|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
James Rice
Police Constable
Username: Jmnrc
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 25, 2003 - 5:07 pm: |       |
Hi I'm new to the message board & am now reading the Complete History of Jack the Ripper. I admit I skipped to the end when Sugden states that Chapman is a much better suspect than Druitt, Kosminski, & Ostrog. I must agree on Ostrog but wonder about the other two. Is that the general opinion of most on this board ? That Chapman was more likely the killer than Druitt or Kosminski ? Although I enjoy the book greatly so far, I don't see how there can be anything in it that would back up this claim. Am I wrong & Chapman is clearly a better suspect than Druitt and Kosminski ? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
hi,
not at all! i don't think that it is the opinion of people on the board at all.
if anything am i wrong in thinking there is a 'link' between chapmans 'real'name and kosminski?
regards
jennifer |
Chris Scott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chris
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
Sugden's book in my opinion is incompararble and the scholarship that went into it is indispensable for anyone who has more than a passing interest in the case.
However, when I first read his book (some years ago now!) I was surprised at his choice of favoured suspect. In my opinion there are really only two pieces of supposed evidence that lend any credence to supporting Chapman/Klosowski as a suspect.
1) Abberline's supposed comment which suggested Chapman was his "name in the frame"
2) The fact that Chapman was certainly in the right area at the right time.
Abberline's comment is very problematic and very short on any supporting testimony. Of course, because of his involvement in the case and his intimate knowledge of Whitechapel, any proveable suspicion of his would have to be taken seriously but I certainly don't consider Abberline's supposed comment to be proveable.
There have been so many efforts over the years to prove that a given suspect has some link with Whitechapel that it has almost reached the point now that if we can show a given individual was in or near Whitechapel at the time of the murders that is somehow a kind of proof in itself. Which of course, it is not.
I have always considered Chapman to be one of the weaker among the "major" suspects and I have yet to see any evidence to change that opinion.
Regards
Chris Scott |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Police Constable
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 4:46 am: | |
Hello Chris,
You say that there are only pieces of evidence to suggest that Chapman was JTR. Yes Abberline's statement is worth considering and that Chapman was certainly in the area at the time is also noteworthy, but you are have failed to mention the third reason. George Chapman was a known, convicted and hung murderer.
Sue and I are very fortunate that we are close friends with David Brown who is the Great Grandson of Chapman's, and while we were researching and writing our book we asked him if he would record on tape his elderly mother's recollections of her grandfather from her mother and family. Reluctant at first (she was nearly 90yrs old and as sadly since died) she agreed. We transcribed the tape for our book, although it does not tell us much about him being a JTR suspect it does show a personal insight into Chapman's life. Also there is a picture of Chapman's daughter Cecilia with her husband Albert Przygodzinski. Who are David Brown's grand-parents.
A. |
Saddam Hussein The Dictator
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 12:28 am: | |
Mr. Scott's post above illustrates much of what's right and wrong about Ripperology, IMHO. Basically, the way things go is:
1. Ripperologist #1 posits a theory based on supposition.
2. Ripperologist #2 says it is "...very problematic and very short on any supporting testimony..." and therefore does not constitute a "...proveable suspicion."
Decades and decades of this. Round and round we go, until...what?...Mr. Chisholm shows up? Time to give up the whole game? But, when we give up the game, what have we left ourselves with?
Point to ponder, riddle for the riddlers.
Saddam H.T.D.
|
Bruce Tonnermann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:40 am: | |
There is no evidence to suggest that Chapman was the Whitechapel murderer. |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
Chris and Andy,
Chapman wasn't just a convicted killer, he was a killer exclusively of women. He was heartless. While his method was poison (this seems to be the main objection to his validity as a suspect), he's known to have resorted to a knife on at least one occassion (in New York he went for his pregnant wife with it). And as Chris mentions, there's a very good possibility he was living in the area during the murders.
He also had some medical knowledge. Phil Sugden cites Chapman's two years as an assistant-surgeon in Poland and his attendance at a course of surgery at Praga Hospital.
Those are reasons why Chapman remains a strong suspect in my opinion, although not the only one. I can see why he excited Abberline.
Cheers,
Dave
PS In 1890, Chapman was using an alias--Ludwig Zagowski. I haven't read an account of his trial. Does he give a reason for it?
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hello David & all. More on Chapman.
