|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 17
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 5:03 pm: | 
|
Glenn,
I know that you (and lots of others) are adamantly opposed to Klosowski being the Ripper because of the change of M.O. I am sorry but I absolutely fail to understand this. You (and others) make it seem like it violates the laws of physics for him to have done so. I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.
c.d. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Glenn
You seem to be suggesting that Klosowski was a man who piosoned his wives and then turned to using a knife.
Surely what is being suggested about Klosowski is that as a younger man, early twenties, while living in Georges yard, he took to stabbing and ripping women. He had recently arrived in the country.
I've also seen it suggested that he may not have acted alone but may have worked for or with an accomplice (Tumbelty being one suggestion).
When things got hot he moved abroad, returning in later life. It was then that he took to poisoning not the other way around, which sort of makes more sence. However it still leaves that big unanswered question why stop at Kelly? unless he was working with someone else.
Just wondering
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"You seem to be suggesting that Klosowski was a man who piosoned his wives and then turned to using a knife."
No no no NO!!!!!! 
Never of the sort. I don't think Klosowski ever used anything at all besides poison.
My point was, that if the argument goes that the Ripper changed his methods and motives to such a degree because the circumstances changed - that is, because it suited him when he get married - then why didn't he once again change to something else when the numbers of victims dying from the same symptoms (and in contrast to the Ripper victims, could be directly liked to him and his marriages) became so many that it would sooner or later become suspicious?
The general answer is, that serial poisoners choose their method for one very special reason, because it fits their personality and therefore seldom break away from it, even when it reach the level when they themselves risks capture. Serial poisoners are usually not people who switch method, because poison is what they feel comfortable with. It is no coincidence, for an example, that poison is - or at least was - the preferred method chosen by female perpetrators.
So my point was not that Klosowski should have switched to knife after poisoning, I only pointed out that a killer who switches MO because of changing of the circumstances, generally doesn't fit serial poisoner's approach, since they stick to it no matter what.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Glenn,
Hi.I am curious as to what method you think Klosowski should have switched to that would not have aroused suspicion. As I stated earlier, poisoning was working just fine. It accomplished what he wanted to do. The problem wasn't with the poison, the problem was that he didn't know when to stop. No matter what method he used, when his wives started dropping like flies it was bound to get somebody's attention.
c.d. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Surely your missing the piont here. Its not about whether a piosoner can shift MO.
But whether the Ripper can shift MO.
Could someone who used a knife and mutilate change and become a piosoner later on in life.
Thats the question? Not the other way around.
Jeff |
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Hi. You asked if someone who used a knife and mutilated could change and become a poisoner late in life. I certainly don't see why not. For the sake of argument, let's say that Klosowski wanted to kill his first wife to get her out of the way. If he were the Ripper, he most certainly would want to cut her throat to get that thrill and adrenaline rush again. But thinking it over, he realizes that there is no way he can do so without immediately becoming a prime suspect. So he hits upon the idea of using poison. We know that he was a sadist and a misogynist. Now, much to his surprise, the thrill and adrenaline rush is replaced by a long lasting sadistic pleasure in seeing his wife slipping away day by day. Each day a little thinner, a little more pale. What pleasure it must have given him to try to comfort her with each new pain knowing all the while that he was the cause of it. So he continues to be a poisoner relishing the different type of satisfaction that it gives him and all the while neatly solving the problem of an unwanted wife.
c.d. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Hi CD
Yes Chapman is interesting i agree. He trains as a surgeon and obviously knows how to do the Ripper mutilations, he moves into the area not long before the Ripper murders start (June 1887). Infact about the same time as the assult on Annie Millwood he starts as Barber. He's known to have lived at Georges yard, Just co-incidence?
Why dosnt he leave England until 1890?
However why do the muders stop after Kelly?
Its a big hole in the chapman arguement, even if Abberline thought otherwise.
The only explination I can make is if Chapman was not a lone killer but working for or with someone, was he employed to get organs to order, did he just over enjoy it until his market dried up? He certainly had the know how, slightly more than a barber.
