|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Joe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 8:48 pm: |       |
Could Jack the Ripper have been Inspector Abberline? There are already enough abusrd suspects out there, why not Abberline? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 155
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 1:33 am: | |
Actually, the Michael Caine TV movie of several years ago tried to lead the viewer to that conlcusion with the use of "red-herrings" (they made Abberline/Caine quite obviously left-handed and had Abberline/Cain possess a good degree of anatomical knowledge). In the end, the movie adopted a different solution.
Andy
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 276
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:59 am: | |
Joe,
Why not Abberline ?
Cos he dont fit the profile man !!
Monty
 |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Monty!}
You have just STOLEN our new theory.
Think about it.
Who could wander around Whtechapel anytime day or night or when he liked?
Who would never be asked where he was at time of murders?
Who had an excuse to be there at time of the murders or soon after?
Who fits most of the descriptions including wearing a 'billycock' hat and moustache?
Who could approach the women without them having to fear who he was?
Who knew all the local villains and steet girls?
Who could stop and question anyone at anytime?
Who knew Whitechapel more than the back of his hand?
Who has never had a photo found of him by any researcher in the case, and there is no known photo?
Who lost his wife who after only 2 months of marriage died? (Such an tragic event could un-hinge the sanest of men.)
The murderer had skill with a sharp knife, could have been a leather worker.
All adds up to one man.
Inspector Frederick George Abberline
|
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
How about a midwife? Other than having a moustache I think it quite likely. She'd be skilled enough and be able to move around freely and approach the street girls. She'd no doubt know Whitechapel, she'd never come under suspicion. I know it sounds absurd, but the theory has been put before. Women are just as likely to commit such abhorrent acts as men and can be quite strong - filled with passion and rage at the same time the weakest person becomes unbelievably strong. She'd know about anaesthesia to silence her victims quickly. The positioning of the legs particularly with Mary Kelly made me think along these lines.
Is this theory as absurd as that of Abberline being the murderer?
It's usually the people you least expect who have committed these terrible acts, which is why so many of them carry on with their murderous reign without being apprehended or caught years later. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
Interesting idea!! Never thought about it myself. Could have been. I don't have thoughts on this myself, just wanted to say, keep the new ideas and theories coming!! We could have mentioned a theory that sounded strange at the time but you never know, maybe it was true. Curious thought.
Also, I've often thought, that JTR may have been someone who isn't even on the list of suspects, but it's so hard to know where to look for a possible new suspect who, as far as we know at present, had nothing to do with the case.
Hope all that makes sense as I seem to gabble a lot, even when writing!! 
Regards, Sarah |
Leda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 7:14 pm: | |
Why Abbaline.
everything is possible but, abbaline showed up in Whitechapel in 1903 wich is quite long time and even if he did kill those women why woud he come back, i know i woudn't and why would he want to know who was the true killer, poeple might think that he's the killer, and if you see an welldressed man and he ask's you something how will you know that he's going to murdur you.
so what i'm trying to say is there is no strong reason that abbaline was the true killer and maybe he was and maybe he wasn't.
what i do belief is that jack the ripper was someone who was very smart and knew exacly wen or where he had to be somewhere, and he knew everything about the human body and an inspector as abbaline did not know all that maybe a bit but not that much. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 989
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi
I don't believe Abberline was the Ripper.
But just out of curiosity : when I put "Abberline" and "male" into the 1901 census - no forename, no age - just two Abberlines were shown. These were our Abberline, and 61-year-old Edw Abberline, a Schoolkeeper of a Board School. Both were born in Blandford in Dorset, and both were living in London. Anyone know if they were related?
Robert |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Inspector Abberline had a brother called Edward, and as Frederick was born 1843 that would make him 58 years old in 1901, so it looks to me as though you may have found the brother.
Regards,
John Savage |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 991
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Thanks for that, John.
Robert |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hello All,
Look at my post of 29th September above.
Is it anymore sillier than Maybrick?
A. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 996
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
He retired to a Seaside Home, Andy. Don't forget that one.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 3:11 am: | |
Hi,
We are really scraping the barrel, regarding Abberline, even if it is light hearted, if he was the killer, what a nerve.....
Richard. |
Stan Russo
Police Constable
Username: Stan
Post Number: 7
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 1:03 pm: | |
All,
Remember that Abberline, along with Andrews and Moore, was sent to Whitechapel by Scotland Yard almost immediately after the Mary Ann Nichols murder. The time factor and the coincidence of the matters make Abberline a horrible suspect. Nevertheless, in an unperfect world such as ours, Abberline can remain a suspect until there is demonstrable evidence in providing an alibi for any one of the five 'canonical' murders.
