|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:28 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn,
I like your quote of Groucho Marx and I do not want to "torture" with Klossowski again.
Just a word: I do not think you will convince somebody with "common sense". This is not exactly an argument (only a subjective appreciation). If your point was actually "common sense", you should not have to defend it. It would be obvious for everybody.
All the best,
Olivier
PS: However, you know that Klossowski is not my favorite suspect. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
The 'change in m.o.' is not a good argument, largely because the 'o' is not the same, therefore the 'm' would necessarily be different. That, my Swedish friend, is psychology.
In otherwords, you argue that a chess player can't also be a sky diver, or a shoplifter a rapist.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 27, 2004) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
The idea below is only a possibility - there is no proof whatever and probably never will be as any private papers of Abberline, if extant, would probably have come to light by now.
Two facts:
1) the press appetite for any tidbit, theory or comment - however oblique or absurd - was voracious.
2) a number of police officers directly and indirectly connected with the case wrote their memoirs and gave various comments on the Whitechapel case.
Abberline never did write his memoirs - we cannot know whether he considered this unethical, whether he thought nhis private thoughts on the case should remain just that, or for some other reasons.
It is likely that Abberline over the years - especially after he had left the police force - may have been approached or even pestered for his thoughts and ideas on the case. It seems possible to me (only possible, not proven) that Abberline, in a press interview, finally gave the press what they wanted - a red hot story (Chapman was hanged the week after his interview with the Pall Mall Gazette was published). Maybe, just maybe, he hoped that press interest in him would die with Chapman if they thought this was Abberline's favoured suspect.
Just a thought - nothing more.
Chris
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Glenn,
You wrote, "it is the psychological elements that totally dismisses him."
This is the attitude I object to. Our understanding of the psychology of serial killing is incomplete. Psychological analysis of historical figures is second-hand, subjective, and general. It's reasonable to draw on case evidence and make tentative conclusions, to say what is unlikely based on experience; it's unreasonable to set human behavior in concrete and start talking about impossibilities. Your talk of totality, "fairy tales", and your sudden emergence as spokesman for "everyone in law enforcement" smack of Jerry Falwell fundamentalism.
I'll stick with factual elements like the Goulston Street apron, thank you very much.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 27, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2498
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
RJ,
"The 'change in m.o.' is not a good argument, largely because the 'o' is not the same, therefore the 'm' would necessarily be different. That, my Swedish friend, is psychology."
I have no idea what you mean, Mr Palmer. Sorry, that completely eluded me.
I have so far not heard of any serial killer that mutilates in this way and in a row of murders, and then a few years later turns into a poisonist where those needs that kicked off his mutilations no longer is displayed. It totally makes no sense. We are clearly talking about two different types of characters here, with different driving forces.
It is pure logical deduction. It's nothing but my own, of course (for what its worth), but nevertheless...
And I believe you could not find a single represenatative for law enforcement that would find a person like Klosowski a likely JtR suspect, and very much for those very reasons.
Just because such a killer -- displaying such an unlikely and contradictory mix of character traits -- hasn't yet been found, doesen't mean that I have to accept the possibility. It is complete nonsense. Those who believe in this possibility probably also believes in Frankenstein.
Olivier,
"I like your quote of Groucho Marx and I do not want to 'torture' with Klossowski again."
Thank you -- on both counts. 
"If your point was actually "common sense", you should not have to defend it."
Well, I know "common sense" is not an argument in itself, but it is common sense TO ME, that this is a totally unlikely equation form a psychological point of view. Common sense and deductions based on logical thinking -- without necessarily being based on academic confirmation -- is a common and vital ingredient in daily police work. Some things are just so obviously unthinkable that they must be dismissed.
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 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Well, here we go again... *sigh*
David,
"It's reasonable to draw on case evidence and make tentative conclusions, to say what is unlikely based on experience"
And that is exactly what I am doing! And from that I draw the conclusion that it is just as unlikely as it would start to rain sandwishes. That is MY conclusion.
I am not trying to put myself up as a spokesman for law enforcement, but I haven't yet heard of anyone in that field who finds this scenario credible.