Nice post. When Sue and I spoke to Chapman's granddaughter Cecilia Brown, she told us that even up to the day of his execution he was putting on a American accent! When Chapman's daughter went to visit him in prison he lay on his bed in his cell with the sheets pulled up over his face with just his eyes looking over the top. (It was the only time Cecilia's mother also named Cecilia ever saw her father).
Andy. P. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 2:19 pm: | |
David, Chapman's modus operandi was totally different from that of the slasher/ripper type murderer who prowled Whitechapel. Chapman met woman, started a relationship with them and then, when he had tired of them or had found someone new, he poisoned them. It is hard to reconcile the M. O. of the Ripper with Chapman's three year relationship with Bessie Taylor before he murdered her. This is simply not the same type of psychopathgology.
The incident with the knife that you have described has little resemblance with what actually happened. The incident occurred in Jersey City, not New York, and there was no attack. Chapman's wife, Lucy Baderski, had found a knife under Chapman's pillow and had asked him what it was for. He responded that he was going to use it to cut her head off. An argument then ensued which was interrupted by a customer after which Lucy took the knife away and hid it. A shouting match between husband and wife is hardly an indication of attempted homicide nor can it be said that "he went for his pregnant wife with it."
Chapman was living in the East End in 1888 but not in the heart of the murder district. He was living at 70 West India Dock Road in St. George In The East. As for the supposed medical knowledge unless one has an understanding of the level of training for surgical assistants in Poland in the late nineteenth century then there is no evidence that it was any more advanced than setting broken bones, lancing boils and applying leeches.
Wolf.
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hello, Wolf
Thanks for the correction--George Chapman did not attack his wife with a knife as I posted above. But this wasn't a shouting match as you say, since Chapman physically restrained any shouting on Lucy's part with his head. I don't believe the prescence of the knife under the pillow was a coincidence, and it's very possible that the only reason Lucy Baderski was left to tell the tale was that a customer interrupted them. Why else hide the knife if she didn't feel threatened by it? And Chapman himself admitted that he meant to use it. There's also the story that Phil Sugden cites, the one from Arthur Neil's book (admittedly written in 1932 and not contemporary), about the identity parade in 1902, when Chapman claimed not to know Lucy and she said "You remember the time you nearly killed me in Jersey City!"
Wolf, please reconcile for me Chapman's attack on his wife with the M.O. of a poisoner.
Best,
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 8:04 am: | |
Wolf and all,
I thought Chapman was living in Cable Street in 1888--I know the directory that places him there is from 1889, but last night I read an archived post from Adam Wood that that information would have been compiled in 1888.
Best,
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 9:12 am: | |
David--For me, I don't think 'modus operandi' quite hits the nail on the head.
The Chapman theory leaves me cold, not because he used poison rather than a knife, but because of the intimacy Chapman had with his victims. I think he is, in some ways, the polar opposite of the man who creeps out and kills strangers in the street.
It's somewhat subjective, and maybe I can't quite express what I mean. But, for instance, even though their 'modus operandi' was different, I'd tend to lump Chapman into the same general catagory with Bury, whereas, on the opposite end, I'd put the Ripper with Neill Cream.
Similar to the idea of an 'extrovert' as opposed to an 'introvert.' Or at least, maybe. Cheers.
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Hi, RJ
That's interesting that you compare Chapman the poisoner with Bury the stabber. I'd agree that Chapman was unlike Cream, because of Chapman's physical violence (as far as I know Cream wasn't a physical extrovert). But as far as intimacy goes, I'd argue there wasn't any real intimacy, since Chapman seems to have viewed his wives as disposable commodities. I see why you classify Chapman as an extrovert, but I think he was only a physical extrovert. You can also say he was introverted, since his wives didn't know him. He didn't have any friends. I always thought it interesting that he'd be running a social place like a bar.
And I'd put Cream in the extrovert category because he could not shut up about what he'd done. He was much more social than Chapman. But like you say, it's subjective 
I wonder how many wife-beaters who go on to kill their wives poison them (I don't know the answer, but I bet it's a low number). It just seems to me that Chapman is hard to categorize. What does it mean when the poisoner bangs Maud Marsh's head, keeps a knife under his pillow, and carries a pistol? Once I thought about it in that light, the M.O. seemed to matter less (although I also dismissed Chapman when I first read about him).