I do however agree with Richard that we are now scraping the barrel. Perhaps the new approach is that everyone alive at the time is a suspect and they must be eliminated as suspects to eventually find our killer.
STAN |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:56 am: | |
Hi All,
Stan has touched upon my main objection to Abberline as a suspect. He served in Whitechapel division for a number of years prior to the murders, moved on, and was transferred back only after the murders had begun. If he was the Whitechapel murderer, and used his position as a police officer as cover, why wouldn't the murders have occured earlier, during his first stint? Just the timing of those circumstances makes him a poor suspect, IMHO.
Andy, the key point, is Maybrick a sillier suspect than Howdy Doody? Bit of a toss-up there, wouldn't you say? :-)
Jim |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 323
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Jim,
Now-now.....be fair.
Monty
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
Hello Jim,
That's the point, I hav'nt slept for weeks thinking about it!
Blame Monty, he started it!!
A. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
Andy, I didn't understand your reference to the leather worker. I thought he used to be a clock maker.
Robert |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 4:04 am: | |
Ha Robert,
But his Dad was. Also forgot about the seaside home.
If it was Abberline who took the Jewish witness down there, and D'onston in Brighton at the same time, Maybrick could have been pickin' cotton in the fields near the pier, that's it, case sol-ved.
A. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 4:15 am: | |
Hi Andy
Ah, his dad - thanks.
Maybe Abberline made Maybrick's watch. And Druitt didn't drown in the Thames at all - he jumped off the end of the pier when Arthur Askey appeared.
Robert |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 2:24 pm: | |
That's it Robert,
Between us the whole affair is now settled.
I can see no further use for the casebook, and it should be closed down forthwith.
You have in fact solved another mystery regarding Arthur Askey. He must still has a big fan club, because you often see yellow vans and trucks on the roads with a big AA printed on the sides. And the odd thing is, the drivers are often bloody good mechanics!
I am now going to lie down in a darkened room and solve the mystery of the murdered Czar and his family.
A. |
ian horsford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 7:48 am: | |
Dont think its Abberline but ive long wondered if JTR was indeed a Policeman.More likely to have been a uniformed policeman of the lower ranks.
After all who else could walk the streets and not be stopped by other Policemen looking for JTR???
Perhaps he had somewhere to hide his clothing and also dont forget the Met put in many officers in plain clothes!! |
mary
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
Is there a high ranking inspector amongst you with similar experience to abberline who could give an opinion as to the suspect. abberline & one of the suspects are buried in the same graveyard. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 68
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi all,
Honestly, of all the ridiculous suspects I've heard of, Abberline has to top that list. Geez, I think there's about as much chance of Abberline being the Ripper as Polly Nichols being Jill the Ripper! Or Pedachenko, who probably didn't exist!
Really, come on. He worked closely with Sergeant Godley, so surely if Godley had any suspicions, he would have had the ability to check out Abberline.
He was 45 years old at the times of the murders, which knocks him out of the witness descriptions of the Ripper by 10 - 15 years, unless of course you take into account Elizabeth Long's statement of "A man over 40", but she only saw him from back on.
He lived for another 41 years after the murders. Why would he live for 45 years, murder 5 women in 3 months, and then live for another 41 years without so much as a whisper? Seems highly unlikely to me.
Abberline is just one of those people, for me atleast, that you "know" is not the Ripper.
I'm also beginning to think the only way to have any chance of narrowing down the suspect field is to suspect everyone in the East End at the time. That way we may be able to atleast eliminate some people.
My thoughts: Let's stick to researching "real" suspects, instead of Royal Conspirators, Police Commissioners, Kings, Dukes, etc. The list goes on.
Well, that's my 2 cents anyway.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2469
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
I am with you on that one, of course.
It is a ludicrous theory, and for the reasons different people here have already elaborated on.
Once can't totally dismiss the idea of the Ripper being a police man, of course, but Abberline...?
"Let's stick to researching "real" suspects, instead of Royal Conspirators, Police Commissioners, Kings, Dukes, etc."
...or Klosowski...
(Sorry, Adam. Just couldn't resist.)
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 114
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
Adam,
Inspector Abberline was not 'Jack the Ripper'. I will tell you what Inspector Abberline is. He is used as an analogy for all the researchers and armchair detectives to discredit the suspects they don't particularly like. It can't be this guy and it can't be that guy and it isn't that guy.
When a theorist has the audacity to speculate or hypothesize that 'Jack the Ripper' may possibly be someone that certain followers of the case feel are above mentioning as a possible suspect, names such as Inspector Abberline are offered to show a superiority that is downright atrocious. Queen Victoria is another such name generally offered when a theorist has the nerve to suggest another suspect.