It doesen't matter if this happened yesterday or 1888. We know enough about the nature of these murders in order to compare them to modern serial killers of the same design in order to draw certain conclusions about what makes them tick. It's not clear-cut and it's not with 100% validity but somewhere there should be limits to what one can accept as possible. It's all about using your own head, not to lean against academic or theoretical generalisations.
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: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
R.J., you will get the argument that chess is not the same thrill sky diving is.
I wonder how psychological profiling is different from racial profiling. How likely was the existence of Taliban Johnny?
Glenn, you needn't *sigh* and say "here we go again." I don't wish to burden you.
Dave
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
M.O. = mo·dus op·er·an·di
1. A method of operating or functioning.
2. A person's manner of working.
The mistake I think you make is believing that the two crimes would somehow share anything in common---by which I mean motivation or psychology--- other than they were perpetrated by the same criminal. A man might be a rapist in his twenties and be an embezzeler at 30. The common ground is that he is imbalanced, lacks restraint, and is utterly devoid of ethics. Other than that, the two crimes share nothing in common. We wouldn't expect the man's sexual crimes to share anything in common with his monetary crimes. The "operations" are different --they don't spring from the same motivation, thus the "method" is different. Klowoski is not my suspect; I don't tend to believe he is the Ripper. I, avoid, however, over-confident psychological dogma. As with the rapist/embezzeler, the same could be true of Klosowski's crimes. He could have been a completely disgusting and lusty murderer of strangers, and, at the same time, an entirely amoral swine who thought it might be expedient to kill his wives with poisons. It's naive to think his "motivation" would have been the same. The differences between the two series reflects a difference in victimology, motivation, and psychology.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2502
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
"R.J., you will get the argument that chess is not the same thrill sky diving is."
David, you took the words right out of my mouth...
Seriously (just kidding),
I am not basing this on psychological profiling and not even established psychology (although profilers would probably agree with me) -- I know better than to open up such a can of worms.
What we CAN'T do is to do a complete psychological profile on Jack the Ripper (because of the time that has passed, as you rightly imply), but this is something else. As I said, we know in my view enough of the nature of these murders in order to conclude certain things from them. And they tell me that he could not be the same person as someone like Klosowski. I am not certain of many things in the Ripper case, but that is something I find to be beyond speculation.
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 |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 121
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
To all,
Please do not confuse Glenn with logic or reason. Klosowski was not 'JTR' because he believes so. End of story. He does not have to re-address his arguments regarding this, because he is far superior. Another word would be elitist, as his "European movies are better than American movies" posts clearly display.
The case will never be solved. More to the point Glenn lacks the ability to solve it, therefore it is unsolvable. If that is not Cornwellian then I do not know what is. Then again I'm asleep in class because I have the audacity to differ in my opinion from the mighty Glenn.
In my opinion, my sleep laden opinion, a responsible researcher should not eliminate a suspect, any suspect, from consideration based upon what they believe the killer was or should have been. They have every right to assert their opinion, but when a researcher's opinion is stated as fact he or she enters the Cornwell zone, and the ironic part is that the current entry into this prestigious looney bin doesn't even realize the similarities.
I have a theory and my suspects have been made public. I assert it is only a theory, and I could be wrong. I have logical reasons for dismissing suspects but acknowledge that I could be wrong, and that most likely we may never know. That doesn't stop me from trying. And I will try and solve the case, unlike others who obviously understand their limitations, yet lack the ability to realize it is a limitation upon themself, so they project it upon the case, calling it unsolvable.
KEEP TRYING PEOPLE. MAYBE ONE DAY
STAN RUSSO
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2503
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
RJ,
You don't have to explain "modus operandi" to me, thank you. I have known for at least ten or fifteen years the meaning of that term.
Do you really in your own head believe that I have studied crime history for fifteen years (who I admit is not long), and not be aware of the meaning of the terms modus operandi, signature and motivation? Thanks for the lesson, though.
Firstly, I don't agree at all with you.
A posioner is very much a balanced person. He/she has patience enough to sit back and watch the victim to die slowly. I'd say that is not how a mutilator functions. A mutilation murder is generally sexually based, a poison crime is not.