So there's no proof, but given Chapman's violence, I don't understand why people cross off a killer of women, living in the area at the time of the murders, off their short list. Killers never change their M.O.'s, but I say never is a troublesome word when you're dealing with human behavior.
Cheers,
Dave
|
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 10:50 am: | |
Dave--I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with your final point. Never is a bad word when dealing with the strange thing called man, and I'm skeptical about 'profiling' &tc., because I believe 'Psychology' just as often tends to hide and fictionalize while it is proporting to reveal and explain. Chapman is a reasonable suspect, and I wouldn't want to entirely dismiss him.
But, despite his outward aggression and meglomania, I actually meant Chapman to be an example of an 'introvert.' No, he doesn't have 'intimacy' in any meaningful sense of the word, but he is remarkably successful [in a horrible way] at possessing the women he is living with. And, like Bury, he is killing the 'object' that is close to him.
Maybe I'm too much influenced by the widly disparaged and mocked Colin Wilson here, but I think he is perceptive on this point. The Ripper, it seems to me, is an 'outsider.' He is venting his fear and anger on something 'away' from him. That Tabram & Nichols, etc., were complete strangers is part of the psychology of his act. I can't imagine him even superficially living with his victims [the Kelly murder scene, in fact, doesn't even seem quite right to me] and I wouldn't expect him to be able to treat his intimates in the same fashion.
I tread on rather soft ground, here, I admit, and welcome opposing views. By the way, I'm not sure I accept Sugden's suggestion that 'psychology' might take us further than history. Cheers, RJP |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
RJ,
I see what you mean about psychology, although I do believe profiling can be useful. I'm just not dogmatic about it.
I agree with you that the Ripper was an outsider. It's funny how people's perspectives differ though, because that's also how I see Chapman. My own opinion (and it's only opinion) is that his marriages don't count as meaningful human relationships. And the people who screw around a lot always seem to me to be the ones who feel the worst about themselves. I sound like Dr. Joyce Brothers. Shoot me now, please.
It's a good point you raise about the intimacy with the victims and lack of it in the Ripper crimes, but to me it seems like a partial reason for switching to poison, if George Chapman was responsible for both sets of murders. Another good point was about killing the object that's close to you, but there's a difference between what is close to you and what's merely near. I think you're spot on that his wives were his possessions. Prostitutes are also possessions, in that they're bought. Was there a possible progression in switching from killing prostitutes to killing wives? If such a progression is possible, wouldn't a progression of M.O. also be possible? Everyone please note those are questions of mine, not statements.
But here's where I think the prostitutes come in--one of the consistent things about George Chapman is that from 1889 on, there's always a woman around. In 1887 and 1888, what was he doing for companionship? Lucy Baderski's account of his nocturnal documents are often dismissed because they're from 1889, but why isn't it reasonable to think Chapman might have had similar habits only a few months before when he was living alone?
Anyway, RJ--we agree that Chapman is a reasonable suspect. That's all I'm really debating.
Cheers,
Dave |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 4:05 pm: | |
Dave. The episode with the knife, told only from his wife's side, gives us evidence of marital disharmony and a look into a domestic dispute and nothing more. Of course we can assume anything we want about Chapman's seriousness in murdering his wife although one has to wonder if this was the only knife in the house and why Chapman didn't finish the job after his customer had left. In short, if Chapman really intended to kill his wife why didn't he?
As for your request that I "please reconcile for me Chapman's attack on his wife with the M.O. of a poisoner." Surely you are not suggesting that poisoners cannot be abusive husbands? If not, why not? Nobody is arguing that Chapman wasn't anything other than a villain but I am afraid that spousal abuse is not a strong enough peg to hang the Jack the Ripper hat on.
Did he live in the area of the murders? well, close anyway. As for Chapman living at 126 Cable Street in 1888, fair enough, he probably was living there sometime in 1888 but he had definitely lived at 70 West India Dock Road in 1888. Considering the fact that both addresses are in St. George's-in-the-East and south of the actual killing grounds, as was my point, I don't see your point.
Was George Chapman a multiple murderer of women? yes, he met, "married" and had relationships with three different women, over a seven year period, before he murdered them by poisoning them in the privacy of his own bedroom. Is it possible to reconcile these actions with the man who stalked women in Whitechapel in 1888? A man who used a knife to cut the throats of his victims, attempting decapitation on some of them? A man who sliced open their bodies and plunged his bare hands into their steaming abdominal cavities where he stabbed, slashed and cut away at their organs? A man who took away some wet, sticky parts of the human anatomy as souvenirs, before he disappeared into the night with the sounds of policeman's whistles ringing in his ears?