What you will find is that these people who offer Inspector Abberline and Queen Victoria as suspects to thumb their nose at the dastardly dispicible theorists who propose suspects such as Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert or Oscar Wilde, generally do not offer an answer to the important question of who 'Jack the Ripper' was. That is somehow less important than making fun of other suspects, rather than proposing their own, or even better, actually taking the time and effort to back up their statements that it could not have been Lewis Carroll or any other famous suspect. Why? Because it is easier and more conveinent to act in that fashion, rather than to put the actual effort into backing up their outright subjective claims that this person or that person could not have been 'Jack the Ripper'.
Could Inspector Abberline have been 'Jack the Ripper'? No. His whereabouts were accounted for on the morning of the Mary Ann Nichols murder, as he was almost immediately seconded to the murder scene with Inspectors Moore and Andrews, as part of a joint Special Branch investigation into the murders. That fact also gets ignored (the Special Branch's immediate involvement only hours after the Nichols murder).
Good luck in your research and theorize, suppose and hypothesize as well. Somketimes the crazy ideas lead to sane discoveries, and should not be ruled out based on internal biases.
STAN RUSSO |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 115
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:16 pm: | |
Adam,
Point proven during the writing of my earlier post. No evidence, just scornful sarcastic disdain at the absolute ludicris possibility that the murderer could have been Klosowski. Where's the research? Where's the hypothesis that it most likely was not Klosowski? Just a no, and let's move on. It's so much easier that way.
Irony is fantastic.
STAN RUSSO |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 116
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:19 pm: | |
And I'm sure here come the fangs, rather than possibly gleaming something beneficial from my opinions.
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2470
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
No fangs, Stan, but nevertheless some comments to your very strange post, which I am not sure whether it's meant to be taken seriously or not.
Why do those who discredit certain suspects not suggests suspects of their own? Actually, most of them do.
And if they don't, it could be because proposing a suspect in a 116 year old murder case really is a totally fruitless and vain guessing game. I just can't see why it's worth the effort, considering the little evidence we have and how long time has passed.
That doesen't make it impossible for someone to wipe certain less likely suspects out from ones personal list, though (there are actually degrees of credibility). I really don't see your point here.
So you mean, if I can't lay forward solid arguments or proof for why (for example) Mickey Mouse should be ruled out, I am not allowed to discredit his candidacy, although it is obious that the idea is laughable (no comparison to Klosowski or any other, just a hypothetical comment)? You make no sense.
I don't know if you've been asleep for the last two years or so, but there have been rather extensive discussions regarding most suspects, although I believe discussing people like Oscar Wilde and Lewis Carroll in this context is a waste of time, unless there are clear points of interest in their direction.
As far as my own very strong dislike of the candidacy of Klosowski and Walter Sickert (among others), I have for at least a years time or more been debating extensively and arguing my position. The fact that you obviously don't bother to click yourself to those pages, is not my problem. Those debates have raged on for a long time with solid arguments from both sides, so stating things like "Where's the hypothesis that it most likely was not Klosowski? Just a no, and let's move on" just makes me shake my head and wonder if you're putting me on.
One doesen't have to agree with it -- as I said, strong arguments have been delivered from both sides -- but to say that Klosowski or Sickert has been ridiculed as suspects without arguments have been delivered to back up their exclusion (or attempts to prove it have been made), is a puzzling statement. Where on Earth have you been?
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 25, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 117
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 11:11 pm: | |
Glenn,
Not on Earth I guess.
By the way, who is your suspect? Or is there even a suspect? I guess it is a watse of time to theorize on a 116 year old murder case, yet discussing 1911 novels, 1865 arrests and mindless drivel about profiling apparently is not a waste of time.
I'll stay on my planet.
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2471
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 11:36 pm: | |
Stan,
You're right. I don't have a suspect -- I never have, although I find some less repulsive than others.
I think the reasons for why I think this is a sane and reasonable approach are rather obvious.
I have no idea what you mean by "discussing 1911 novels, 1865 arrestants" -- I don't recognise myself in either subjects, although I can't speak for others.
It would be easier if you stopped talking in riddles.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 73
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:18 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"I am with you on that one, of course.
It is a ludicrous theory, and for the reasons different people here have already elaborated on.
Once can't totally dismiss the idea of the Ripper being a police man, of course, but Abberline...? "
Oh it's certainly within the realms of possibility that a policeman committed the crimes. Infact, just about anyone could have done it, but there are those that can be safely dismissed, such as Abberline.
"...or Klosowski...
(Sorry, Adam. Just couldn't resist.)"
Well, interestingly enough, you should notice that Klosowski doesn't exactly fit into the profile of "Royal Conspirators, Police Commissioners, Kings, Dukes, etc." . One thing is certain. He has a stronger case against him for being the Ripper than any of the above mentioned. As I've previously said before, in almost every unsolved mystery, a famous person or people are sure to be involved.