Also the one attack in the states dosnt really tie up to chapman.
Anyway I think chapman is interesting yes.
Jeff
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hi C.D. & Jeff.
Yes, Chapman is interesting in his own right, like Cream, as a poisoner. But his kind of thinking and preferences can no way be associated with a blood-lusting mutilator like the Ripper.
You can't just turn these things on and off like a tap. We're talking about two entirely different personalities here.
Glenn has explained all these things in the most minute detail, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in with you guys. If he hasn't made these differences clear to you by now, then I've got no chance. But if you think that following Chapman is going to lead to Jack the Ripper, then I'm afraid that there's only a blank wall ahead of you.
Best wishes.
DAVID C.
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
David,
The whole point is that Chapman wanted to kill his wives to get them out of the way. How do you think he should have done it? Should he have slit their throats and then mutilated them? Would people have said "wow, that poor Chapman sure has bad luck with his wives, they all end up being murdered just like the way the Ripper used to do it?" The fact is that poison worked perfectly to accomplish his goal. He was either icredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid and took it too far until he got caught.
Finally, is it written in stone somewhere that a serial killer can't change his MO? Do we really know everything there is to know about the mind of a serial killer that we can be so certain?
c.d.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 773
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
"You (and others) make it seem like it violates the laws of physics for him to have done so."
Although you might not have meant it so literally, it really has nothing whatsoever to do with physics. If it was just physics we would look at, which you is what you seem to be doing (I'm overdrawing the picture a little here), then anyone could either have been the Ripper or Klosowski or both, as long as they were not too weak. You seem to be giving both a blank character or personality and IMHO underestimate that both killed the way they did because it was very important for them to do it like that.
Both ways happen to be very specific ways to kill and I think that if you would look at crime history, you wouldn't find many examples of such killers deviating much from those specific ways once they started with it.
If you look at the poisonings, you might think that the person who was responsible for them was something of a sadist and reading about Klosowski one might say that he was something of a sadist (which you agree with). If you look at the Ripper crimes, one doesn't see anything of a sadist at all. Quite the contrary, I'd say.
We know that Klosowski was quite able to interact with people. In fact, he even needed interaction with people for all his lies, manipulations, schemes and sick jokes. If he was Jack and the sadist you think he was, I would think it would have been a piece of cake (and an actual great pleasure) for him to talk his victims into going with him to a place where he could have given in to his sadist cravings before killing and mutilating them. Klosowski seems to have been intelligent enough to come up with good ideas in order to achieve what(ever) he wanted.
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)
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Frank,
Hi. I appreciate your response. You made some good points that maybe I can address in a later post.
For the time being let me simply focus on Chapman killing his wives. Is it the fact that he didn't kill them Ripper style that bothers you? If so, how should he have tried to kill these three women in a way that would not draw attention to himself? Keep in mind that they have a connection to him not like prostitutes picked at random. This is the question that nobody seems to want to answer.
My remark about the laws of physics was a reference to possibility versus impossibility. My feeling is that some people equate changing M.O.s to travelling faster than the speed of light or changing a base metal into gold. In other words, they won't even consider the possibility that such a thing can take place.
All the best to you as well, Frank.
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
c.d.,
This talk about reluctancy of acknowledging 'change of MO' is tiresome. It is just not that simple. If you look at the Ripper crimes, you'll see that the Ripper conducted a number of actions that were important to him but totally necessary for the crimes themselves. The overkill shown in the Ripper murders, the excessive mutilations and the taking of the organs as souvernirs all points towards a compulsive killer. This has all been said over and over again. Klosowski was not a compulsive killer, he might have had a compulsive need to change wives, but for him killing and get rid of them was the important thing. The Ripper was driven by something completely else.
Fact is, that other people have murdered their wives in a style similar to the Ripper, like Bury for example. And this was in 1889. It is therefore quite likely that Klosowski - if he was the Ripper - had killed his wives the same way.
