|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 09, 2003 | David O'Flaherty | 25 | 1 | 5-09-03 8:01 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 11:10 am: | 
|
Well, Dave, I think he would have known the area well. My point was really that anyone can get familiar with an area like the East End in a very short time if they want to. Therefore I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Jack was a newcomer who realised that Whitechapel was a good source of victims and therefore made it his business to get to know his surroundings.
Love,
Caz
|
Joesph
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Wolf, John Douglas of the FBI in Sugden's "Complete History" has to disagree with your John Douglas about the M.O. He says, "some criminologists and behavioural scientists have written that perpetrators maintain their M.O., and that this is what links so called signature crimes. This conclusion is incorrect. Subjects will change their M.O. as they gain experience. This is learned behavior." (461-462-new edition)
Are we both talking about the same John Douglas. I got my info from Sugden. The problem is, where did you get your info?
Plus, like Sudgen states, it would make sense for Chapman to lay low for a little or change his method to confuse police-like some other serial killers have done in the past.
Also, about Chapman, Maud Marsh said, "You don't know what he is."
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 11:56 am: |
|
Dave. I have to apologize for the length of time it has taken me to get back to you. I have been extremely busy of late and although I started writing this a couple of weeks ago I wasn't able to finish it until today.
First off, discussing Chapman with you has been no trouble at all. I recently had to do a study of Chapman for my Ripper Notes article on the Carrie Brown murder. Part two of the article will contain a look at several suspects in the murder of Brown and one of the most important suspects, (simply for the reason that without him we probably wouldn't remember the Brown murder), is Chapman.
The point that I was trying to make with the statement by the Solicitor General is that even though Scotland Yard investigated Chapman and his movements in 1902/03 they were not able to state conclusively exactly when Chapman had entered the country and felt that it was in 1888. I'm not sure how later researchers can therefor claim 1887 as the year.
I don't believe that the location of the murder scenes necessarily exhibits any indication of deep knowledge of the East End. The likely and logical assumption is that the victims themselves selected the spot where quick and covert sex could be achieved based on their experience and local knowledge. The Chapman murder is a good indication of this, I think. Where the killer seems to display a thorough knowledge of the area is after the murders when he has to escape.
Consider that the killer has blood on his hands, (not "covered" in blood but he would have blood on him none the less), and a knife and some portions of the human anatomy in his pocket. He now has to walk streets with extra police patrols, vigilance committees, and a populous afraid and on guard. He does this, if you believe conventional thinking, with the sounds of police whistles and cries for help ringing in his ears on several occasions. With each murder the chances of being caught increase and yet the murders continue and they continue in the same small geographical area. This would indicate a familiarity, but more importantly, a level of comfort where the murderer feels somewhat at home and perhaps invincible.
One thing that studies of criminals has shown is that criminal behaviour will start close to home. I'm not talking about profiling here, per se, but common human behaviour patterns. This notion is heightened by the fact that the Ripper murdered women out in the streets where any second he could be detected and forced to make a run for it. It is apparent to me that an intimacy with his surroundings would be of prime importance to this type of killer. Where do the streets and alleys lead to? If I duck down this lane will it turn out to be a dead end? Are there more people or less people out and about if I take this route? Etc.
If we assume that Chapman had been in London for at least five months, or even more, from what little we know about his movements we can only place him south of the Whitechapel High Street. Both West India Dock Road and Cable street are close to the river and south of this main artery. Does this mean that Chapman never spent time moving about the heart of Whitechapel and Spitalfields? I certainly cannot say nor would presume to claim that he didn't. There is just no way of knowing. It does makes me wonder, though, about how much time he would have on his hands once he started working for Abraham Radin, with whom he lived for five months. Did he work all day and then prowl the streets of the East End at night? Did he wait until he moved out on his own giving him even less time to get comfortable with the area? Again I cannot say but it is probable that a sufficient knowledge of, and comfort level with, the area of the "killing grounds" will depend somewhat on the individual. To me Chapman does not seem to be the calm, cool and collected type likely to acclimate himself with his surroundings quickly.
Two quick observations. First. According to the experts the first murder is significant because it usually takes place in a location that the killer is most at home with. The fear of being caught and punished is outweighed by the need to finally act out the murder fantasy and the feeling of safety in a familiar location often tips the balance between the fear and the need. In this case, whether the first victim was Tabram or Nichols, these murders took place far from the area that Chapman knew best, St George in the East. Second. After the murder of Catherine Eddowes we know that the killer moved north east into the heart of Whitechapel. If Chapman was the killer it would have been much safer and easier to simply head south towards home. He would thus move quickly out of the area of most vigilance and easily skirt the police presence concentrated around Berner Street and the Stride murder.