Stan, you wrote:
"When a theorist has the audacity to speculate or hypothesize that 'Jack the Ripper' may possibly be someone that certain followers of the case feel are above mentioning as a possible suspect, names such as Inspector Abberline are offered to show a superiority that is downright atrocious. Queen Victoria is another such name generally offered when a theorist has the nerve to suggest another suspect."
I must agree with what you are saying here, Stan.
It almost seems to me that anyone who had even the slighest thing to do with the case is considered a suspect, or it is atleast getting increasingly like that. Inspector Abberline was in charge of solving the case. Well, what would be the point of trying to solve a case against himself? Really! You're right, if theorists think someone is being suspected that is above suspicion, then they will start a case against others like Abberline. It's simply an unhelpful thing to do, and doesn't bring us any closer to solving more parts of the Ripper case, because we're then trying to argue about why someone isn't the Ripper.
Another perfect example: I saw a thread in the "General Discussion" section recently, which asks if Louis Diemschutz could have killed Liz Stride. I don't think I need to comment on that.
"That is somehow less important than making fun of other suspects, rather than proposing their own, or even better, actually taking the time and effort to back up their statements that it could not have been Lewis Carroll or any other famous suspect. Why? Because it is easier and more conveinent to act in that fashion, rather than to put the actual effort into backing up their outright subjective claims that this person or that person could not have been 'Jack the Ripper'."
Well, naturally, that is the easy way out of it, to just say, for example "No, it's stupid to think that David Cohen was the Ripper, it was obviously William Henry Bury." - still, you do encounter that kind of thing reasonably often. I have myself already. Unfortunately it's pretty unreasonable to expect people to put forward an entire case FOR one suspect, and then to lay out a complete case AGAINST any other suspects, but at times it would help. I believe it was Severin Klosowski, for sure, who was the Ripper, but I do try to include atleast a couple of reasons why I believe that when I post that. Even if it's only opinion-sharing.
In reality, everyone has their favourite and least favourite Ripper suspect, and everyone defends or attacks those suspects. I doubt there will ever be a majority of agreement on any suspect amongst the Ripper community, but of course, some day it may happen, when and if more evidence comes to light.
"Good luck in your research and theorize, suppose and hypothesize as well. Somketimes the crazy ideas lead to sane discoveries, and should not be ruled out based on internal biases."
Thanks for the support, Stan. As I've said before, I am fairly set in my ideas and thoughts, and that's what I work from, and I hope to continue to do so. By the way, well done with the excellent Ripper suspects book of yours, I have my copy and it's been of great help to me!
"Point proven during the writing of my earlier post. No evidence, just scornful sarcastic disdain at the absolute ludicris possibility that the murderer could have been Klosowski. Where's the research? Where's the hypothesis that it most likely was not Klosowski? Just a no, and let's move on. It's so much easier that way."
You are referring to Glenn, I take it.
Well, Glenn and I have never really met eye to eye on many issues, and I know Klosowski is amongst his worst suspects, but I really don't mind the challenge of atleast trying to partly change his views on that. We have had many interesting discussions on such issues, so don't worry on that too much.
Thanks again all,
Best Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2472
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
Hi Adam,
I expect that will be tough, Adam, since I've been going over every possible argument for or against Klosowski twenty times over long before you ever entered the Boards, and I probably won't indulge myself in debates that only will lead to repetitious arguments.
And as far as people as Sickert is concerned he was probably one of the most debated persons on these Boards during 2004.
It's already there for everyone to read, on the relevant threads.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
Glenn,
I remember with some pleasure the Dr Neil Cream in prision in illonis thread from earlier in the year!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2473
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 7:31 am: | |
Jennifer,
So do I!
(Now, that is what I call debates...)
I think that thread covered the arguments regarding Klosowski and Cream for the next twenty years or so...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:36 am: | |
Actually, it is NOT (IMHO at least) for those who dislike or are unconvinced of a suspect to provide proof of their opinion, beyond the obvious at least.
When someone proposes a theory or a suspect publicly, then it is in the public domain and the originator must accept whatever is thrown at him or her. If a "critic" wishes simply to say "I am unconvinced" then that's fine. if they wish to detail their objections that's even better. But there is no compulsion to do so either philospohically or practically.
Look at Kitty's arguments elsewhere about royal conspiracies - arguing (I think crassly) that those who object to the theory must state their proofs. Nonsense!! If Kitty - or anyone else -wishes to argue in a public forum that a certain view has force, then the burden of proof is clearly on them.
One reason why I, for one, have no desire to follow Mr Russo's proposed approach, is that I (like many others) have been thinking about the JtR case and some of these theories for decades. Since the 70s I have followed the conspiracy angle fairly closely, I am convinced by the evidence and the arguments that demolish the Knight/Fairclough et al theories.