Again, the point that the Ripper as a serial killer in his own right - with his on very distinctive methods and signatures - all of a sudden should have gotten rid of all his compulsions (which is pretty unlikely) just because he got married, and then starts to kill them in a completely different style and with poison, which we know attracts a special kind of criminal, is so bizarre and ridiculous that it isn't even worth to consider. It is an absolute fairy-tale and academic construction.
In my mind, Klosowski has always been one of the absolute worst Ripper suspects out there and he will continue to be so; the only thing that poeple can nail him on is that he once had been a surgeon (which is a redundant point, since the Ripper didn't need to be a surgeon), and that he lived at the area at the time (although his exact address during the fall of 1888 is uncertain) and that he was a serial killer. It is tenous, to say the least.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Hi all
I dont think I've ever argued that Kloswoski was the Ripper. Just that he is as good a suspect as there is, so he deserves consideration.
Unlike Glenn i do not have a problem with the Ripper using poison on people later in his carreer. And i do beleive that it is significant that Kloswoski had trained as a surgeon...in that it meant he was aware how to use a knife and at least basic anatomy of what he might find....although I know that I've argued that Jack learned his craft as he went along experimenting from Annie Millwood. I also find it currious why a surgeon moves to London to become a barber?
However where I agree with Glenn, is if Kloswoski was the Ripper, why did he stop after Kelly? Glenn is right about the Ripper needing to kill and mutilate, he was driven and needed more and bigger thrills.
no other crimes really fit the pattern after Kelly.
If Kloswoski was the Ripper where are the other bodies? It dosn't make sence unless you team up Kloswoski with someone else. And for some reason I dont think the ripper crimes can be explained by someone wanting to steel body parts for money.
Hi Glenn, where I think many of us have difficulty, is that we are aware that serial killers are very rare phenomina. Therefore the idea of a number of serial killers all living in close proximity seems very strange to many of us. Although we obviously know that this happened at the time (Torso,Cream) and I beleive has happened since in large cities with very poor over crouded areas.
The sticking piont however is Kelly for me...perhaps its back to the Druitt thread.
Catch you all later
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"Hi Glenn, where I think many of us have difficulty, is that we are aware that serial killers are very rare phenomina. Therefore the idea of a number of serial killers all living in close proximity seems very strange to many of us. Although we obviously know that this happened at the time (Torso,Cream) and I beleive has happened since in large cities with very poor over crouded areas."
Yes, exactly. You just mentioned Cream, for example, yourself.
As for me, I have absolutely no problems at all with the notion of several serial killers in the approximately same area - obviously I don't mean at the same time, but at least in a close range of time. That is not an unusual phenomenon and not difficult to understand at all, simply because we have clear evidence of that these things happen.
Regarding the surgeon thing, there were a lot of crafts in East End that involved knives, and I would say that it would be easier for an immigrant in London to get a job as a barber than a surgeon. Again, the surgeon argument seems redundant to me, since the Ripper didn't necessarily be someone with surgical knowledge.
As for Kelly, I am not too fond of basing that much reasoning upon her case, since I personally have strong doubts about her as a Ripper victim in the first place. But even if we restrict ourselves to Eddowes as the last one, just for the sake of the argument and which was rather badly mutilated anyway, I agree that that is hard enough to swallow for me that he should go backwards.
Mind you, nothing is impossible, of course, and I can only repeat that such reasoning is difficult to apply here.
But my main argument is, that the serial poisoners we know of, usually stick to poison because it suits their character rather than the crimes, and they usually sticks to it. Poisoning as choice of method is as I see it more related to the perpetrator's personality rather than the crime itself, which several serial poisoner cases through crime history seems to indicate.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
"...is so bizarre and ridiculous that it isn't even worth considering. It is an absolute fairy tale and academic construction."
Jeez, Glenn. You know that I respect your knowledge and your opinions and your ability to be objective and have told you so in the past but the above statement is just a bit over the top don't you think?
I would also like to point out that Sugden believes that Chapman could have been the Ripper. Yes, I know that he in not the ultimate authority in Ripperology but he is one of the acknowledged heavyweights and his opinions deserve respect.
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
c.d.,
No, that statement is not over the top as far as I am concerned.
