge you to find another suspect who had 3 high-ranking policemen who were in the force in 1888 name them as a likely suspect.
I also challenge you to name a suspect who has the same amount of Ripper characteristics going for them as Chapman does - Location/Occupation, Medical training, Oppurtunity, Suspected by policemen, Known serial killer, Violent streak....the list goes on.
Can you do that, Glenn?
I'm tipping you can't, right?
And no, before you or anyone else says it again, I am not 100% convinced Chapman is the Ripper. I'm not 100% convinced of anything. I simply believe that Chapman is the most likely suspect we have, in light of what we know of the Ripper and the type of person the Ripper might have been. Of course it's still opinion, and open to debate.
"And London seems to have had their share of serial or brutal killers in just a short time period from the Ripper murders; just look at Cream and Crippen.
Or maybe we should add Cream's crimes to Klosowski as well, since there obviously only could have been one serial killer in East End?"
A short time period you say, Glenn? I'd like to know who taught you Maths.
The Ripper crimes were committed in 1888. Thomas Neill Cream was hanged in 1892 for his crimes. Ok, that's a relatively short time period, sure.
The one that struck me was that you included Dr. Crippen on that list.
Glenn, Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen killed his wife and concealed the body in 1910. That is 22 years after the Ripper murders, and 18 years after T.N. Cream was hanged.
I ask you - how can you count murders in 1888 - 1892, then jump 2 decades to 1910 to have been committed in a "short time period" ??
Once again your sarcasm has backfired.
"That being said, Klosowski is indeed an interesting local criminal and charismatic character in his own right and I can certainly understand why Sugden wanted to investigate him. But he was most certainly not Jack the Ripper."
Well, you're so certain of it...so you must be able to prove it, right? ...Or maybe not?
Very, very few suspects can be said to be "most certainly not Jack the Ripper." Chapman is not one of those. Like it or not, and despite your own personal opinions, Chapman remains a very viable suspect if, or until other information can prove otherwise. It's the same with a lot of suspects.
"I am just saying he didn't know what he was talking about. He also stated himself in 1903 that he didn't really had a clue of who the Ripper was, and he probably didn't -- like the rest of the officials.
So why he throws up Klosowski is a mystery."
Glenn, Abberline stated in 1903 that Scotland Yard was no wiser on Jack the Ripper than they were in 1888. Just because they weren't, doesn't mean Abberline couldn't have an opinion.
Did it occur to you that, perhaps, Abberline suggested Klosowski, because he really did think he was the killer?
"Abberline said a lot of things, some of it does not makes sense and many of his reports from witness interrogations leaves more questions than answers. I don't doubt that he was a hard working detective, but I have very little positive to say about his judge of character and some of his conclusions.
Abberline is certainly not the officer on the case that I trust the most -- on the contrary."
An honest question, and I'd ask for an honest answer here:
If Abberline had suggested, say, W.H. Bury was the killer in his 1903 interview, rather than Klosowski, would you have believed him more than you believe him as it currently stands?
Just curious.
"To tell you the truth, I don't think he -- pretty much like the others -- really had a clue.
He also showed a temporary interest in Bury.
And then he also said he didn't know who the Ripper was.
Abberline said a lot things."
When did Abberline express an opinion in Bury as a suspect?
I've never heard of that one before.
"He didn't show any interest in Klosowski until the time of his trial and execution(and might have been mislead by the papers, who speculated a lot on this area), and we don't know if Klosowski was a suspect he held on to much longer after that (although Godley, who was close to Abberline, also favoured Klosowski)."
It's possible that Klosowski was in the back of Abberline's mind even before his trial, Glenn. We can't know that.
And as for your latter comment, well, Klosowski was held onto as a suspect, for quite a long while after that. Superintendent Arthur Neil wrote his memoirs in 1932, where he suggested Klosowski as the Ripper. That's 29 years after Abberline suggested him.
So Klosowski was no throw away suspect, by far.
"And at the same time he proposes Klosowski with a large amount of certainty he also admits that he and the others didn't have a clue about the Ripper's identity more than they had in 1888."
Again, that is incorrect.
Abberline said Scotland Yard was no wiser. He didn't say that he had no idea.
"Maybe he wanted to show off to the newspaper that interviewed him by dropping a name like the other officials; I don't know.
At least he didn't publish any memoirs with personal theories, as most of the others did."
I doubt it. He had 26 years between his interview in 1903 and his death in 1929, to recind his comments about Klosowski, and he certainly had oppurtunities, too. But did he? No.
I think that says something.
"Where have I said that Abberline was a 'liar'?
And why should he be?
I only said that he wasn't the supernatural detective mastermind that some makes him out to be, and that his personal opinions might not weight that heavily compared to others of his contemporaries."
OK, I apologise, you may not have directly said Abberline was a "liar" as such, but the things you have said seem to infer that. You're debating his credibility, and certain comments you've made in recent posts seemed to me that you were suggesting Abberline was a liar. You certainly seem not to have faith in him, anyway. Is that right?
David:
"The best I can say for Chapman, is that he was probably a marginally better Ripper suspect than Queen Victoria."
Fantastic. That's a start.
However, I'll challenge you to do the same thing as I challenged Glenn to do - Show me another suspect with the same characteristics we know or would expect of the Ripper as Chapman, and prove it. Can't do it? Well, in that case, Chapman does indeed belong in the Top Ten, more likely Top Five.
"I was about to compliment you on the brilliant and SENSIBLE summing up Chapman in a previous post. I now feel the need to say that I also think your judgment on the unreliability of Abberline was spot-on too."
OK. Let's move on from Abberline. You 2 seem to be against Abberline for some ridiculious reason or reasons. So, how about Godley and Neil? Abberline is not alone in suspecting Chapman. Far from it.
"You always keep things sensible, plausible, and with your feet firmly on the ground. I much prefer THAT approach, instead of trying to make things ever more complicated.
Keep up the good work Glenn."
Sensible? Plausible? HAHA!
OK, on that note, I'll finish off this post, before I descend into the even more ludicrous, if that's possible.
Thanks to everyone who has helped advance the case for Chapman, much appreciated! THAT is good work!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3677
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Adam,
You are so funny.
"Well it seems that Klosowski was more concerned with keeping his pub open than watching over his wives dying, Glenn."