If someone comes along new to the JtR "game" and starts arguing what is nonsense, I see no reason to have to backtrack over what is to me old ground. I'll simply say, go look at these references. I don't have to go back to argue from point "A" yet again. waste of time for me - work's been done.
Many of us use a short-hand in discussing theories. Say "Eddy's alibi". Unless someone comes up with genuine reason to question the research already done, why unpick that material every time some under-read poster wants to say "but what if?".
To be ridiculous for a moment - if we codified every theory and argument known to date in JTR circles, it would be convenient to respond to posters like Kitty and others with - I disagree because of A37b; O23z and N19. It would then be up to her (or whomever) to work out what was being said.
So I for one will continue to dismiss the Barnardo's; Chapman/Klosowskis; Carolls and Wildes with undisguised disdain and the paucity of counter-argument such half-baked and timewasting theories deserve.
Impenitently,
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2475
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 12:36 pm: | |
Thumbs up, Phil.
I totally agree with you as usual.
And well expressed.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 118
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
Phil,
Keep dismissing those ridiculous theories and all the ridiculous suspects. Perhaps we should leave it directly up to you to identify the ridiculous versus the acceptable? Please do that for us newbies.
Why is there so much difficulty in differentiating not believeing in a suspect and dismissing a suspect entirely? I do not believe Klosowski was 'JTR', but I can not prove that he was not. DO YOU SEE THE POINT?
Coming out and stating it wasn't Klosowski or Carroll or Sickert or any suspect for that matter because you personally don't buy the evidence is opinion, not fact. If you are so sure it isn't them, for whatever reasons you have, then put the effort in and prove it wasn't. That will get you somewhere, rather than where you are right now, a poster with an opinion without evidence to back up their claim.
Perhaps my approach is not to your liking, and that is your right to feel that way. As far as this case goes, I have no personal stake in it. I have no grievance agaionst Richard Wallace for mentioning Lewis Carroll as a suspect. I can still read Alice in Wonderland to my illegitimate children. I have no biases. The Royal Conspiracy has been disproved. I understand that. Some people do not, and when you lump Klosowski, Carroll and Sickert into the same category of the Royal Conspiracy theory or Dr. Cream or John William Smith Sanders or Dr. John Hewitt or Frank Miles or Prince Eddy, you only confuse the real newbies, who might believe that Klosowski, Carroll and Sickert have been disproved as suspects, like the latter mentioned above. So keep confusing if you choose. I choose not to.
"THUMBS UP"? Are we in a Mentos commercial?
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2478
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Stan,
"If you are so sure it isn't them, for whatever reasons you have, then put the effort in and prove it wasn't. That will get you somewhere, rather than where you are right now, a poster with an opinion without evidence to back up their claim."
News flash for you, Stan. Nothing in this case can be totally proven in either direction. We ARE dealing with opinions and more or less likely possibilities. You've probably been on these Boards longer than I have so you should have learnt that by now.
To think that it's actually possible to prove ANYTHING in the Ripper case would make every discussion on every subject attached to this case impossible. According to your reasoning it would be impossible to have opinions about anything.
You indeed live on a different planet than many others here, I can give you that.
It is those who accuse, who have to deliver the arguments and the so called proof, not the others.
"'THUMBS UP'? Are we in a Mentos commercial?"
You tell me -- you are the one believing we are in court, discussing a modern case, with all the facts and evidence available, so I am not the one who needs a reality check here.
But please continue to live in your glass bubble, where all kinds of characters fits the bill of being the Ripper, including Alice in Wonderland, Charles Dickens and Beatrice Potter. After all, none of us can deliver credible evidence proving that they didn't do it, so therefore we can't dismiss them, right?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 75
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:17 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"I expect that will be tough, Adam, since I've been going over every possible argument for or against Klosowski twenty times over long before you ever entered the Boards, and I probably won't indulge myself in debates that only will lead to repetitious arguments."
Well I haven't been here when it's been run through 'twenty times over', and each poster can always add a little bit of extra spice to it of course, but if you feel it has been discussed enough before, then so be it.
"According to your reasoning it would be impossible to have opinions about anything.
You indeed live on a different planet than many others here, I can give you that."
I think what Stan is trying to say is that if you are going to immediately discount someone's opinions or favourite suspects, then you have to atleast have some reasoning behind why that is, rather than simply saying "No". Instead, "No, because of this and that", etc. Of course, some suspects are clearly ridiculous and impossible right from the beginning, like Abberline, Carroll, Cream, Pedachenko, etc. But that certainly is not the case with Klosowski. Just to illustrate my point, let me put up a profile of Klosowski, compared to what we might expect Jack the Ripper to be.