Even if a person like Jack the Ripper would turn into a poisoner like Chapman, he would still need to get his other needs fulfilled. I find it hard to believe that they would just disappear as if they'd never existed. Not very likely, RJ.
If he had done ONE -- yes -- but three or more...?
Secondly, we are not talking about an awful lot of period of time between these two supposed periods of serial killing. The Ripper made a row of mutilation murders with a more or less consistent method, and so did Chapman with his poisoning a few years later.I can't see how they should be connected.
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 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
I don't know what i did with your email address.
But that is i guess besides the point.
i don't think there is a way to say this without sounding like i am having a go (which i am not please note this point) but you seem very concerned with people who want to or try to eliminate suspects, on the one hand (or at least thats the impression i got from your Rip article) yet on the other hand you call people who think the case is unsolvable stupid (if not in as many words). well which is it one solved theory or a list of uneliminatable suspects? I am easy to confuse i guess, please do help me out here, it is so difficult to keep up sometimes.
MAYBE ONE DAY....???? What? Lost again, here.
Ugh, maybe its the spirit of Xmas still affecting me!
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 27, 2004)
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ha"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Glenn--Yes, I know you know the meaning of the term, 'm.o.' But I'm afraid I agree with Mr. O'Flaherty . You seem strangely and overly confident that a man can't be both a chess player and a skydirver. How cool a poisoner was Jim Jones? What do you do with Dr. Marcel Petiot? A man who committed every time of crime under the sun? The whole karma of those who fancy criminology and criminal psychology and the like, is to exude a tremendous confidence about human psychology. But there is no discipline where there is such a divigence of opinon, and no discipline whose opinions are so consistently proven wrong. It's seems like an important thing to keep in mind. Cheers, RP
P.S. A long time ago Jeff Bloomfield asked a question that no one tackled. To those who dismiss Klosowski--what about his carrying around a revolver, and threatening his wife with a knife? How do these agree with the idea of him being soley a 'cool' and 'calculating' criminal?
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 27, 2004) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi
I do not purpose to be a expert on mr Chapman, however I must agree with Glenn on his reasoning.
Chapman murdered for gain, he was only twenty three years old at the time of the murders, he was obviously of unsound mind , however we should not put to much weight on the fact that he once threatened his wife with a knife.
jack the ripper did a lot more than threaten his victims , he sliced them open in cold blood.
He was of slight appearence, a relative of his saw him just before his execution, and was amazed at his stature.
simply he was not 'Jack The Ripper'
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2504
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Stan,
"Please do not confuse Glenn with logic or reason. Klosowski was not 'JTR' because he believes so. End of story. He does not have to re-address his arguments regarding this, because he is far superior."
Have you really read the Klosowski or Cream thread? How many times do you suppose I have to "re-address" my arguments? Have you put forward the same arguments to people like Fido, Evans, Begg et.al., who no longer are active on these Boards because of the tediousness in repeating ones argument a hundred times?
Could be that your time is not valuable, but mine is.
After all, these discussion are all there on their relevant threads for everyone to read.
Besides, regarding re-addressing my arguments, what do you suppose I just did tn the posts above (at least some of them)? Do you mean you feel asleep AGAIN?????? Blimey....
Just one pointer, Stan.
Just because you and some others find it valuable to present suspects (although we can't possibly have enough evidence proving anyone's guilt, unless new facts come to light), doesen't mean that I am forced to follow that approach. Just because I find those "suspect hunts" a bit unrealistic and probably a waste of time on my own account, doesen't mean that I don't allow others to pursue it. I may think it's a vain ambition (and probably rather difficult in practice), but I would hardly hinder anyone esle from doing so. You are hallucinating as usual.
I do believe the case is unsolvable, unless new evidence -- as certain documentation -- comes to light. Criminal cases has a very short life-time from an investigative point of view, and usually a case gets old and very difficult to solve already after a few weeks. If you believe that it's possible to prove anyones guilt in a 116 year old case, you are certainly up for a challenge.
It's not impossible -- if new evidence shows up, a ten or fifteen year old case can be solved, but in cases as old in the Ripper case, we have no witnesses still alive and we lack a lot of documentation. I can't really see the point. But by all means, continue to pursue your hunt -- I won't stop you. But you can't accuse me of being a narcissist just because I want to live in the real world.