Errh... actually, his wives became extremely ill over a longer period of time. He knew they were suffereing and he didn't care. That is a sadist. In small regular doses arsenic results in a very painful and slow death.
"According to you, Glenn. However, believe it or not, your opinion is not fact!"
And believe it or not, Adam; it WAS an opinion!
"I ask you to take a look at the suspect poll on this site, to see how popular he is as a suspect."
Oh no please, Adam, don't refer to those stupid polls again. You just simply can't take those seriously.
In case you haven't noticed it, The Royal Conspiracy is at #7. What does that tell you about those polls? And what is your view upon Maybrick being number one?
"There is nothing to suggest Klosowski couldn't have changed, and IMO, it's far from impossible.
You speak about indications of Klosowski's personality traits. Fair enough. However, there is not much known about Klosowski for a few years of time, which somehow manage to fit in between the Ripper murders and the murder of his first wife. So we can't be sure of Klosowski's personality."
Klosowski's personality was during his poison killings not anywhere near someone like the Ripper, judging from the nature of the crimes. The crimes themselves in both directions are evidence of that.
People don't change personality, Adam, unless they suddenly are subjected to some mental illness or a head injury. There is a difference between changing methods and changing personality traits, and the latter is not a very credible scenraio.
"Glenn, Abberline stated in 1903 that Scotland Yard was no wiser on Jack the Ripper than they were in 1888. Just because they weren't, doesn't mean Abberline couldn't have an opinion."
I see; so here again we have matter of personal interpretation. You seem to believe that Abberline referred to THEM, instead of the police as a whole including himself. Why would he backfire against the yard and with such a statement imply that his new and former collegues were idiots?
It is pretty clear from the original documents that the police -- INCLUDING Abberline -- had no clue of who the Ripper was. That, however, didn't stop the different officials from delivering personal opinions on the matter in retrospect. Macnaghten did it, Swanson did it, Anderson did it, Godley did it, Neill did it. Why shouldn't Abberline?
The problem is, that in contrast to other officials, Abberline also said that they were no wiser on the matter than they were in 1888 -- and this was simultaneously as he presented his views on Klosowski and in spite of the fact that OTHER officials had presented their suspects.
Every official's statements on different suspect can be regarded as personal opinions and drivel based on a need to put a feather in their own caps after their retirement, nothing else, and this also applies on Abberline's. And clearly Neill is wrong and also speculating about both the Ripper and Klosowski on several points.
There is no reason for why we should take this any more serious than for example Swanson's support for Anderson's suspect.
It is all a matter of personal interpretation and preferences, but you treat Abberline's words as law!
"An honest question, and I'd ask for an honest answer here:
If Abberline had suggested, say, W.H. Bury was the killer in his 1903 interview, rather than Klosowski, would you have believed him more than you believe him as it currently stands? "
Actually, no -- and that IS an honest answer. Because I have very little faith in Abberline's opinions.
Bury's case would in my mind NOT be strengthened by Abberline supporting the suspicions against him.
"When did Abberline express an opinion in Bury as a suspect?
I've never heard of that one before."
True, I stand corrected about that one. I had a recollection of that somehwere but by consulting Beadle's book it is quite clear that, although he made an investigation about Bury and interviewed at least five people about it, the police including Abberline did not find him a credible Ripper suspect. However, Abberline did show a great interest in him in the beginning (for the Ripper context) of the investigation, which shows that he in the 1890s didn't have a Ripper suspect.
"I doubt it. He had 26 years between his interview in 1903 and his death in 1929, to recind his comments about Klosowski, and he certainly had oppurtunities, too. But did he? No.
I think that says something."
Abberline was approached by a couple of journalists in his own home and was not prepared for the questions he was going to get. It can't be ruled out that he took the opportunity to give them a name just because some of the other officials had done so. Clearly, I don't see Abberline as someone who took it upon himself to publish theories -- or withdraw them -- in public, on his own initiative.
Still, if one good thing, besides him being a hard worker, can be said about Abberline, it's that he seemed to have a lot of integrity. he was one of the very few that did NOT produce personal memoirs. So my personal bet is -- like I've already written now three times -- that he really believed in Klosowski's guilt in the Ripper murders, at least at that particular time.
"OK, I apologise, you may not have directly said Abberline was a "liar" as such, but the things you have said seem to infer that. You're debating his credibility, and certain comments you've made in recent posts seemed to me that you were suggesting Abberline was a liar."
No, absolutely not, I have implied nothing of a sort. I have never even suggested between the lines that Abberline was a liar.
I don't care that much for his interview techniques and his personal conclusions, not to mentions his judge of character, but that is something completely different from calling someone a liar. It was AP Wolf, who called Abberline a liar and that I can't comment upon since I haven't that closely studied Wolf's sources on this.
"A short time period you say, Glenn? I'd like to know who taught you Maths.
The Ripper crimes were committed in 1888. Thomas Neill Cream was hanged in 1892 for his crimes. Ok, that's a relatively short time period, sure."
So what is the problem?
Chapman started to use poison in the late 1890s (he started to obtain it in 1897 and his first victim was probably killed shortly after that).
Cream's crimes were committed slightly before 1892. The Ripper was active in 1888. I'd say that's quite a short time period for three serial killer cases in the same area, not to mention TWO different poisoners.
Surely one can from this suggest that it is not impossible for several serial killers to roam the same area during a close period of time.
, and that is why the 'serial killer' argument in Klosowski's case is useless.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Hi Adam.
Have you bothered to get some info on Abberline from A.P. yet?? Y'know, that was a silly thing to say, that Chapman came second in a poll on this website. The fact that James Maybrick came first, shows the total gullibility of these voters. They all look pretty silly now that the phony diary has been well and truly exposed.
Instead, why don't you take a poll of the major Ripper historians and researchers, then come back again and tell us he's in the top five.
Abberline had never heard of Chapman until his trial for wife-poisoning. So show me the evidence he collected from that trial, that made Chapman in any way a suspect for the Ripper murders, 15 years earlier.
Godley was Abberline's pal, and all he did was confirm that Abberline had stated his suspicions about Chapman. That doesn't mean a thing. Show me the evidence that Godley found, to back up Abberline's ludicrous ramblings.
Nobody denies that Chapman was a serial killer, but he was a totally different type of killer.