Age: - Roughly, yes. Klosowski was 23-24 at the times of the murders, the average age for the witnesses was around 30-35. However, even in the photos of Klosowski, he looks older than his age, so that much is excusable.
Marriage/Relationship: - Klosowski was single in 1888, giving him the freedom to roam around.
Location: - Klosowski lived close to the murder areas in 1888.
Descriptions: - Klosowski fits the witness descriptions on a number of points:
1.) He was a foreigner (Polish), which several witnesses testified to believing the Ripper was.
2.) He was not a pauper in 1888, and several years later he was even able to afford his own yacht. He did have some money - thus witness descriptions of, e.g. "Shabby Genteel"
3.) The Ripper was sometimes described as being somewhat stocky/broad shouldered. In the existing photos, Klosowski is reasonable stocky.
Medicine/Doctor: - Klosowski had done some medical training back in Russia.
Tools to do it: - Klosowski was a hairdresser at the time, so it's reasonable to assume he possessed sharp instruments.
Alibi's: - Though he isn't known to have been questioned at the time, no satisfactory alibis have ever been produced for Klosowski's where-abouts at the times of the murders.
Other history of crime/violence: - Yes. Klosowski poisoned & killed 3 of his wives, and assaulted another. In the assault case, a large knife was then found underneath a pillow, where the assault had taken place. In April 1903, Chapman was hanged for the murder of Maud Marsh, though he had killed all 3 of his wives. The pause between the murders in 1888 and when Chapman resurfaced and started harming his wives in mid-1890's, could signal a much thought about change in M.O. and killing technique. Poison death was obviously much less likely to have him caught than mutilation.
Suspected by police?: - Yes. Inspector Abberline himself stated in 1903 that he believed Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper, and he was not the only police officer at the time that had that view.
Now, Glenn, after all that, I really don't see how you can easily and instantly rule Klosowski out. Whether repeated or not before, I'd really appreciate an argument against Klosowski after what I've just said.
"It is those who accuse, who have to deliver the arguments and the so called proof, not the others."
But then it is the job of the other posters to try and disprove the other posters' accusations, IF they produce a case for their suspicions. I have just produced my case FOR Klosowski, now someone needs to provide a satisfactory case AGAINST, or else, you see, there is no good reason for making him a lesser suspect.
Phil, you wrote:
"When someone proposes a theory or a suspect publicly, then it is in the public domain and the originator must accept whatever is thrown at him or her. If a "critic" wishes simply to say "I am unconvinced" then that's fine. if they wish to detail their objections that's even better. But there is no compulsion to do so either philospohically or practically."
I do accept whatever is thrown at me. That doesn't change my opinion, because everyone has their own. But to just say "I am unconvinced" really is a waste of time and space. WHY are you unconvinced? Why DONT you think it's true? The level of discussion here would be so much higher if everyone did that. It would actually be quite interesting, I think.
"If someone comes along new to the JtR "game" and starts arguing what is nonsense, I see no reason to have to backtrack over what is to me old ground. I'll simply say, go look at these references. I don't have to go back to argue from point "A" yet again. waste of time for me - work's been done."
Or what you consider to be "nonsense." If you believe strongly in it enough that it is "nonsense", then you should repeat those arguments to try and make your ground clear to people new to the place. The very least you could do is go back to the old threads everyone speaks of so much, and copy/paste what you wrote, or atleast re-write some notes from it. I for one don't mind repeating the case FOR Klosowski as many times as I need to, because I believe in it strongly. The difference is what exactly?
"So I for one will continue to dismiss the Barnardo's; Chapman/Klosowskis; Carolls and Wildes with undisguised disdain and the paucity of counter-argument such half-baked and timewasting theories deserve."
Then the result from that is simple. You have no case, you have no argument, and nobody who is genuinely interested in new discussions will bother to respond to it. You make the call.
Stan, you wrote:
"Keep dismissing those ridiculous theories and all the ridiculous suspects. Perhaps we should leave it directly up to you to identify the ridiculous versus the acceptable? Please do that for us newbies.
Why is there so much difficulty in differentiating not believeing in a suspect and dismissing a suspect entirely? I do not believe Klosowski was 'JTR', but I can not prove that he was not. DO YOU SEE THE POINT?"
Thank you, Stan. Couldn't have put it better myself. What is not understood is that not everyone on this site has been a member for the last 2, 3, 4 years or however long it is. And when newbies (i.e. Me) ask questions, which we obviously have no idea about whether it's been asked before or not, it gets ridiculed. Really, the older members could do a hell of a lot more to be a bit kind to the new members here. In all honesty, of all the forums I have been and am a member of, this one has to be the one with the most hostile beginnings I have had. Now I don't mind arguing and stating my point, but when older members somehow expect me (and other newbies) to have read posts that existed from 2001, it's pretty unfair. Really.