But as you say, he did live in the area and he did rough up his "wives" so he must be a viable candidate. However, John Douglas, retired FBI agent and expert on serial killers, doesn't share your feelings on Chapman. His expertise and experience have led him to say this on the matter:
"...there is no way a man hacks apart five or six women, lies low for ten years with no one noticing anything about him, then resumes his homicidal career as a poisoner, who, along with bombers, are the most cowardly and detached of all murderers. It just doesn't happen that way in real life."
Of course Mr. Douglas, with all his experience, could be wrong.
Wolf. |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 01, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | |
Wolf,
On what basis do you discount Lucy Baderski's story? Was she a known liar or somehow disreputable? Do you also dispute Maud Marsh's account of Chapman pulling her by the hair and banging her head? My objective in pointing this out wasn't that poisoners don't engage in domestic disturbances like a shouting match, but are they physically violent people? Isn't physical confrontation at odds with the profile of a poisoner? It's Chapman's violence, coupled with his history of murder that allows me to reconcile him with the Whitechapel murderer. If the physical confrontations weren't there, if George Chapman were more like Neill Cream, then I'd agree with you and John Douglas.
The point about Cable Street was an answer to your earlier refutation of my original post. Whether he was at 70 West India Dock Road or 126 Cable isn't really important. My point was that unlike some of the other suspects, we know he was around at the time.
He lived in the area. He was violent towards women. He's known to have murdered women in later years. In my opinion, he's a viable candidate. That is all he is.
Yes. Respectfully, there's the possibility Mr. Douglas, with all his experience, could be wrong. While profilers often are spot on the money, they've been known to be mistaken as well. While I appreciate Mr. Douglas's expertise, I don't think the language in the quote you supplied is objective.
Wolf, it's not my intention to upset you. I have only given you my reasons for thinking George Chapman a good suspect. I also could be mistaken. But until profiling becomes more than an art or evidence comes to light which excludes Mr. Chapman, then I see no reason to dismiss him.
Best,
Dave
edit: Apologies, Wolf--I just now realized the account of Maud Marsh's abuse isn't her own, since she was dead. The story comes from her sister, Louisa.
I forgot to answer your question: if George meant to kill Lucy, then why didn't he? Perhaps because she left him? Or perhaps he thought better of it. It's impossible to know what he would have done if he hadn't been interrupted. What is known is that after that quarrel, Lucy, pregnant, left her husband and sailed back to England. If the Chapmans had had a simple quarrel, that's quite an overreaction.
|
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 02, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Now this quote by John Douglas is interesting. I guess the bit about profiling being a 'useful tool' to help 'focus' an investigation, rather than to eliminate a suspect, is mostly a matter of semantics. |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 03, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Dave.
In no way do I doubt Lucy Baderski's claim that some sort of physical argument broke out between herself and her husband. Chapman was a pure villain but I'm just not one of those who believes that any man capable of physically abusing a woman automatically becomes capable of being "Jack the Ripper." That's just too pat and p.c.. I do think that any man who would abuse his wife, or any woman for that matter, is a bully and a coward and thus his latter incarnation as a poisoner is not a surprise but I think that you've gone down the wrong path regarding poisoners.
By questioning "are they physically violent people? Isn't physical confrontation at odds with the profile of a poisoner?" it sounds as if you are discounting one or the other. In effect, if indeed abusers don't poison and poisoners don't abuse than Chapmen did either one or the other, ( but not both?) We do know, however, that he did do both. No reconciliation between the two needed.
The question of where Chapman lived during the murders is important in that whoever the Whitechapel murderer was he most likely lived and worked right in the heart of the murder district. A district that he appears to have known intimately. This would tend to exclude Chapman who only arrived in London sometime in 1888 and who lived and worked in St. George in the East during the duration of the murders. Close, but no cigar I'm afraid.
As regards to Lucy Baderski having left her husband because of the argument with the knife I am afraid that there is absolutely no evidence that this is so. Although Phillip Sugden states that this was the case there is no evidence to base this assertion on. We know the couple argued over Chapman's constant womanizing. We know there was an argument with a knife found under Chapman's pillow. We know that the couple lived together in Jersey City for almost a year before Lucy returned to London but we don't know what was the catalyst for this return.