Jack the Ripper was a mutilating signature killer. His gruesome fantasies were all about laying open the abdomen, and plundering organs. He derived no pleasure from the actual act of killing or seeing a victim suffer. If THAT was his pleasure, then the pleasure would have been over in ten seconds. NO, he despatched those women mercifully, & almost instantly.
The Ripper was also fearless, taking enormous risks in killing on the streets. Never was this more obvious than in Annie Chapman's murder. He killed and mutilated her in an enclosed back-yard, in almost full daylight, with 17 people moving about in the house, and the next door neighbour in and out of his back-yard at the time.
What does all this tell you about the type of man this was??
Now, let's look at Chapman. A cruel, sadistic, coward. All bullies are cowards, and Chapman was a bully too. He threatened a wife with a knife. Just another act of cowardice, in his aim to dominate. He chose poison for his pleasure, the coward's choice of weapon. He wouldn't have had the guts to take the Ripper's risks. He just enjoyed watching a woman die slowly.
You said that he didn't mutilate his wives, because suspicion would have fallen straight on him --- GARBAGE.
Why did he stop mutilating after the Kelly murder?? He wasn't married for some time after that. Why didn't he carry on mutilating in between marriages?? If he was the manic mutilating killer that YOU claim he was, then why marry at all if it restricted his obsessions??
Isn't it beginning to dawn on you, that this was two entirely different men?? Or are you suggesting that Chapman underwent the world's first "personality transplant"??
This is my last post on this thread. But in closing, I'll just say this. If I wanted a murder investigating, I'd give the task to Glenn, rather than trust it to you, and your gullible followers. Enough said.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3695
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
David,
If you read this: again, a brilliant post and I agree with everything in it.
"He chose poison for his pleasure, the coward's choice of weapon. He wouldn't have had the guts to take the Ripper's risks. He just enjoyed watching a woman die slowly."
Absolutely correct.
"Why did he stop mutilating after the Kelly murder?? He wasn't married for some time after that. Why didn't he carry on mutilating in between marriages?? "
Splendid points and a great observation. Clearly we are speaking of two different individuals here.
David, if I would be given a murder to investigate, I wouldn't accept the task without you by my side.
We would have to work on the Mary Kelly bit, but colleagues don't have to agree on everything and maybe that sometimes even can be productive; we seem to speak pretty much the same language in general anyway.
Once again, thanks for being a man of common sense. I like your way of thinking.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 265
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi again all,
Sorry it's taken me this long to get back to this thread!
Glenn,
"You are so funny."
As are you, Glenn.
"Errh... actually, his wives became extremely ill over a longer period of time. He knew they were suffereing and he didn't care. That is a sadist. In small regular doses arsenic results in a very painful and slow death."
Yes, that's what I'm saying, Glenn. He didn't care. He was more concerned with keeping his pub open than taking care of his wives. The incident I was referring to was after the death of one of his wives, he apparently appeared upset for a short period of time, then went straight back downstairs and opened his pub.
So if he was trying to hide his crimes, as has been suggested on here before, he did a pretty lousy job of it, and made himself look suspicious anyway in the process. So I don't think he was really trying to hide his crimes, but rather poisoned his wives because he had no other methods.
"And believe it or not, Adam; it WAS an opinion!"
Yes, but I've noticed that you often try and disguise your opinion as being a fact. Take, for example, your saying that Chapman was "most certainly not Jack the Ripper" - it's not a fact, it's an opinion, but you made it out to sound like it was a fact. There are several instances of that, and that was what I was referring to.
"Oh no please, Adam, don't refer to those stupid polls again. You just simply can't take those seriously.
In case you haven't noticed it, The Royal Conspiracy is at #7. What does that tell you about those polls? And what is your view upon Maybrick being number one?"
Note that I said that the poll proves nothing in my last post, too, Glenn.
I was simply pointing out that it's quite interesting that Klosowski is #2, considering that I'd say the majority of people voting on that poll would be outsiders to the case who are just browsing through.
A lot of people can be influenced by diaries and movies, which both go for Maybrick and the Royal Conspiracy that you mentioned, but there is nothing like that for Klosowski.
"Klosowski's personality was during his poison killings not anywhere near someone like the Ripper, judging from the nature of the crimes. The crimes themselves in both directions are evidence of that.
People don't change personality, Adam, unless they suddenly are subjected to some mental illness or a head injury. There is a difference between changing methods and changing personality traits, and the latter is not a very credible scenraio."
Ever heard of Jekyll & Hyde, Glenn? ;)
As I've said, we have little idea of what happened to Klosowski for about a 7 year period between the late 1880's - mid 1890's. Something could have happened to him to have him change his personality in that time, it's not impossible.
But aside from that, I stand by what I said before. The Ripper killed strangers, and got away with it, Klosowski killed his wives, and, for a while, got away with it. Just think how quickly Klosowski would have been arrested if his wives had turned up murdered and mutilated in Ripper-style, where they were staying. Perhaps Klosowski didn't kill them like the Ripper, because he knew if he did, he would be found out pretty much instantly. Perhaps he had no other choice but poison. Perhaps he didn't need to change personality.
Surely it must be atleast a possibility?
Well, probably not according to you, but...
"I see; so here again we have matter of personal interpretation. You seem to believe that Abberline referred to THEM, instead of the police as a whole including himself. Why would he backfire against the yard and with such a statement imply that his new and former collegues were idiots?"
I haven't got the faintest idea how you could come up with saying Abberline was implying his colleagues were idiots. Nothing could be further from the truth. Abberline said that Scotland Yard were no wiser on the subject than they had been in 1888. Doesn't sound very spiteful to me. And how does, and how should that stop Abberline from having his own opinion on who the killer was?
I don't think it should.
"The problem is, that in contrast to other officials, Abberline also said that they were no wiser on the matter than they were in 1888 -- and this was simultaneously as he presented his views on Klosowski and in spite of the fact that OTHER officials had presented their suspects."
As far as I know, Abberline never said he wasn't any wiser on the subject than he was in 1888, Glenn. He said Scotland Yard was, not he himself. There's a big difference. Plus that, he was in retirement by that stage, so had probably had time to re-consider things and decide Klosowski was the most likely man. Of course we can't know that, though, but either way, he named Klosowski as his favoured suspect.
You mentioned that other officials had expressed their views on who the killer was before Abberline. Glenn, apart from Macnaghten in 1894, I don't think there was anyone else. The majority of them didn't occur until the 1910's - 1920's. Abberline was in 1903. Littlechild, for example, wasn't until 1913. Neil in 1932. Anderson/Swanson were also some time after Abberline.