Wolf. |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 8:57 am: |
|
Hi Wolf:
You wrote: "To me Chapman does not seem to be the calm, cool and collected type likely to acclimate himself with his surroundings quickly."
I disagree with you on this point, Wolf. It seems to me that Chapman was a "calm, cool and collected type." Indeed, he appears to have coolly disposed of his three common law wives one after the other. Each time, he apparently went about his work while the women were in grievous pain. So my impression of him is that he was indeed a cool, cold, and callous individual. He then brazened it out with acquaintances and the authorities that he knew nothing about the reason for these women's deaths. So we appear to differ on that point.
I do agree that it is unknown how familiar he could have been with the East End in the time since his arrival from Poland. We might wonder whether in under six months or so Chapman could have thoroughly familiarized himself with the alleys and back streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields to make sure to make a clean getaway every time.
All the best
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Hello, Wolf
No worries about the delay and no need for apologies; I certainly understand that you're busy, so thanks for taking the time to post.
In my mind, the police's statement that Chapman's arrival date was "about 1888" is vague enough to keep an 1887 arrival at least open, particularly if Chapman's known record in Poland ends in February. He may have stayed in Poland until 1888, but then again, he may not have. Since we don't know, don't we have to be open to the possibility that his immigration took place in 1887?
I think it's possible for Chapman to have worked during the day and roamed the streets at night, particularly during holidays and weekends. Lucy Baderski said he exhibited such behavior in 1889, not so far from the autumn of 1888.
Your point about the killer's ease with his surroundings is an interesting one. It's a point that holds true for many killers, but I don't think it applies here. Both Tabram and Nichols are killed outside, Tabram by by a populated building with traffic, Nichols out in the street. If that theory holds true, then why don't we see an early murder indoors, which is a safer environment?
How comfortable could JtR have been outside? The landing outside George Yard saw traffic at all times of the day, as did Buck's Row. It seems to me that the killer would only have been comfortable if he thought traffic unlikely during the times he killed. A possibility is he did not know the area so well, that he did not take into account people going to and leaving work in the middle of the night.
I agree with you that the killer wasn't covered in blood. He may have had blood on his hands; he may have simply stuck his hands in his pockets as he walked away. He may have worn dark clothes so that blood was difficult to spot. In a crime scene where police are blowing their whistles and people are calling for help, it seems reasonable that everyone's attention is on the victim and not on the killer who at the time of discovery, is out of sight. If JtR took simple precautions like dark clothing, and not getting covered in blood and gore, it seems reasonable that he might simply have been able to walk away, as long as he did not stop to engage in coversation or linger under lights. No need to outwit anyone--just don't walk too fast and remain calm.
If, on the other hand, JtR had an extensive knowledge of the back streets, then he also has to have known the beats of the officers and the routes of any vigilants to avoid them. I prefer the simpler explanation of just walking away. Even at a normal pace, I think you stand a good chance of outrunning the news of a new murder by word of mouth. Running into a dead end doesn't seem like too much of a danger--the crime scenes are all near major arteries, and nowhere do we have anyone actually chasing the Ripper.
That the murder sites are all away from Cable Street doesn't seem like a problem to me. The boundaries are Whitechapel, because that's where the supply of prostitutes is. But within that boundary, wouldn't it be foolhardy to kill close to your own home? The murder sites are still within easy walking distance of Chapman's home. Now, I haven't taken a Ripper Walk, and you are more knowledgable than I am. How long do you think that walk would have taken? Twenty minutes? Anything longer than a stroll?
I agree with Chris's post above that Chapman was capable of remaining cool and calm under pressure. Is Chapman's violent temper the reason you say he wasn't? Again, Chapman's outbursts and his cool, calculating poisonings seem to be at odds with one another.
Wolf, do you think it's in character for Chapman to have frequented prostitutes? I realize there's no way to answer for sure, but it's a question I've always wondered about. There's always a woman around Chapman, but as far as we know, there's nobody with him in 1888. He's got a wife in Poland, but no one in London. What did this womanizer do for companionship? Do you believe it's reasonable to suggest he may have had some knowledge about the Whitechapel prostitutes?