The quote from John Douglas is not part of some profile of either Chapman or the Ripper. It is an observation gleaned from several years study of serial killers and other criminals. I did not mention profiling or even Mr. Douglas's expertise as a profiler for the simple reason that many people dismiss profiling out of hand. Is this discipline more than an art than a science? I whole heartedly agree but is the study of, and long experience with, certain types of crime and criminals an art? No.
Wolf. |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 77
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi, Wolf
Thanks for your post. That Chapman did both abuse and poison is exactly the point I was trying to make. While I agree with you that it certainly is cowardly to attack a woman, I'd also like to point out that a coward is also a person who avoids confrontation. But here we have George Chapman who seems capable of both kinds of actions--violent outbursts coupled with calculated poisonings. It's this duality in his personality that I don't find addressed in the profiles and why I think this particular poisoner makes a good suspect. It's not only the wife-beatings that make me suspect Chapman might have been the Ripper (not that he was)--it's that we know he was capable of murder and capable of cruelty. That's not proof--again, I would never say Chapman (or anyone else) actually was the Ripper. But when people reasonably point out the drastic difference in M.O. between Chapman's calculated poisonings and the Ripper's knifings and strangulations, I think it's reasonable to refer to Chapman's violent and passionate outburts and say he might have been capable of a knifing murder. Again, not proof, only suspicion, but that is what gets you on the suspect list. I recognize this is the weakest part of a case against Chapman, but I don't believe this excludes him as a suspect. To me, an example of a weak suspect is M.J. Druitt or Michael Ostrog, who were not known to have been violent.
To address a couple of great points you made: you're right to say that we don't know if Lucy left Jersey City because of Chapman's attack. It could have been his womaninizing. But would you agree that it would have taken something drastic to make a pregnant woman leave her husband and travel back home across the ocean? I would also say that when Lucy confronted Chapman at the 1902 identitity parade, she did not mention his womanizing. She reminded him that he tried to kill her in Jersey City.
Wolf, it's my understanding that Chapman arrived in England shortly after Feb. 1887, because of the documentation of his life in Poland that Phil Sugden mentions in his book. I will admit that I haven't read the prime source material myself, but I do understand that it's detailed and ends abruptly after Feb. 1887. This would indicate to me that is when he left Poland, at the very least.
And if he did arrive then, that gives him about a year and a half to become acquainted with Whitechapel.
But let me ask you a question--why is it believed that the Ripper had an extensive knowledge of Whitechapel? It seems to me reasonable the he would have met his victims on the busy thoroughfares like Whitechapel High Street/Aldgate or Commercial Street, and it was the victims who had the knowledge of the back streets. Although I suppose the Ripper would have had to realize that there was more than one way in and out of Mitre Square. I'm not discounting that he did know Whitechapel inside out, but I'd be interested in your reaction that the Ripper only needed to have a tolerable acquaintance with main arteries and landmarks (like St. Botolph's) of the area.
We agree then, about St. George's in the East, but I have read that is within walking distance of the murders. If that's true, isn't it reasonable that George Chapman would have been somewhat familiar with the area?
Wolf, this has been an enjoyable discussion.
Cheers,
Dave
|
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 05, 2003 - 8:33 am: | |
A rather obvious point, I suppose, but after 1888 many notorious criminals in England [and particularly ones with connections to the East End] became automatic Ripper suspects. Bury, Deeming, Cream. Even the murder of Mrs. Hogg in Hampstead in 1890 by Mrs. Pearcey caused a minor Ripper scare. Isn't it almost inevitable that Chapman would have been named as a candidate? |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2003 - 12:40 pm: | |
Dave.
I'm not sure that I would agree with your thoughts on Chapman's "duality in his personality" for the simple reason that Chapman's violent confrontations seem to only occur when the other party is a woman. This is all part and parcel of being a coward and as such shows no duality at all. That Chapman was capable of murder and perhaps cruelty is a given but I wouldn't say that the Ripper was cruel per se. The deaths of his victims seems to have been carried out quickly and without any obvious signs of overt cruelty such as torture. The deaths of his victims was merely a means to an end and of only secondary importance. I would argue that because of an errant sexual psychopathy, mutilation coupled with souvenir retrieval were the driving forces behind the Ripper's murder spree. How then to reconcile this type of sexual serial killer with an almost mundane wife abusing poisoner like Chapman. As I have said, the reasoning, the drive, the psychopathology is not the same.