So Abberline was one of the first. And as for Macnaghten, well, he wasn't even in the police force when the Ripper murders occurred!
And his memoranda was filled with errors on all 3 suspects anyway.
"And clearly Neill is wrong and also speculating about both the Ripper and Klosowski on several points.
There is no reason for why we should take this any more serious than for example Swanson's support for Anderson's suspect."
Glenn, you're being unreasonable here.
Superintendent Arthur Neil didn't write his memoirs until 1932. That's *44* years after the Ripper murders occurred!
How can you possibly expect an aged police officer to remember the ins and outs of everything that happened in the Ripper case almost half a century before then!!!???
I think he deserves to be applauded for remembering as much as he did!
I'd like to see you do the same thing.
"It is all a matter of personal interpretation and preferences, but you treat Abberline's words as law!"
Exaggerating doesn't help your case, Glenn.
Point out to me where I've said that everything Abberline ever said and did was right, and his word is law, please!
"Actually, no -- and that IS an honest answer. Because I have very little faith in Abberline's opinions.
Bury's case would in my mind NOT be strengthened by Abberline supporting the suspicions against him."
Thanks for your answer. Very interesting!
"Clearly, I don't see Abberline as someone who took it upon himself to publish theories -- or withdraw them -- in public, on his own initiative."
You can't possibly know that, Glenn, it's just speculation, once again.
Again, he had 26 years between 1903 and 1929 - even if he didn't want to write memoirs, if he had seriously changed his thoughts and wanted to make it known, what about a newspaper article? Or just a short memoranda?
He had avenues to take if that was the case, but when you look at the time he had, I think its fair to say that he didn't seriously consider another suspect, or seriously change his mind in that time. However, we can't be sure, of course.
"No, absolutely not, I have implied nothing of a sort. I have never even suggested between the lines that Abberline was a liar."
As I said, some of the comments you had posted before made me think that you were implying Abberline was a liar, but I was wrong, and thanks for clearing that up.
"So what is the problem?
Chapman started to use poison in the late 1890s (he started to obtain it in 1897 and his first victim was probably killed shortly after that).
Cream's crimes were committed slightly before 1892. The Ripper was active in 1888. I'd say that's quite a short time period for three serial killer cases in the same area, not to mention TWO different poisoners."
That's correct, and that isn't the problem, Glenn.
As I said in my last post, the problem is that for some reason which is beyond me, you've included Dr. Crippen on that list. Dr. Crippen killed his wife in 1910 - now that is a long time difference between Cream, Chapman, the Ripper, etc.
I agree - Cream, Chapman, the Ripper - 3 serial killers within several years of one another, but then the jump to 1910, by someone who committed just the 1 murder? I don't get the link, so my question is, why was Dr. Crippen on that list?
It's an entirerly different thing.
David:
"Have you bothered to get some info on Abberline from A.P. yet??"
No, and currently I don't think there's any need for me to do something like that, anyway.
"Y'know, that was a silly thing to say, that Chapman came second in a poll on this website. The fact that James Maybrick came first, shows the total gullibility of these voters. They all look pretty silly now that the phony diary has been well and truly exposed."
David, I was simply commenting. I never said the poll was proof of anything, I simply raised the point to show that Chapman is a popular suspect to outsiders.
Let's not forget, the majority of voters on that poll would probably be outsiders to the case with limited knowledge.
The whole Maybrick watch, diary, etc would seem like pretty strong stuff to them, without knowing the full story.
"Instead, why don't you take a poll of the major Ripper historians and researchers, then come back again and tell us he's in the top five.
Abberline had never heard of Chapman until his trial for wife-poisoning. So show me the evidence he collected from that trial, that made Chapman in any way a suspect for the Ripper murders, 15 years earlier."
OK, I'll start with an author like Philip Sugden then, shall I? ;)
Taking a poll like that would be just as useless, because opinion is divided everywhere, and we'd be singling just 1 suspect out.
And how do you know Abberline had never heard of Chapman prior to his trial? I don't recall ever reading that Abberline said that.
Sources?
"Godley was Abberline's pal, and all he did was confirm that Abberline had stated his suspicions about Chapman. That doesn't mean a thing. Show me the evidence that Godley found, to back up Abberline's ludicrous ramblings."
For a start, except for perhaps your buddy Glenn, I think you'd be pretty much alone in thinking what Abberline said was "ludicrous ramblings." That's what I would call ridiculous.
As for Godley, yes he was Abberline's pal, but on the same token, again, Godley lived until 1942 - nearly 40 years after Chapman was executed in the first place, and 13 years after Abberline died.
If Godley was backing up Abberline just because he was his friend, why didn't he say something later on? Police officers were, after all, still writing their memoirs in the 1930's - Neill, Dew, etc.
Perhaps it could be because Godley also thought that Chapman was the Ripper, for real...?
"Jack the Ripper was a mutilating signature killer. His gruesome fantasies were all about laying open the abdomen, and plundering organs. He derived no pleasure from the actual act of killing or seeing a victim suffer. If THAT was his pleasure, then the pleasure would have been over in ten seconds. NO, he despatched those women mercifully, & almost instantly."
(....)
"Now, let's look at Chapman. A cruel, sadistic, coward. All bullies are cowards, and Chapman was a bully too. He threatened a wife with a knife. Just another act of cowardice, in his aim to dominate. He chose poison for his pleasure, the coward's choice of weapon. He wouldn't have had the guts to take the Ripper's risks. He just enjoyed watching a woman die slowly."
Fair enough points, and I do largely agree with you here.
However, if you admit it, Chapman having to change his M.O. and also his personality is really the only strong point you can argue against him being the Ripper.
Age has also been raised, but if age knocks Chapman out, then it must also knock other top suspects out, such as Aaron Kosminski and Francis Tumblety, so that really doesn't work.
Back to Chapman and his having to change, I don't think it's impossible, or even unlikely.
We have very little idea of what happened to Chapman for about a 7 year period, which just coincidentally happened to fall between the Ripper killings and Chapman beginning to kill his wives.
We can't know that something didn't happen to him to make him change during that time.
Killers have changed before.
"Why did he stop mutilating after the Kelly murder?? He wasn't married for some time after that. Why didn't he carry on mutilating in between marriages?? If he was the manic mutilating killer that YOU claim he was, then why marry at all if it restricted his obsessions??"