Of course, you might be entirely correct in your most recent post. My viewpoint is only an alternative one.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Chris and Dave.
Chris.
Cold and callous, yes, in the sense that he poisoned three women without a moments thought but that doesn't necessarily mean that he was calm, cool, and collected. I see Chapman as a coward by nature, (the simple fact that he was a poisoner tends to prove this), who had to be practically carried from the Dock and, later, forced onto the Trap. The simple fact that he refused to admit that he was Severin Klosowski let alone admit his guilt seems to point, to me at any rate, to an individual incapable of facing up to his judicial fate. In other words he was too afraid to admit anything that might support the findings of the Court and thus negate any chance at a reprieve.
As I have said, it is one thing to murder and mutilate a woman out in the street where you could be discovered at any second and quite another to slowly poison a woman in the privacy of your own bedroom. That does not take any daring or presence of mind to accomplish.
Dave.
As I have said, the simple fact is that no one now knows when Chapman arrived in London and that even the abilities and resources of Scotland Yard were unable to positively ascertain the date. From what the Solicitor General said, it appears that 1888 was their best guess. Far be it for me to second guess Scotland Yard. Having said that if information was to be uncovered in Poland that proved that Chapman had left in 1887 I wouldn't be that surprised. In the end I personally think that the date that he arrived in London to be rather meaningless as I feel that he is a poor candidate for being the Ripper no matter when he arrived in the city.
One of the problems of studying George Chapman's candidacy for being the Ripper is that much of the information regarding him and the Whitechapel murders is not as straight forward as one might think. You mentioned the fact that Lucy Baderski had stated that Chapman had stayed out late at night. As you pointed out this was in 1889 not 1888 but there are other problems with this statement. First, the Baderski's statement comes from Hargrave L. Adam's book The Trial of George Chapman in which Adam's writes:
"He (Abberline) closely questioned the Polish woman, Lucy Baderski, about Chapman's nightly habits at the time of the murders. She said that he was often out till three or four o'clock in the morning, but she could throw little light on these absences."
(Hargrave L. Adam's The Trial of George Chapman, page 52.)
However, did Baderski ever actually say this? As Paul Begg points out in his book Jack the Ripper the Definitive History Abberline only became interested in Chapman at the time of the opening of his trial, so, 16 March, 1903. Since Abberline had retired from Scotland Yard in 1892 under what circumstances was he "closely questioning" a member of the public? Did the information come from Chief Inspector Godley as Sugden believes? This still doesn't explain how or why Abberline would travel from his home in Bournemouth and was able to interrogate Baderski. The point being that this is just another example of information that cannot be totally trusted
Dave, Martha Tabram, who I believe to be the probable first victim, was murdered inside a building. The first floor landing was at the top of the first flight of stairs, what you and I, living in North America, would call the second floor. Inside and out of sight of passers by on the street below.
As for the comings and goings of others it must be realized that at the time of both the Tabram and Nichols murders it was very early in the morning, roughly around 3:30 am, and the vast majority of the populace was in bed. In this respect traffic was more unlikely during the times he killed or at least much curtailed. Like any major city, however, you will always have people moving about at all hours of the day and night so the Ripper couldn't expect total privacy at any time.
This brings me to my point as to why the killer had to know the area in which he operated. I agree with you that the Ripper was probably more lucky than skilled in evading detection. That he probably did just stick his hands in his pockets and calmly walk away but that is because he was never interrupted during a murder. Had he been interrupted, and things became more dangerous to him as time went on, he couldn't have just sauntered away. As I said in my last post:
"...the Ripper murdered women out in the streets where any second he could be detected and forced to make a run for it. It is apparent to me that an intimacy with his surroundings would be of prime importance to this type of killer. Where do the streets and alleys lead to? If I duck down this lane will it turn out to be a dead end? Are there more people or less people out and about if I take this route? Etc."
Chapman started out his life in London, as far as we know, in West India Dock Road living, and working for, Abraham Radin. West India Dock Road is in Poplar and is further east and slightly further south than Cable Street. This means a much greater distance to travel in order to acclimatize himself with the heart of the killing grounds. After his move to Cable street, and when he was on his own, Chapman is still roughly about 3/4 of a mile from Dorset Street, or, Buck's Row, for instance, and that is as the crow flies. How long it would take to walk the actual winding streets from Cable to Buck's Row I have no idea but it is longer than a stroll.