Glenn, I know you and I were just starting to agree on some things in the last few days, but I'm with Stan on this one.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:03 am: | |
Stan,
what about if I say Mr X (I was going to name someone but i don't want to go there) was JTR. Now Mr X is in theory a JTR suspect but I have absolutly no evidence at all that he did it. In fact i am only naming him for a laugh. However, i will have a job to prove he wasn't JTR. But for eg i can prove it unlikely.
I think your theory is geting to you some what - and i agree with you about dismissing Sickert on the basis of what patsy cornnwell says, but is that the reason for dissmissing him? we've had several attempts to put him in the frame and none of them have (yet) to take particular hold amongst ripper folks.
Of course it is an opinion because we can never know 100 percent who was jack.
though I always thought...blah blah blah...it doesn't matter!
Adam,
no one is ridiculing you for thinking what they do , that's just Glenn's over enthuisastic (and delieghtful) way of disagreeing with you. it seems Abberline agrees with you so what do we know!
I don't expect you to have read posts from 2001 (i haven't and i wrote some of them! Ha ha!!).
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
Hi Adam
A couple of quick questions for my own information, if I may.
First, I am sorry if you mentioned this earlier, do you also think Klosowski could have committed the torso murders as well, as R. Michael Gordon asserts?
Second, you say that Abberline was not the only police officer to have thought Klosowski was the Ripper. Who else did? Are you referring to Godley?
Last, I am sorry if you feel you have received a hostile reception here. I have generally felt this is a welcoming site, and a lot more mature than some other forums on the internet, but then I am not a recent arivee who has experienced what you evidently have.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3698
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi Adam
Stick with it, because this is a fantastic site, frequented (in an unMaybrickian sense) by a great bunch of people. We help each other - if someone wants to know something, immediately there are people trying to find the info which he/she is after. And you can form real friendships here, as I have.
Nothing beats discussion, for people are therein required to think about their ideas with an intensity and attention to detail that would be very hard to achieve if they were carrying on an internal dialogue with themselves. On the other hand, some of the more experienced posters may sometimes have the sensation of chewing a piece of gum that's long since lost any flavour it had. In general, there's usually something for everyone, and someone for them to discuss it with.
I'm not a Chapman fan, but i seem to remember there was an excellent discussion about him a few months ago between David O'Flaherty and Wolf Vanderlinden.
See you around on the Boards.
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2492
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Hi Adam,
I can only refer to my earlier response; you can't expect me to go over all those arguments again.
One thing a newbie seldom realises -- and which I certainly failed to realise myself when I first entered here -- is that the Boards actually had a life before.
It is really quite simple, if one is interested in Klosowski, just read the threads there and the millions of posts and debates and you will realise how hard it is to come forward with ANY new arguments. It has already been done. I have exhausted myself on several threads regarding certain victims and suspects and psychological profiles of the killer -- and been repeating this process several times -- so you must try and look at it from my perspective. You really can't expect me to go over this again, each time a new person arrives here -- that is almost like subjecting me to cruel torture.
In the beginning a lot of the famous Ripper authors like Stewart P Evans and Martin Fido did contribute to these Boards, but they have stopped because there is a limit to how many times one can repeat ones notions and arguments. Life is short.
"I think what Stan is trying to say is that if you are going to immediately discount someone's opinions or favourite suspects, then you have to atleast have some reasoning behind why that is, rather than simply saying "No". Instead, "No, because of this and that", etc."
Yes, and that is where he is terribly wrong. Although Stan obviously has been asleep in class, I have debated that subject extensively (as in the case of Sickert). So I am NOT simply dismissing Klosowski, I have delivered a lot of arguments and evidence, although on his own thread -- where they belong!
But let me -- for your pleasure -- add some comments, which probably won't be as short as I would like them to be (I am making an exception for you here):
Yes, all those elements like age, living in the area, hairdresser etc. are all very good. Unfortunately, what destroys it all, is that he murdererd his wives with a consistent method more times than one by poisoning. This displays traits in his psychology and personality that makes him, in my view, impossible as the Ripper.
"The pause between the murders in 1888 and when Chapman resurfaced and started harming his wives in mid-1890's, could signal a much thought about change in M.O. and killing technique. Poison death was obviously much less likely to have him caught than mutilation."
Totally unlikely. This goes against all we know of how serial killer works, and it also goes against all common sense. I have said it a million times before, and I repeat it again: this is not a matter of change in MO, but two killers with completely different personalities.