Sugden is certainly a high authority on the subject - at least his book is - but let's keep in mind that Sugden came across Klosowski and probably wanted to present him. That is totally understandable when one as researcher falls over such an interesting character like Klosowski. But although he is inclined not to rule out the possibility of the murderous barber as the Ripper, one should be careful about empathising this too hard.
To my knowledge, Sugden didn't intend to present him as a pet or key suspect in that respect. Sugden's book is based on a factual and quite objective approach and not on pragmatic suspect hunting in a way others have done. He never claims that Klosowski is Jack the Ripper or that he's solved the case by presenting him.
And even if he did, one can't agree with the prominent researchers on everything. After all, most of them don't even agree with each other.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Glenn I think CD's correct 'fairy tale and ridiculus' is a little strong.
Ok we accept that there are problems with Kloswoski but there are with nearly every other suspect.
And for me suggesting Kelly was not a Ripper victim is rather out there. You'll be accusing poor old Joe Barnett next of spitting on graves.
Kelly and Tabram were both Ripper victims.
Kloswoski probably wasnt the ripper, but serial killers are rare and his consideration should be taken carefully.
He is a valid suspect. He arrives from abroad at the time the killings start, he knows how to use a knife, he's Polish and probably attends the club where Stride is murdered. He lives in the area, he's Abberlines favourite suspect. There is no scientific evidence that a serial killer can not use differant methods in differant situations (although we accept that it would be highly unusual)
The only thing that dosnt make sence is why does he stop after Kelly? (who was a ripper victim, I was told by a psychic)
Jeff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4119
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Jeff,
This thread is not the place for it, but I would with pleasure receive any kind of evidence that without question proves which victims that (with absolute proven certainty) can be attributed to ol' Jacky or not.
I can understand the reluctancy to acknowledge the murder of Mary Kelly in another light than the traditional one (although I clearly see her murder as a work of an amateur and not a serial killer, and there are certainly people in her circuit of male friends that we can't rule out and who might have possible motives and whom we know very little about - They would be the focus of any normal police investigation today), but to state with such certainty that Tabram was a Ripper victim is not exactly cautious and rational, when her case is surrounded by so many question marks and intense debates.
I can accept that it is your personal opinion, however, and I respect that. But the inclusions or exclusions of certain victims are hardly a fixed thing and it will probably always be a matter of debate. And who says Stride was a Ripper victim? When was that decided beyond doubt? Again, basing theories upon the Ripper's alleged victims is dangerous because it might lead completely wrong. Let's use this approach with caution, please.
Klosowski is a most unlikely suspect and I wouldn't give him the time of day. I agree that it's interesting that the murders stopped and began with his alleged presence in East End (although his exact address at the time never has been ascertained).
However, the same argument could be used about a large number of other suspects - the idea about the murders to start and stop at the right time is something that we can use to tie most suspects to the case.
Apart from that, there are no factual reasons whatsoever that supports any kind of attempt to put him in the frame for the Ripper murders, and his own murders pretty much contradicts the whole idea. The academic explanations for his 'change' of methods, victims, criminal behaviour and motives contain so many obstacles and are pure nonsense without any kind of reasonable foundation. In my opinion.
However, he is a very interesting criminal in his own right, and that is how he should be remembered, not as Jack the Ripper.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Jeff,
You did a good job of pointing out the reaons which support Klosowski/Chapman as the Ripper. I agree with you that he probably was not. But as far as suspects go, I think he is as good as any and probably better than most. And let's not forget the fact that he was a known murderer.
You said that there are problems with nearly every candidate. I would change that to there are problems with every candidate. I agree with you that Klosowski/Chapman is a valid candidate and cannot be dismissed so easily. All the pros and cons need to be considered.
c.d. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Calm down Glenn
I was rather pulling your leg a little. I'm fully aware of your Tabram and Kelly arguments, and also aware that my count of eight is my opinion, and as you know I've dug over the arguments for and against on most.
Its also my opinion that Kloswoski is worth consideration even though he is probably not the ripper.