As to Whitechapel being where all the prostitutes were, there was prostitution all over the East End, all the over the city for that matter, including areas such as Poplar and Limehouse which were closer to Chapman than Spitalfields and Whitchapel and we know that he spent more time in this area. The fact that Catherine Eddowes apron was left in Goulston Street is indicative of the area that the killer lived. The heart of Whitechapel. If Chapman had murdered Eddowes then he was traveling away from his home and safety.
I don't think that I can answer the question about Chapman and prostitutes, who could? But I think that it is interesting that the first woman Chapman latched onto was another Pole that he met in a Polish club. When he arrived in London he was a new immigrant who probably spoke little or no English so how this affected his love life I cannot say but it might mean that his only recourse was to use prostitutes who didn't need to be persuaded into having sex. As long as he, or the Ripper for that matter, had the money a woman could be found to go with him.
Wolf. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have recently been looking at my copy of THE
TRIAL OF DR. LAMSON in the NOTABLE BRITISH TRIAL
SERIES. It was edited by Hargrave L. Adams too.
I found an interesting problem. Lamson was hanged
for the poisoning murder (with aconite) of his
crippled brother-in-law Percy Malcolm John. In
the introductory essay, Adams said that besides
Percy and Mrs. Lamson, there had been three other
John family children/orphans, and these were two
girls and one boy. Only one of the boys is named
(Herbert John) because there was a suspicion that
Herbert was also killed by Lamson. If you have a
copy of the introduction, this information is on
pages 13-14.
But the testimony of the trial itself (which Adams
is supposed to have gotten together and edited for
the book) says something different. Lamson's
other brother-in-law, Mr. David Ormond, said (p.
116 of the book) that there were three boys and
two girls (his wife being Mrs. Lamson's sister.
The third son was Sydney John, who died in 12
April 1873.
My point is that Adams, who is the editor of the
Chapman volume in the N.B.T. series too, wrote the
introduction to that...and he was capable of making mistakes - even easy to correct ones like
what I have just illustrated.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hello, Wolf
Goulston Street. After checking a map, I find myself agreeing with you that the killer seems to be moving away from Cable Street via Goulston Street. Unless, of course, he's moving south down Goulston towards Whitechapel High Street, but that would have him taking a ridiculously circular route. It seems unreasonable that he would have done so--unless there was a 24 hour chalk store in Bishopsgate that he decided to visit before writing the graffiti! That might also explain the missing hour between the discovery of Eddowes and the apron. 
But that's an invented scenario meant as a joke, and since I'm currently leaning against a Ripper-written graffiti and believe that Long simply missed seeing the apron on his previous pass and therefore there's no lost hour, I agree that the Ripper does not appear to be on his way to Cable Street after the Eddowes murder. It's unreasonable to think he would have gone anywhere but straight home while carrying part of a kidney and Eddowes's womb. So as a consequence, you've changed my thinking and Chapman has just slipped down my short list of suspects. While there are many subjective areas in the case of Chapman, a map of Whitechapel isn't one of them.
It's a shame because Cable Street otherwise makes a good base of operations. I don't know if you're a walker, Wolf, but 3/4 of a mile isn't a far distance at all and doesn't take much time to walk. Winding streets would make it longer, but we still don't know the routes the murderer took. There's Goulston Street, and if I understand it correctly, that's not a small, winding street. It's my belief (and it is a belief, I don't have any proof) that the Ripper took the most direct routes home, including the main arteries. That he wasn't captured or spotted says something about how he was dressed and maybe something about his ability to lie.
A question about the Tabram murder scene: this was an enclosed landing? I confess that I pictured an area open to the air. But even if the murder occured indoors, it's still out in the open to the inhabitants of the building. The Ripper could have felt comfortable there, but I still think that if he did, then he didn't realize how possible it was to be interupted. I still question the extent of the Ripper's knowledge of the area.
Chapman's demeanor is a very subjective thing. I believe being wily enough to succesfully poison your victims over a length of time indicates prescence of mind.
Wolf, once again, excellent point about Goulston Street. I can't think of a counter-argument so will leave the last word to you, if you care to have it. Thanks for the discussion--I've enjoyed it.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 05, 2003 - 5:25 pm: |
|
There is no such thing as candidacy for being the Whitechapel murderer. Nobody is a better candidate than anyone else. All there is is the question of who committed the crimes.
Candidacy is a Ripperlogical error of longstanding. Why can't people learn how to think?