I would agree that some drastic event might have forced Lucy to leave her husband and to sail back across the Atlantic but we can not say what that event was. It could have been the argument involving the knife just as it could have been one sexual affair to many on the part of her husband. Lucy was pregnant and living in a strange new country and if she was feeling alone, neglected, unwanted by her husband and isolated from her friends and family back in London anything, large or small, might have led to her decision to return home.
I would be very leery of setting too much store in anything Lucy Baderski may or may not have said to Chapman in the identity parade in 1902. We only have one source that describes this confrontation and that comes from Chief Inspector Arthur Neil's memoir, Man-hunters of Scotland Yard which was published in1932, some thirty years after the events described. Although Neil was involved in the Borough Poisoner Case he wrote his memoirs at a time when fictional embellishment was part of the norm when publishing "fact" based works such as this. Let me give you an example from C.I. Neil's book. Neil describes the arrest of Chapman in a dramatic way and offers what seems to be a verbatim account.
"Chapman was behind the counter. With a slight nod Godley beckoned him towards them. As he shuffled across the floor his great shining black eyes -- eyes that had lured so many women to their deaths -- looked as if they had just seen a vision of the gallows....‘I wish to speak to you in private, Mr. Chapman,' said Godley. ‘What about?' demanded the murderer, fencing desperately for time. But he knew quite well they had come to get him. ‘I would rather discuss it somewhere else,' said Godley. ‘It is too important to talk about in the public bar.'"
Neil, however, was not involved in Chapman's arrest and could not have known what was said. As Hargrave Adam's book, The Trial of George Chapman was published in 1930 and Neil's account seems to closely, but not exactly, follow Inspector Godley's trial testimony, it seems likely that Neil based his account on this. This gives Neil's account a stamp of authenticity that it does not deserve. Here is another example that illustrates the need for caution when reading Neil's book :
"For a moment Chapman made no reply. His eyes went from one to another of them. He was armed - a loaded revolver was found in his pocket when he was searched at the station, and the thought of making a fight for it probably flashed across his mind."
The problem here is that Chapman was not carrying a loaded revolver when he was arrested. After Chapman's arrest Godley returned to the Crown public house and, while searching the bedroom, found, among other things, a loaded "American" revolver in its case. Neil either got the story wrong or decided to spice it up a little bit. This does not support any confidence in the accuracy of his thirty year old reminiscences.
It is hard to reconcile Chapman as a Ripper suspect if he only arrived in Britain sometime in 1888. Phillip Sugden states that "we know from a receipt for hospital fees paid by Chapman at Warsaw that he was still in Poland in February 1887. But soon after that he emigrated to London." This neatly deflects this problem and, as you have said Dave, "...that gives him about a year and a half to become acquainted with Whitechapel." The problem is that there is no evidence that proves this to be true. I have no idea where the information, "soon after that he emigrated to London," comes from and can only assume that Mr. Sugden is basing it on the termination of Chapman's Polish papers in February 1887. There are problems with this theory however.
First. The Polish papers begin roughly in 1865, with Chapman's birth certificate, and end in the last day of February, 1887 so that the sixteen pieces of documentation cover a period of twenty two years. They do not, however, come at regular intervals. They are not like the mystery writers gimmick in which the broken clock pinpoints the time of the murder. We cannot say that since they stop on the last day of February 1887 that this is proof that Chapman left Poland on the first day of March 1887 or evan "soon after." They do tell us that Chapman had not left Poland anytime before the 28th of February, 1887. Anything else is sheer speculation.
Second. There is a problem with the final document. Document No.16 is a receipt from the Treasury of the Warsaw Society of Assistant Surgeons for hospital fees. (It should be noted that had Chapman attained the standing of Junior Surgeon, as some authors claim, he would not be a member of, nor paying hospital dues to, the Society of Assistant Surgeons). The receipt states in entirety
"Severin Klosowski has paid to the Treasury of the Warsaw Society of Assistant Surgeons, Hospital fees four roubles per month. — Warsaw, February 28, 1887. COBALSKI, Senior Surgeon. Paid up till March 3, 1887."
Although fees were four roubles per month, and Chapman had paid some fee, the document states that he was paid up for three days. This is obviously wrong but we don't know which date is incorrect, the month or the year. If the year was incorrect and Chapman was paid up till 3 March, 1888 this wouldn't prove that he stayed in Poland until then but it would mean that if he had left any earlier it was not planned as of February 1887.