I must admit that I do find your Kelly conclusions strange but then there would be noone to chew the crud with if everyone saw the murders in the same way.
i really ought to do some work its nearly 6.00pm.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4120
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I am calm. Look... 
As for the Kelly conclusions, they are no ideas of mine and they do have support from some noted experts, although it is still a controversial issue.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 26
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
OK. I think we have beaten the Chapman/Klosowski poison horse until it is now quite dead. Time to have a little fun and indulge in pure speculation. For the sake of this discussion we will assume that Chapman was the Ripper (easy there, Glenn). I have read that Chapman was absolutely terrified on the day of his hanging, so much so that he had to be literally dragged to the gallows. So here is my question - If he were the Ripper and was so terrified of dying, do you think that he ever would have considered confessing in order to buy a little more time on earth? If he played his cards right, he could have dragged it out for some time by offering to provide all the details over time although either way his death would be inevitable. What do you think?
c.d. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Maybe he couldn't remember, CD.
You approach this crime with the faculties you have and Jack did not. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4121
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
c.d.,
I have absolutely no idea.
Then again, it happens on occasion that rather cold criminals confesses and appear not especially moved by the situation or their crimes, but when they suddenly faces the gallows on the day of the execution, they panic.
How the Ripper would act in such a situation I cannot say.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Hi C.D.
Re - Philip Sugden.
The man who researched for 10 years, from scratch, and where others have failed to go. The man who brought the most comprehensive and accurate account of The JtR case ever presented. The man who corrected all the errors of others, even those of giants like Begg & Rumbelow.
That man is Philip Sugden, and his work shows that he IS the ultimate authority on the case.
With regard to Chapman, Sugden believed that he was the best qualified of the available known suspects, but added that he couldn't make any kind of a convincing case against him.
I'm with Glenn, in believing that Chapman is one of the worst Ripper suspects ever put forward, despite my great admiration of Sugden.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
"In my mind, Klosowski has always been one of the absolute worst Ripper suspects out there and he will continue to be so; the only thing that poeple can nail him on is that he once had been a surgeon (which is a redundant point, since the Ripper didn't need to be a surgeon), and that he lived at the area at the time (although his exact address during the fall of 1888 is uncertain) and that he was a serial killer. It is tenous, to say the least."
Absolute worst? In all fairness, I'd like to put the names Oscar Wilde, Walter Sickert, and Lewis Carroll out there. C'MON PEOPLE!
Really, the only thing (and I'm not saying this is insignificant!) in the way of Klosowski's candidacy is his M.O and the persona we have developed from this M.O. Considering other popular and resilient suspects have nothing but a falsified diary, acrobatic logic by a popular American criminalist, an elaborate 'fairy-tale' (here, I think is a better application of the words) of a royal/secret society conspiracy, a family history of depression, or just complete bunk, you have to admit its somewhat refreshing to find a character with evidently psychotic behavior and other variables consistent with JtR. So, you have to understand with the suspects suggested the first point addressed by most theorists for JtR candidacy is: Could this person possibly commit serial-murder?
"I also find it currious why a surgeon moves to London to become a barber?"
While I don't necessarily think it puts any nails in Klosowski's coffin, I do think this is a good point, Jeff.
For unknown reasons, Klosowski leaves Poland and his life/wife. Any ideas (I know- pure speculation!) as to why Klosowski might have left, besides just getting sick of his wife? Or, if that was the reason, why he didn't follow his adventurous nature and continue continent-hopping?
"Regarding the surgeon thing, there were a lot of crafts in East End that involved knives, and I would say that it would be easier for an immigrant in London to get a job as a barber than a surgeon. Again, the surgeon argument seems redundant to me, since the Ripper didn't necessarily be someone with surgical knowledge."
Glenn, I have a rather tangential question- why don't you believe JtR required surgical/medical knowledge? He operated quickly with little light and removed the organs quite ...(for lack of a better word) professionally. IMHO I would expect him to have some sort of expertise; do you honestly think any schmo off the street could do the same?