Well I can say you're wrong there.
Chapman first got together with Lucy Baderski in 1889 - if that's 'long' after November 1888 and the Kelly murder, then my Maths is worse than I thought.
He was with Lucy for a fair while, as it was. There was very little time in between.
Why marry at all? Who knows? But I don't think it matters. Chapman was single in 1888, during the Ripper murders, anyway - something most people have often said the Ripper must have been, so he could move around without being suspected.
I'll put the challenge to you instead - find another suspect who not only has as many characteristics that we would expect of the Ripper as Chapman does, as well as another suspect who had 3 high-ranked police officers who were in the force and involved with the case at the time, suspect them, as Chapman does, and I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.
Can't do it?
Wow. Why doesn't that surprise me...
"This is my last post on this thread. But in closing, I'll just say this. If I wanted a murder investigating, I'd give the task to Glenn, rather than trust it to you, and your gullible followers. Enough said."
Oh it's wonderful that things are so nice between you and Glenn. Just great - the only down side is, I think the case would go unsolved for a very, very long time!
To use your words, David - "Enough said."
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
" He derived no pleasure from the actual act of killing or seeing a victim suffer. If THAT was his pleasure, then the pleasure would have been over in ten seconds. NO, he despatched those women mercifully, & almost instantly."
I have NO idea how you can read this much into the Ripper's actions. The victims he targeted - for whatever reason he targeted hem - worked the streets. He was killing out in the open. If he did not swiftly silence his victims, he would have been caught, pure and simple. Reading a desire to be merciful out of something that was necessary is a leap that we should not make.
I would argue that Jack, by targeting the utterly destitute, was also a coward, no less so than Chapman.
Presuming, of course, that they were not one and the same.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Sir Robert.
You're missing the main point. The actual killing was NOT the Ripper's pleasure. It was the post-mortem activities, that were the object of his gory obsessions. That much we know for certain. We're not speculating there.
Equally plain to see, is that Chapman derived HIS pleasure from watching a woman waste away, and die slowly. That is the ultimate in cowardly murder. It should also be very plain to you, that I meant that the Ripper showed "no cowardice" in the context of his running the enormous risks of being caught in the act.
You've just said yourself, that the Ripper was targeting the utterly destitute. Why?? Because they were the easiest targets for his own particularly gruesome cravings, not because of their status in life.
Take a look at the British Library's copy of the trial of Chapman. He was cruel, calculating, arrogant, conceited, & vain. Sure, he threatened his wife with a knife, but he hadn't the guts to use it. He simply ruled women by fear.
There was little financial gain from his murders, and the only reason put forward, was that he removed one woman, so as to be with another. He was a known womaniser.
So is this your picture of the manic mutilater who roamed Whitechapel late at night, with a craving to cut open these women on the streets, & extract body parts??
Clearly your thinking, and Adam's, is simply, that Chapman was a serial killer, therefore he must be Jack the Ripper.
Well, in my opinion, Chapman was about as likely to have been JtR as James Maybrick. And we all know how many gullible people fell for that phoney diary, a transparent hoax that was seen through immediately by the major experts on the Ripper case. But the gullible will continue to dream on about Chapman & Maybrick.
I, on the other hand, am tired of wasting time on both.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
"You're missing the main point. The actual killing was NOT the Ripper's pleasure. It was the post-mortem activities, that were the object of his gory obsessions. That much we know for certain. We're not speculating there."
I'm not missing the point at all...I have no idea how anyone could do more than speculate what it was that motivated Jack. I don't know if he was getting his jollies, or felt a religious command to slaughter sinners, or thought Martians were giving him orders.
"Clearly your thinking, and Adam's, is simply, that Chapman was a serial killer, therefore he must be Jack the Ripper."
Are you serious ? I have never put forth Chapman as the Ripper; I just believe he belongs on the Suspects list, and I could see why some folks would have him in their Top Ten. He was a murderer, a misogynist, had rudimentary surgical skills, lived near the area, and became a post-facto suspect in the eyes of a certain ex-police official. One can throw in the Ripper-like killings in America whilst he was here for bonus points. You can't dismiss him, or lump him in with the likes of Carroll or Maybrick.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 632
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
David,
The actual killing was NOT the Ripper's pleasure. It was the post-mortem activities, that were the object of his gory obsessions. That much we know for certain. We're not speculating there.
No, you (far less WE) do not know that for certain and to suggest otherwise is to traffic in sophistry.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 768
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:39 am: |
|
Hi David, Don, Robert,
I agree that we don't know that the Ripper wouldn't have tortured his victims if he thought he could have gotten away with it. He may have, or he may not have. We don't know. But I do know that if he had tried to do his cuts on a living, conscious woman that it would have been a whole lot more difficult to remain uncaught at the locations he was using.
And I would also like to point out that it's not fair to say that Chapman chose to poison his wives purposefully to watch them suffer and die. As far as we know, he chose to poison them so that their deaths could not be easily traced back to him. The suffering part was probably just incidental to that. They didn't have readily available poison that he could have gone out and bought that would have killed them painlessly.
People are constantly confusing the end result with the motive. There are any number of different end results in these murders, and all we know is that the killer intended at least one of them, while all the others may have been either a logical additional end result that came along with or completely accidental.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3703
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Hi Dan, Robert Anderson,
I think people are getting a bit confused here.
It is absolutely true that a poisoner generally chooses poison because they want to hide their crimes (which is correct), but it still takes a certain kind of sadist personality to pull it off psychologically. Regardless of WHY poison is chosen, poisoning IS torture. And very mean torture. Therefore -- even if a poisoner's main intention or personal driving force is not to inflict or enjoy torture on another human being -- that nevertheless becomes the result and not any husband or wife is psychologically fit to deal with it and perform such a crime.
In small doses arsenic leads to a slow, very painful death, and the fact that the spouse committing the crime can continue doing this for weeks and sometimes months and not care about it, certainly points at a sadist, ruthless personality. So the killer's intention is not really the issue.
What is more important is that poisoners generally are cowards, although often shrewd ones. They choose poison because they want their crimes to be as less apparent as possible and because they do not want to get their hands dirty by using knives or guns.