Third. It is little known, or at least little commented on, that after the arrest of Chapman Scotland Yard did a careful check into Chapman's background and history. This check included his life in Poland and whether the Yard sent an inspector to Poland or merely contacted the Polish police they did obtain information about his movements there. At the trial the Solicitor General, Sir Edward Carson, who was armed with whatever information Scotland yard had obtained, stated that Chapman had arrived in Britain "about 1888" thus this is the likely time that he did arrive in London.
Wolf. |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2003 - 5:00 pm: | |
Hello, Wolf
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the quotes from Neil's book--I agree that the language is somewhat melodramatic and since it's written thirty years after the events took place, I'll take the quotation of Lucy Baderski with a grain of salt. However, I still do not dismiss that she left Jersey City because of the attack upon her completely, but I'll try to keep an open mind.
I also agree that the drive and psychopathology for the Chapman poisonings and the Ripper murders are different. That's why I place an emphasis on his violent attacks against women. I'm not a student of profiling, but these attacks do not seem to be in line with what I know of of the psychopathology of a poisoner. That Chapman does both is why I say he seems to have a "duality" in his character. It's why I tend to dismiss Neill Cream while including George Chapman. It may be true that Chapman's attacks were of the mudane domestic variety, but when they are coupled with his capacity for murder, that's what makes me wonder, and why I think he is a viable suspect.
Thanks also for the information regarding Chapman's Polish documents, I appreciate the time you took to look them up and post them. His arrival date seems to still be wide open--when the police give a date of "about 1888", to me that means 1887 or 1888--I don't mean to be semantic about it, that's just my opinion. I take your point that we don't know one way or the other.
But let's say he didn't arrive in London until 1888. It's my understanding that he was in London at least five months (working for Abraham Radin at 70 West India Dock Road) prior to taking up residence in Cable Street/St. George in the East later in 1888 and opening his own business. If we take the very lowest estimate of five months, isn't that enough time to have a reasonable knowledge of the area? In your opinion, how long would it take someone to garner such knowledge? Years, or would the person have to have been a native East Ender?
You've said that the Ripper had an extensive knowledge of the East End, and I don't necessarily dispute that, but I'd like to know your reasons for saying so, if you have time and inclination to post them. I ask because it seems likely that the murderer was led to each crime scene by his victim, so I do not understand why an extensive knowledge was needed. There's the fact that the Ripper took Goulston Street as an excape route--is that why you say an extensive knowledge of the area was called for?
I would be more inclined to dismiss George Chapman if some information turned up that specifically excluded him, i.e. if he was in jail on any of the nights the Nichols, Chapman, or Eddowes murders occured, or out of town.
I would also be interested in knowing when in 1888 the information for the 1889 Post Office London Directory would have been procured. I've seen Adam Wood post about it on the old boards, but no date was given--are we talking about the autumn or December, 1888? If anybody knows. . .?
Cheers,
Dave |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 4:15 am: | |
Hi Dave,
Can I chip in here, regarding how much local knowledge the ripper would have needed in order to kill the women and get away with it?
I imagine it depends on whether he did any planning and preparation before attacking for the first time. If he was going into the East End hell bent on downing the whores there, I see no reason at all why he couldn't be a newcomer to the area who 'did the knowledge' first, just like black cabbies do, in order to familiarise himself with his chosen hunting ground. You could live in the area all your life and still not know all the back streets if you never had occasion to go there. But it would take someone with a definite purpose in mind next to no time to get on intimate terms with the alleyways, courtyards and short cuts of the East End, if that's what it took to do the job well.
On the other hand, if this was very much a spur of the moment thing - man encounters woman on the street, she says or does something that makes him flip then rip - it's more likely he had grown accustomed to his surroundings more gradually over a longer period, and for less sinister reasons. A fish out of water would have to be very lucky to get away with this more than once in quick succession if his escape route wasn't second nature.
Once again, it's the type of killer we have in mind - this time premeditative or spontaneous - that will tend to determine other factors, like how long he had to be in Whitechapel before his first attack there.
Love,
Caz |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
Hi, Caz
My impression has been that the Ripper was a mixture of both types. He premeditated the way a hunter does, knowing he would kill, but not who or exactly where. Like you, I guess I have an open mind about how well he would have known the area.
Cheers,
Dave |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