"I can accept that it is your personal opinion, however, and I respect that. But the inclusions or exclusions of certain victims are hardly a fixed thing and it will probably always be a matter of debate. And who says Stride was a Ripper victim? When was that decided beyond doubt? Again, basing theories upon the Ripper's alleged victims is dangerous because it might lead completely wrong. Let's use this approach with caution, please."
I would just like to point out that we have precious little on which to develop a theory. We work with what we can.
NEW QUESTION:
- Is there NOTHING in Rumbelow's connection between Klosowski and Dr. Pedachenko?
- Melissa
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hi CD and Glenn,
The only time I am aware of a serial killer doing what CD proposes Chapman could have done was Ted Bundy - and it met with a rather tepid, contemptuous response. On the eve of his execution, he desperately tried to interest the authoriries in at least four states in a point by point confession about a number of unsolved crimes. As he was without any redeeming features (although he certainly had "Deeming" features), he was told that as he would shortly be executed, that would give closure to everyone who suspected that he killed their daughters or female relatives. And in his final appearances on television, he was nervous and sweaty. Like Chapman, he did not want to be executed.
But to be fair, fear of death and execution can strike people who are not guilty or who are in a questionable case. I never enjoy reading of the death of Edith Thompson in 1923 - she was in such a state of fear her bowels may have fallen out (I have read that in an account of the case - I don't know how true it is).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I still have not gotten an answer to a question I have posted several times and which I directed to those individuals who are adamantly opposed to the idea of Chapman being the Ripper. The argument is, as I understand it, that if he were the Ripper, that there is no way he could have switched from cutting throats to poisoning. Ok, but please somebody tell me how he could have gone about killing three women who were his wives. Could he have slashed their throats and strewn their organs around his shop and hope nobody would notice? Could he have said "honey, I have a present for you but it is a surprise so meet me in a deserted alley at 3:00 a.m. and I will give it to you?" Does he tell the police that somebody broke into his house and slit his wives' throats? Three wives with slit throats. I don't think the police are going to accept coincidence or bad luck as reasons. So all you anti-Chapman people, how could he have done away with three wives in a way that would not arouse suspicion? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4167
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
c.d.,
You have received an answer several times to that question, and the answer is that the thing you describe actually do happen. Take Bury, for example, who killed and disembowelled his wife only a short time after the RIpper murders and who even had graffito written on his walls referring to the Ripper. So if you say, that a wife killer during this time - when people were still caught in some Ripper hysteria - wouldn't mutilate, why did HE do it? Why didn't HE use poison?
I have said it before and I say it again; a killer who uses poison, usually does so because it fits his character, not because it necessarily fits his crimes. When a serial killer uses a certain method for several murders consistently, his choice of murder weapon is often based in his personality. Killers who consistently uses poison seldom use anything else, simply because this is the only method they feel secure about. This is what other poison serial killer cases tells us quite clearly, regardless if they kill people in their closest circuits or not. I can't see why Klosowski should be any different.
Melissa,
"Glenn, I have a rather tangential question- why don't you believe JtR required surgical/medical knowledge? He operated quickly with little light and removed the organs quite ...(for lack of a better word) professionally. IMHO I would expect him to have some sort of expertise; do you honestly think any schmo off the street could do the same?"
I would say - like some experts on the case and also some of the medical authorities at the time - that medical or surgical knowledge was NOT needed. Some rough anatomical knowledge and a certain ability to use a knife (which most tradesmen were able to at the time) would probably be needed, but not necessarily medical and surgical knowledge, which is something completely different. He probably knew what the womb was and where it was placed, but personally, I think the mutilations - although targeted to certian areas in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - were more butchered than carefully done. Some indicators suggest that a professional wouldn't do them in the way the Ripper did them, especially since he was short of time.
"I would just like to point out that we have precious little on which to develop a theory. We work with what we can."