This is quite a long step to a mutilating killer, whose driving forces (whatever they may be; hatred, religious mania, sexual fantasies...) are so strong, that he doesn't worry about getting his hands bloody or dirty (in fact sometimes that may be a part of the enjoyment), or that he leaves the bodies and thus also the result of his crimes on open display.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 14, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 769
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You are labeling cowardice to what is actually just smarts: Killing someone in the way that is least likely to be traced back to you.
And you also don't seem to understand (or at least acknowledge) that killing strangers has different risks involved than killing people you know. An intelligent killer can (and often does) modify his or her methods to best fit the target.
So, while I would agree that people are getting confused here, I would count yourself among that number.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3704
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Well, that was really not what I meant by 'cowardice'. If you're killing another person in the way that is least likely to be traced back to you, you are no risk taker.
The Ripper was clearly a risk taker, as I see it, and had little concern for the matters or problems that concerned Chapman and the likes.
And using poison is really not that smart, although poisoners generally think they are. But fact remains that crimes committed by the use of poison are quite often detected and solved, especially if it happens multiple times to several people in the criminal's own circuit, not to mention if the corps is subjected to autopsy. One might see it as shrewd attempts by a killer who THINKS he's smart, though, and who deliberately tries to cover his tracks (which is not what the Ripper did).
In short, using poison and blame the deaths on illness is nevertheless an attempt to limit the risks for the perpetrator, which is not what the concerned the Ripper, who clearly took unnecessary risks and apparently was driven to perform them in a way that would be considered dangerous to himself and to the limit if carelessness.
The crime scenes clearly indicates that we're speaking about a man who had to do what he did without a certain motive and totally unaware of the risks involved, and with no attempts whatsoever to hide his crimes.
There is no reason to accept, that Chapman wouldn't be as careful about those risks if he also was a mutilator.
So in my mind this is not at all a question of changing methods, but a total change of personality.
By the way, when is Ripper Note coming?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 14, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
"You are labeling cowardice to what is actually just smarts: "
Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, Dan. I'd add that I don't see the slaughter of inebriated, destitute whores as a mark of courage, either. So Glenn's argument is built on shaky ground from both angles IMHO.
What Chapman and the Ripper had in common was an overriding concern that they not get caught.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3705
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
None of that makes sense.
Chapman was clearly a calculating killer, who deliberately tried to cover up his crimes, in attempts of what he thought was efforts to minimize his risks of getting caught.
Why would he in 1888 be less careful? Why murder a number of prostitutes outdoors in very short time frames and on foolishly risky locations? The crime scenes of the Ripper suggests that the killer was driven to his crimes in a way that he didn't care about the risks involved. If now Chapman also was the Ripper, why not be just as careful in that context? Why pick victims who chose these types of locations and why accept narrow time frames and difficult locations that forced him to leave the bodies on display?
Since Chapman was a very calculating person, who could control his need to kill, why not choose other solutions if he wanted to mutilate?
Chapman's crimes took a lot of patience, while the Ripper's crimes seems to have been perpetrated by someone who had to do it as soon as the opportunity arose. I must say I fail to see any similarity between those two personalities.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 14, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
``Take a look at the British Library's copy of the trial of Chapman. He was cruel, calculating, arrogant, conceited, & vain. Sure, he threatened his wife with a knife, but he hadn't the guts to use it.``
the reason he didn't use a knife on her was obvious.......a customer entered his shop, this therefore has nothing to do with cowardice, more like common sense.........but you'll notice, if you care to read again; that the knife was sticking out from under the pillow, hence his wife noticed it.
Chapman is a very strong suspect, no doubt about that and nothing like Maybrick, i.e Chapman looks as suspicious as hell but Maybrick doesn't.
Chapman trained in surgery, was a violent woman beater and as proven, a bit too close to knives and guns etc, i wouldn't say he was only a smooth poisoner would you........because it maybe, that this is all he was convicted for...nothing else; because he kept quiet!
i'd say he was highly suspicious indeed and way more guilty looking than maybrick could ever be.
the chances are, this was his second spree as a serial killer, but this return to killing required a huge shift in M.O, because mutilating his wives and remaining undetected was totally out of the question.
|
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
``Take a look at the British Library's copy of the trial of Chapman. He was cruel, calculating, arrogant, conceited, & vain. Sure, he threatened his wife with a knife, but he hadn't the guts to use it.``
the reason he didn't use a knife on her was obvious.......a customer entered his shop, this therefore has nothing to do with cowardice, more like common sense.........but you'll notice, if you care to read again; that the knife was sticking out from under the pillow, hence his wife noticed it.
Chapman is a very strong suspect, no doubt about that and nothing like Maybrick, i.e Chapman looks as suspicious as hell but Maybrick doesn't.
Chapman trained in surgery, was a violent woman beater and as proven, a bit too close to knives and guns etc, i wouldn't say he was only a smooth poisoner would you........because it maybe, that this is all he was convicted for...nothing else; because he kept quiet!
i'd say he was highly suspicious indeed and way more guilty looking than maybrick could ever be.
the chances are, this was his second spree as a serial killer, but this return to killing required a huge shift in M.O, because mutilating his wives and remaining undetected was totally out of the question.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Hi all,
I do not have a problem with the fact that Chapman poisond his wives. He did not want to get caught, and poison would be the logical way to proceed. Just because Chapman used poison to kill his wives does not mean he was not wicked enough to be Jack the ripper. Different types of murders require different methods. He obviously could not hack his wives to bits. He would have been forced to change his method so he would not get caught.
The problem that I have with Chapman is he killed his wives in order to be with other woman. While Chapman seemed to be killing woman in order to move on to other woman, the ripper seemed to kill woman out of fear and hatred. I think Chapman would have still had the need to keep slashing woman. He would [in my opinion] not stop after the Kelly murder. Even tho he was poisoning his wives, he also would have kept killing woman in ripper fashion.
Your friend, Brad |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi Don.
I think you'll have to explain that one, to me, Glenn, and most others.
As the Ripper cut open the bodies of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly(if you count her), and removed organs in three of those cases, how on earth can you say that this mutilation was NOT DEFINITELY his motivation??
If the motivation was the killing in itself, then the pleasure didn't last for more than a few seconds, did it??
On second thoughts, don't trouble to answer this.
I've had some silly things said to me on this thread, but that comment of yours takes the biscuit. I shall leave you all to it, as Chapman is now a dead issue to me.
So long & good luck.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Brilliant.