Saddam
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 10:04 am: |
|
All,
Some of you may have seen the coverage of the porch collapse in Chicago over the weekend. These are the type of open areas I referred to when Wolf and I were discussing landings and Martha Tabram. Can anyone tell me if London has a different variety?
Thanks,
Dave |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 11:20 pm: |
|
>>>Goulston Street. After checking a map, I find myself agreeing with you that the killer seems to be moving away from Cable Street via Goulston Street. Unless, of course, he's moving south down Goulston towards Whitechapel High Street, but that would have him taking a ridiculously circular route. It seems unreasonable that he would have done so--unless there was a 24 hour chalk store in Bishopsgate that he decided to visit before writing the graffiti! That might also explain the missing hour between the discovery of Eddowes and the apron. <<<
Or he might have placed the apron there on purpose in order to throw the police off his scent. Although, myself, I'm leaning towards the killer living very near George's Yard, so it may be a moot point.
As for Chapman, I dismiss him more because of differences in motive rather than M.O. per se. It just doesn't seem likely that Chapman's poisonings had anything near the same motive as the Ripper killings.
And a short note to Saddam: "Candidacy" is a perfectly valid term in the context of not having certainty regarding who the real killer was; a "candidate" being defined as a proposed suspect, and a "better or worse" candidate would be one who, given all the evidence, would be more or less likely to actually be the killer. (Conversely, if we did have certain knowledge of who it was, it would reduce the number to a single candidate.) And yes, some candidates really are better than others. For example, Ted Bundy would be a very bad candidate for Ripperhood, since he wasn't even born yet. |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi, David:
I get the impression that the landing where Tabram was killed was an inside areaway not an outside porch like the ones involved in the Chicago tragedy. Perhaps someone can correct this impression if I am wrong.
All the best
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi, Chris
Thanks for that. You and Wolf might be right. I just read Swanson's summary of the Tabram case inquiries and he writes about her being found on the landing, "in the building". I'm assuming Swanson would have been meticulous in his language.
Cheers,
Dave |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Randy,
Every single time a candidate for Jack the Ripper is offered, it's nothing more than a man coming on your TV and telling you how white your shirts can be. Or that you can't be a man because you don't smoke the same cigarettes as he. Catch my drift? The whole parade of candidates is just a losin' streak. Y'all cain't git no satisfaction.
Saddam
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2003 - 5:36 am: |
|
Who can argue with the Stones? I withdraw my objections.
(But don't assume this means I'm in any way under his thumb)
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Inspector Abberline in the Pall Mall Gazzett makes some interesting points. First he says he never believed the ripper was insane and locked up. This would rule out kozminski and cohen he also stated he never believed the ripper was dead this would seem to eliminate druitt he points out that neil cream was not in the country at the time of the murders furthermorre he states that the most logical conclusion was that the ripper had emigrated to America he points out that one of the medical examiners said that the ripper showed medical skill the same doctor told a story he said that he had been told by the subcurator of the pathological museum connected with one of the great medical schools that some few months before an American had called upon him and asked to procure a number of specimens. He stated his willingness to pay for the organs. Although the strange visitor was told that his wish was impossible of fulfillment he still urged his request. It was known that the request was repeated at another institutions of a similar charactor in london. Abberline said in the March 31 1903 eddition of the Pall Mall Gazette " I still believe chapman had a commission from America" Abberlinr thought that chapman had commited the murders in order to harvest specimens possible for sale to that unknown american.It could be a little far fetched but I still think that Abberline gave us some important insight. First he believed the ripper fled to America second he ruled out such suspects as cohen kozminski cream druitt and barnett. Abberlines statment that he never believed the ripper was insane commited or dead rules those suspects out. He also pointed out that the organs had been harvested I always thought that the takeing of the organs was an important clue. His statement that most people who alleged that they saw jack the ripperat one time or another state "He was a man about thirty five or forty years of age." However they only saw his back and it is easy to misjudge age from a back few.I guess what i am getting at is the unknown American could have been Dr Tumblety He too fled to america and if the reports are to be believed he had a collection of organs. Abberline could have been on the right track however Tumblety could have been the ripper? Has anyone ever tried to do some research on a possible connection between chapman and Tumblety just in case Abberlines theory was correct. Thanks CB |
malcolm macdougall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Well maybe Chapman didn't have to walk 3/4 of a mile to the kill zone, he could already have been there for the previous two hours; maybe the Ripper's kill zone was Chapman's fovourite drinking area.
it would be crazy to kill that close to home anyway, best location about a mile away.
in addition; 3/4 of a mile is nothing; it's a pleasant stroll...getting to know whitechapel?
that would take no more than 2 weeks out walking every night.