Yes, but basing theorising on certain victims is particularly dangerous, since it isn't known or confirmed beyond doubt which victim we really can attribute to the Ripper. Liz Stride's inclusion is very much under debate and has been so for many years. Every murder has to be investigated on its own merit.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Did Bury stab three of his wives? He was also found out which helps prove my point. I assume that Chapman didn't want to be arrested for murder.
c.d.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
c.d.,
The fact that Bury only killed his one and only wife is not the point. Regardless if a person kills one or three in this way, he would in any case risk of being connected with Ripper murders. Regardless if you accept it or not, Bury is one example of a domestic murder involving mutilations in a very short time frame from the Ripper murders. He certainly didn't use poison, which he could have if he definitely didn't want to get connected with the Ripper murders. So I ask again, why didn't HE use poison.
As for being found out... Bury went to the police himself, hoping they would see it as suicide, which is how they found out about the murder in the first place and which is why he didn't try to hide it! Naturally they kept him in the police station instead - to his great astonishment - and soon drew the conclusion that it was murder.
And by the way, as you know... Klosowski didn't get away with it either. Last I heard, he was convicted and executed. Bury sems to have been more stupid and naive and certainly less calculating than Klosowski, but he didn't want to get arrested for his crime either.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Glenn,
We just can't seem to get on the same page with this. Maybe I am not clear on your argument so let me ask it this way. Are you saying that if Chapman were the Ripper, that he would have killed his wives Ripper style and consequences be damned?
I don't know why Bury didn't use poison. He certainly would have been better off. Remember that Chapman came close to getting away with it three times. From what we know of Chapman, I believe that he had no qualms about killing a wife that he wanted to be free of and that he was thinking long term (i.e., multiple wives) from the start. Could he have gotten away with three throat slashings?
c.d. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4173
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
No, I don't think Klosowski would have gotten away with three cases of mutilations (Bury hacked and mutilated his wife - not just slashed her throat). Of course poison in itself was harder to discover as a result of death in the 19th century, but the point is, that if several of your wives in a row dies of the same symptoms, people will sooner or later get suspicious anyway, which is exactly what happened!
Regardless of the Ripper connection, if several of your wives died from the same symptoms, you would very much risk conviction anyway and risk capital punishment, since serial poisoning where the victims can be tied to you is quite risky - and then it is really no comfort to you if you avoid being seen as the Ripper. The outcome and your fate would be the same! Cream faced the same fate, although his victims were prostitutes that could be tied to him. So what would be the point?
Why work hard with changing MO in order to avoid being seen as the Ripper, when you replace it with such a risky, careless behaviour that sooner or later is bound to get you caught and found out anyway? Surely if he was that clever, and so inclined to dramatically change MO, he would have used different methods on all his three victims individually?
So in short: if Klosowski was smart enough to change his MO after the Ripper murders (as the Klosowski people argues), when why didn't he chose different kinds of MO:s on his three wives instead of being stupid enough to repeat it until people put two and two together? Surely not being seen as as the Ripper would save all his problems?
Klosowski probably used poison because that is what fitted his personality, which is what makes poeple like him return to the same method. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate otherwise.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 968
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I just don't buy your arguments here.
"Why work hard with changing MO in order to avoid being seen as the Ripper, when you replace it with such a risky, careless behaviour that sooner or later is bound to get you caught and found out anyway?"
Can you think of a way of killing your wives that is less risky than poison? I mean, that's a pretty smart way to get rid of relatives... worked for Mary Ann Cotton for a huge number of victims. You say sooner or later it is bound to get you caught, well the same thing could be said about murders in general, yet people still do it. You're stuck on this false idea that killers can't change their methods, which has been shown to be wrong over and over.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Melissa Lynn Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
For c.d, Glenn said: "[A] killer who uses poison, usually does so because it fits his character, not because it necessarily fits his crimes. [...]This is what other poison serial killer cases tells us quite clearly, regardless if they kill people in their closest circuits or not."
...not to say that I entirely espouse his beliefs about an M.O being a completely unchangeable thing. I'm just saying that Glenn HAS been straight-foward about his argument against Klosowski.}
Whether or not it's common for a serial killer to change his M.O (e.g the Zodiac), I find it impossible to create too many generalizations and absolutes on human behavior. There are always exceptions. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page