A perfect summing up of the evil personality of Chapman, and far better than I could have put it. I don't think that anybody here could justifiably argue with a single word in that post. You couldn't have painted a better portrait of the differences between these two types of human animal.
Now, I can finally lay Chapman to rest, in the knowledge that there really isn't any more to be said.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
" the ripper seemed to kill woman out of fear and hatred."
CB - How can you make this assertion ?
Personally, I think that trying to make comparisons between serial killers is at best an art form, and hardly a science...but let me throw out an example: the Son of Sam. When he was caught, what was his explanation for what drove him to kill ? He confessed that his neighbor's dog had commanded him to slaughter.
I don't think we really know what was going on inside Jack's head. It is quite possible that we read too much into the fact that his known victims were whores; they may have been targeted simply for the ease of the kill.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 685
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Dan, Sir Robert, Glenn,
I concur with Glenn here. While Klosowski was a calculating, shrewd and very patient killer who undoubtedly premeditated his murders, Jack the Ripper was a rather impulsive killer, who probably didn’t plan much of anything and obviously had given in to the need to kill at least 3 times within only one month.
Furthermore, the Ripper’s main interest obviously lay in the post-mortem mutilations, he was very likely driven by the need to do these mutilations, whilst there’s nothing in Klosowski’s crimes that indicates or even suggests anything alike. One might perhaps have expected an intelligent killer such as Klosowski to be able to kill and mutilate women in such a way and place that there would have been little chance of him being caught.
“As far as we know, he chose to poison them so that their deaths could not be easily traced back to him. The suffering part was probably just incidental to that.”
How do you know the suffering part was probably just incidental, Dan? He may have killed Mary Spink for the money, but do you know why he killed Bessie Taylor and Maud Marsh?
Had there been an obvious motive for these murders, I would have more easily believed he’d accidentally chosen a poison that would cause slow and agonising deaths. As there wasn’t, I’m not so sure - certainly when we take into account what we know about his character.
We know he was a lying manipulator with a violent streak. The ‘knife incident’ with Lucy Baderski and especially the ‘Your friend is dead’ lie to Bessie Taylor’s friend, Elizabeth Painter, are indications that Klosowski wasn’t averse to mental torture. I’m guessing he didn’t do these things because he didn’t like them. If so, this mental torture might be called sadism.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Hi Frank -- A quick comment as I must dash off...
What I am objecting to here is Glenn's notion that Chapman is a terrible suspect and for all intents and purposes shouldn't be on the list...He was a murderer, a misogynist, had rudimentary surgical skills, lived near the area, and became a suspect in the eyes of Abberline.
He stays on the list. I'm not saying there are not problems with him, as there are with all the other suspects.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 634
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
David,
Whether you read this or not, you can't get off so easily by just running away.
You made a definite statement about JtR's motivation and that is something we do not know and, lacking the discovery of a confession about which there are no doubts, we will probably never know. Surely you know the difference between fact and speculation no matter how well informed you consider your surmise. That was my point and I will continue to make it whenever opinion is advanced as fact.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
"You made a definite statement about JtR's motivation and that is something we do not know and, lacking the discovery of a confession about which there are no doubts, we will probably never know. "
Amen to that, bro.
BTW, given the mutual admiration society that David seems to be a party to, and his unregistered origins, I'll venture a guess we're talking to a sock puppet.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 686
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
I think the best reasons for believing Klosowski was the Ripper were that he was a serial killer and that he came to live in the area shortly before the murders began in 1888.
That he had rudimentary surgical or medical skill seems of little importance IMHO since medically untrained men have mutilated women in a way that was very similar to JtR.
Although I can see how Klosowski became a suspect in the eyes of Abberline, I don't think that is of great importance either as he didn't study Klosowski at the time of the murders. I believe he was mostly basing his views on the newspaper articles dedicated to the Klosowski case and other second-hand information, and I think he was overrating the medical angle. Plus he didn't have the knowledge about serial killers we do have today.
In comparison to the other suspects discussed here on Casebook, Klosowski is one of the better ones, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily make him a very likely one. If, for instance, Thomas Neill Cream had not been in prison in 1888, he'd have been a better one.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3712
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Nice to have someone at least partly agreeing with me for a change (if I am not counting David.
"I think the best reasons for believing Klosowski was the Ripper were that he was a serial killer and that he came to live in the area shortly before the murders began in 1888."
Actually, the serial killer argument is no better than any other vague connection presented. As I have stated earlier, Cream was a serial killer too, who -- like Klosowski (although he chose other victims) -- roamed the same area within a limited time of the Ripper murders, and as we know he was not the Ripper. Both he and Klosowski used poison and both were serial killers, so it is quite possible for several serial killers to strike the same area or at least the same city in a short amount of time from each other. So therefore the fact that Klosowski also was a serial murderer is not the slightest indicative for him also being the Ripper.
And Cream actually came closer to the Ripper, since his victims were prostitutes. Besides, known serial killers often stimulate and trigger other crackpots to commit serial murder too.
So in short, the serial killer argument is completely useless.
"That he had rudimentary surgical or medical skill seems of little importance IMHO since medically untrained men have mutilated women in a way that was very similar to JtR. "
Indeed. Quite correct; a lot of such cases exists.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Nice to hear from you again after such a long while. I've actually been ultra busy this last year studying but that's a long boring story. Do you remember a funny lout called Bullfrog who used to have me in stitches? Actually I think he used to amuse you too - does he still privilege these boards with any visits?
I see that there is still a lot of confusion on these boards, and as is your customary fashion you are helping to sort out the disorder - I see it is the "Swedes" that will not be blamed for nothing, and not the Jewes. Aha!
I'm one of the people who don't believe Chapman is JTR. My first instincts were that he was surely the notorious killer but after studying the case and his character in depth something just doesn't add up. And that something is his MO. Sure he was cruel and calculated as JTR undoubtedly was, but Mary Spink's death was a full 9 years after Mary Kelly's and if we are to stick to the canonical 5 then this is too large a gap. This is beside the fact that he was only 23 in 1888.
JTR also had no real reason to kill those victims whereas old George wanted to get rid of them because of his roving eye. JTR was a man who did it for the thrill, to feel empowered or simply because he was off his trolley.