Chapman could have walked/ run home when need be and for a fit young man it would take about 10 mins...
Chapman as the Ripper? no problem at all
|
malcolm macdougall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 8:14 pm: |
|
i'm also suspicious of a tumblety/chapman colaboration...but it is far fetched i must admit.
if not, i definitely suspect either of these two, the more i study the Zodiac killer the more i suspect Chapman as the ripper..because the zodiac killer changed his M.O and could still be quietly killing today! chapman can't be dismissed so lightly, he looks as dodgy as hell and like the zodiac killer could've changed his M.O, especially if this was a paid commission |
A Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 10:43 am: |
|
Malcolm
The point I have made about Chapmans varying m.o. in the past seems logical enough.
If he was indeed Jack The Ripper, he is hardly going to advertise the fact by mutilating his own wives in the same manner as the others.
He definitely, hoped to get away with the domestic killings and pass them as natural deaths, a scenario which would hardly be likely if they turned up cut to pieces.
This in no way increases the likliehood that Chapman is our man but it does give a possible explanation of the main objection to his candidacy
Alan |
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Hello all.
If you're going to make the point about different motives, keep in mind that Severin had really nothing to gain from the murder of his wives (except for the one occaision with 500 pounds). He just loved sex and hated women.
Look, Chapman needed to know enough English to pick up a Whitechapel whore. Given the fact that the whores murdered didn't have the physical attributes to be choosy with their customers (well, except Mary Kelly), I don't think his mastery of English came into importance. Plus, according to his employer Wolff Levisohn he could speak "Polish and Yiddish". Given his Polish Roman Catholic upbringing, he must have had a knack for languages to pick up Yiddish as well as to convince his future 'wife''s family that he was Jewish and to be considered a competant Yiddish speaker by a Jew. Not to mention, when he moved to Jersey City, he was trying to pass himself off as an American (born n' raised) from Michigan and was decently successful. Chapman, while not actually an actor, had something of a flair for drama. He assumed nationalities, aliases, religions, and moreover convinced his wives and their respective families that he was quite the charming individual. Given his natural preference for some pretty sick humor, I'd say he was quite skilled in keeping that tucked away for quite some time.
Just wondering:
- What do you think was the significance(to Chapman) of removing the uterus? Was it symbolic? Or was he 'just having a little fun'?
- Do any of you know where his barbershop in Jersey City was located? (a street name would be lovely)
- And by what street are 2 Tewkesbury Buildings? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 617
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi Melissa,
I noticed your post just now. Hope you're still around.
"He assumed nationalities, aliases, religions, and moreover convinced his wives and their respective families that he was quite the charming individual. Given his natural preference for some pretty sick humor, I'd say he was quite skilled in keeping that tucked away for quite some time."
Severin Klosowski was a manipulative bullshitter, who seems to have thrived on seeing other people suffer from mental as well as physical pain and who really doesn't seem to have cared for anybody but himself. All psychopath-like characteristics, I'd think.
Although by itself Jack the Ripper may have been this type of man, I, for one, don't think he was. His victims were killed suddenly & swiftly and probably (surely hopefully) didn't suffer much.
I don't think that removing the uterus was something symbolic to the Ripper, whoever he was; I think the mutilations were the result of a combination of curiosity about the female body and a desire to destroy it. But, that's just how I see things.
I'm afraid I can't answer the other two questions.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
QUOTE: "Although by itself Jack the Ripper may have been this type of man, I, for one, don't think he was. His victims were killed suddenly & swiftly and probably (surely hopefully) didn't suffer much."
There's sniping, shooting, etc... but throat-cutting or strangling are both such strangely intimate ways to kill someone. Furthermore, Mary Kelly displayed possible defense wounds on her forearms and there was aterial blood spray on the wall next to her bed- I mean, it can't have been that quick if she had time to struggle. And if you want to add the death of Martha Tabram, she was stabbed 39 times- stabbing is similarly intimate and the number of times shows a passion involved, rather than an expediency. I think the quickness was really to prevent discovery because of the sound of struggle- but if he could he would have wanted to draw out the suffering as Chapman did with poisoning victims. I know this is all speculation. (Thanks for responding, by the way) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