Now, I know that you are convinced about Klosowski, but please to try and read me carefully and take in the information -- information that is supported by all police officers and psychologists in modern times:
a serial killer can change his MO, but he can't change his needs and his personality. A serial mutilator is triggered off by urges he cant resist -- he NEEDS to mutilate, it is connected to the sexual twisted notions and driving forces that makes him kill in the first place. Although he might change his methods in order to achieve the kicks he gets from mutilations, these driving forces and urges seldom stops and seldom changes! From what we know so far, this is not a credible scenario from a psychological point of view. This is not psychological speculations, but rather accepted notions in criminology and the police force.
A poisoner doesen't at all have the same urges and driving forces as a mutilator or knife stabber. A poisoner is a coward and a sadist who enjoys to watch from afar how his victims slowly becomes ill and dies, and he doesen't like to get his hands dirty himself. A poisoner shows personality traits that a mutilator doesen't have, like patience and an ability to control his need to kill.
Klosowski's only intention was to kill his victims, and for practical reasons. For the Ripper the killing itself was of secondary importance; his needs lay in the post-mortem signature (the mutilations) -- a need Klosowski doesen't possessed at all. This need doesen't go away and therefore it is not at all likely that Klosowski and the Ripper was the same person.
The Ripper was NOT a sadist like Klosowski; the Ripper needed to kill his victims fast because he wanted them dead as soon as possible so he could get on with what was important for him -- the crime scene evidence tells us this.
Klosowski and the Ripper not only had two completely different methods, that they both developed and used consistently in their own right for several murders -- the Ripper and Klowski had two completely different personalities and psychological profiles, and although an MO can change for a serial killer, his needs remain the same. So change of MO has nothing to do with it whatsoever, and a pause in the murders can't make this personality change; this is not just how a serial killer's mind works. So, yes, Klosowski's inclusion among the Ripper suspect is ridiculous.
Everybody who works in the law enforcement -- as well as every criminologist and psychiatrist -- knows this. Abberline didn't; one reason for this was that this information about the psyche of serial killers was not known in 1888, another reason being that he was mislead by the informtion he had read in the papers regarding Klosowski.
"Suspected by police?: - Yes. Inspector Abberline himself stated in 1903 that he believed Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper, and he was not the only police officer at the time that had that view."
Yes, he was, and he was certainly criticised for it. criminal psychology didn't exist in modern form in 1903, and Abberline certainly didn't know what he was talking about. Klosowski was not a contemporary suspect, and isn't mentioned until 1903.
In 1903 Abbeline also stated that he had no idea who the killer was than he had twenty years ago. So where does that leaves Klosowski.
"I for one don't mind repeating the case FOR Klosowski as many times as I need to, because I believe in it strongly."
A typically wrong newbie assumption, based on too much enthusiasm. After 20 times, you wont feel the same way about that -- believe you me. Just mark my words.
Full stop! I am not prepared to go over all this again, simply because someone doesen't hear what I am trying to say or are so convinced that the facts doesen't matter. Klosowski has his own thread and he should stay there.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 27, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Hi, Robert
Thanks, I think that's over on the Sugden thread--out of Wolf's arguments, what impressed me most was that on the night of the Double Event, the Ripper seems to have been moving away from Cable Street, where Chapman was living. To me, that speaks a lot louder than the psychological argument (which seems to be turning into a religion). I don't think that Chapman should be eliminated from the suspect list because of them. But I no longer think Chapman is one of the stronger suspects.
Cheers,
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2494
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
It's not religion, David, it's common sense.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Glenn, common sense will tell you that there are exceptions to every rule.
(Message edited by oberlin on December 27, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2495
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
No way, David.
It just seems too unlikely.
It's a good point about the killer moving away from Cable Street, though. I can agree with that.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Glenn,
I have no problem with unlikely. I have problems when people start stating certainties in connection to human psychology, especially when the subjects involved have been dead for a hundred years. Profiling is a valuable tool, but it's only that--a tool. If I build a house, I don't let my hammer dictate the number of rooms or how many floors I'm going to have. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
David,
I have said this many times, but I'll say it again.
This has nothing to do with profiling as such and their terminology. I know that profiling is just a tool, and that is also why I am quite cautious about it.
This however, concerns quite common sense from an ordinary psychological point of view, strictly from looking at the evidence. We DON'T need profiling in order to establish the driving forces behind the Ripper's actions, nor behind a poisonist. I am not leaning against profiling, I am just using my own head.
Just looking at the Ripper's work tells us that this is million miles away from a character like Chapman. To state the opposite as a likely suggestion is to believe in fairy-tales. I believe for everyone working in the law enforcement this is a rather clear-cut notion.
You can find all kinds of arguments for or against Klosowski from a factual point of view, but it is the psychological elements that totally dismisses him. He is clearly not the same personality type as the Ripper and a change in MO doesen't cut it to explain the differences.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