Also without having a go at anyone, I see there is still a lot of strong minds here using their skill of the English language to either score points or deliver confabulations of conjecture. (like that?) If the case is to be solved then we need to stick to science - concentrate on unadorned words of fact before using a methodology that digresses into colourful nodes of hypothesis. By not posting this on the Maybrick thread I am indicating that what is said here is much more productive ;)
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3716
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 7:07 pm: |
|
Hi Martin!
Nice to see you too.
Bullfrog? Can't recall... Do you mean Bullwinkle (David Radka)?
If that is whom you refer to, yes, he pops up on occasion, but not as often as he used to.
I am not so sure about the time frame as argument, since several repeat killers can have rather long cooling off periods -- likewise age is difficult. Killers like these can be in their early 20s but they can also be over 40.
But apart from that I completely agree with you (although I don't actually see the Ripper as a calculating killer). It is absolutely true that the Ripper seems to have picked his victims on random and that he probably killed them because he felt a need to do it, since no other deliberate motive can be ascertained. And yes, Chapman seems to have had perfectly rational reasons for his crimes, since they all were his wives. An economical motive I think is difficult to define, but we know that Chapman was a master of infidelity and that this probably was the reason behind the murders. In any case, they were not a spur of a moment thing.
"Also without having a go at anyone, I see there is still a lot of strong minds here using their skill of the English language to either score points or deliver confabulations of conjecture."
Welcome to the world of Ripperology.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Hello Glenn!
It is my second welcome, I am back!
The reason I pointed out that Chapman was 23 was because he simply matched NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER and this is simply damning in itself. I admit 23 year olds are capable of murder and 18 year olds are the most volatile ( I can remember it was not that long ago).
My second point is that you are right! It was Bullwinkle - AKA David! In fact he is much loved and would be sorely missed on these boards it simply wouldn't be the same without him. What a shame that he will probably take this the wrong way!
Anyway what do you think of the "Juwes" message? I have heard so many stories about it and hope to hear your thoughts. Was it wrote by JTR and if so that must mean he WASN'T a Jew... If I have any spelling and/or grammatical errors then pardon me, as Ap would say, blame the brandy.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 687
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Actually, the serial killer argument is no better than any other vague connection presented."
I didn't mean they were good reasons, just the best when compared to the other reasons generally put forward by people who believe that Klosowski's a good suspect.
I agree that it doesn't have to mean a thing. Cream killed prostitutes in an area quite close to Whitechapel and in a time much closer to 1888 than when Klosowski was 'at work', but still he wasn't the Ripper.
And I know of the township of Atteridgeville, just outside Pretoria, South Africa, that was roamed by at least 7 serial killers between 1955 and 1995. During the seventies both 'the Ironman', who was never caught, and Joe 'the Axeman' Kgabi were active at the same time. And in 1994-1995 there were 2 other serial killers at work at about the same time, and with quite similar MO's, too!
The serial killer argument only tells us that Klosowski was capable of murder, too, but, I agree, it doesn't have to go any further than that.
Cheers,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3717
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
I only commented on it, since quite many people brings this up as a valid argument. Not directed to you especially; I just wanted to clarify.
Wow, Frank!
Seven serial killers in the same township? (I have missed that one.)
OK, it's within a time frame of 40 years... but still! Seven serial killers -- and 'at least'!
Remind me not to go there for vacation.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3720
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Martin!
I agree about Radka. He is a character.
As for the Goulston Street message I don't believe that was written by the killer, but that is another thread and I have dwelled upon that subject enough and to be frank it is not one of my top ten issues, since I believe it's a 'clue' that's been over-empathized.
I've e-mailed you back!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 689
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Well Glenn, although you probably shouldn't go to Atteridgeville, and South Africa a a whole has a very high rate of serial murders, it is still a beautiful country!
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
" If, for instance, Thomas Neill Cream had not been in prison in 1888, he'd have been a better one. "
I've got to say that I think Chapman would remain a superior suspect than Cream, assuming away for a moment his incarceration. But the fellow that this thread has me revisiting is William Bury -- now there's a frequently overlooked chap !
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 784
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
I have to agree with Frank. Other than being imprisoned, Cream would make a better Ripper suspect than Klosowski.
Cream targeted strangers -- prostitutes -- just to know that they suffered and died, at least for the final blowout series that got him hung. Klosowski targeted his lovers/common law wives to get them out of the way. He didn't target strangers and it appears that these were much more motive-oriented killings than just random murders for the heck of it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:53 am: |
|
...If you say the Chapman killings were more motive-oriented, then what would you say was his motive? Would you say that the Jack the Ripper murders where 'just for the heck of it'? |
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:18 pm: |
|
If you want to say that Chapman was the Ripper, then you have to show that Chapman was a psychopath. We've maybe got enough information on Chapman to base an analysis on this count.
I'm personally not 100% sure whether he was or wasn't, at this point. In other words, I haven't completed my analysis of this subject. Certainly the murdering of one common law wife after another constitutes an amoral, self-centered personality, such as a psychopath. Plus he had a magnetic personality. But Chapman appears in other respects a bit too stable and conventionally understandable to be a psychopath. After all, he was in regular work, wasn't he? Plus, his murders make conventional sense, if you ignore their moral stature. He'd get a woman for awhile, work her down to nothing, take advantage of her as best he could, use her all up, and then he'd poison her to get her out of his life. Once the body is buried, there's no evidence, or at least this is what Chapman thinks. While a psychopath who'd murder would be well capable of antisocial activity of this dimension, a psychopath who'd murder usually doesn't murder for such practical, understandable reasons. Keep in mind that JtR's murders were grossly irrational acts, incomprehensible to the average person. When compared to the Ripper, Chapman seems to be running a kind of profitable, going business in murdering. The Ripper operates no business that any normal person can fathom.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Thanks for your responce. You are right. We do not know the motive for the murders, and we do not know what was going through the rippers mind. It is just my opinion that the ripper was motivated by a fear and hatred of woman. I do not think we can rule out Chapman because he used poison to kill his wives. The problem I have with George is he seemed to kill woman to be with other woman. I do not believe the ripper would have been married three times, and he would have kept killing other woman in ripper fashion.
You are right this is just my opinion. I am not qualified to give an expert opinion. I have been watching the British Open. The commentators keep on claiming that you have to trust your swing. Sometimes in a case 116 years old you have to trust your gut instinct. However, Chapman belongs on the list of suspects. A very short list.
I too Believe the ripper chose prostitutes because thy were easy victims.
Your friend,Brad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