As Jenni says, you obviously have issues with people who excludes suspects, and you seem to accept almost anyone. That's fine by me, but don't involve me. The fact that you can't accept that I don't have favourite suspect is a problem that you yourself have to deal with; I am certainly not alone.
there are benefits of course with chasing suspects; thanks to many of these "hunts" we have learnt more about the historical and social context. But that is another matter.
What you need to do first of all, is to cut down on the coffee. Besides that, I wish you the best of luck.
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 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2505
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Richard,
Thanks. Much appreciated.
RJ,
Well, I see your point, but I just don't agree with it. Sorry.
Regarding the question:
Jeff Bloomfield is not the only one who have proposed this. I have actually answered this question a couple of times before, and I can do it again.
To carry a revolver or to threaten your wife with a knife does not in any way bring Chapman any closer to Jack the Ripper. Chapman never used his revolver or his knife in any of his known murders -- he used poison. The fact that he carried other weapons means nothing.
From what I've read about Chapman, I'd say he was a rather violent prick and a sadist, who liked to abuse his wives. And he probably also had a terrible temper.
But when he performed his crimes, he was cool, patient and calculating. That's what matters.
So far we have nothing in his behaviour that even suggests that he could have committed serial murder in the way Jack the Ripper was. The famous Bury mutilated his wife, and so have been done by other husbands as well. So there is really nothing that would have hindered Chapman from doing the same, if he had those personality traits. If others could do it, so could he.
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 |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Hi all
I too doubt that Chapman was our Jack because of the divergence of motives and procedures but I don't think that means we can automatically rule him out. Glenn, I would put it to you that you have studied crime, but that Abberline also put in decades of working on crime. Evidently did not think it untoward to think that Chapman could have been the Ripper years earlier.
Note though that some of Abberline's thinking appears to have been informed by bad information, e.g., that Chapman was living in George Yard at the time of the Tabram murder and that a number of murders took place in the United States while Klosowski was living in Jersey City.
Chris Scott wrote that perhaps Abberline "hoped that press interest in [Jack the Ripper] would die with Chapman if they thought this was Abberline's favoured suspect." That aspect could have come into play although I think Abberline would have realised the case was so famous that interest in it would not likely die. Look how fascination with earlier criminals such as Burke and Hare and the highwayman Dick Turpin has endured.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 122
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Glenn,
NARCISSITIC ELITIST = The case can't be solved because I can't solve it.
Maybe no one did it then?
REALIST = Someone did it. Eventually we will know. I'll try and strive toward that.
Or maybe I'm just having too much coffee.
Dude - perhaps you should relax. Just because someone disagrees with you and your absolute opinions disguised as fact they are not stupid, asleep or addicted to coffee. Newsflash - Glenn Anderson is not Dr. 'JTR'. His ideas are not new. His preconceived notions are not original. His biases against certain suspects are not the first of their kind. And his inability to differentiate complete elimination of a suspect from theoretical elimination runs through the veins of most researchers. It will be okay. You are not alone Glenn. Many prominent people are just like you. And the case generally makes no progress because of it. It will be okay though. There there.
On another note - Do you enjoy the morbid nature of this particular crime? Without any hope of solving it why the hell do you hold any interest in it whatsoever? It's kind of creepy dude.
Off to get some coffee, or a nap.
STAN RUSSO |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 123
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Chris,
Nice try, but I think it will fall upon deaf ears. One way or the other. No in betweens with certain people. And the stagnancy continues.
STAN RUSSO |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
But Glenn,
"Violent prick, sadist, terrible temper" AND "cool, calculating and patient" poisoner? Next you'll be arguing that Chapman should remain on the suspect list.
Best,
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2507
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Stan,
You amuse me.
"NARCISSITIC ELITIST = The case can't be solved because I can't solve it.
Maybe no one did it then?"
Yes, someone did do it, but I just explained to you above why 116 years afterwards finding out who did is extremely difficult.
No one has solved the case so far, in spite of revealing of rather interesting new sources. And no one probably will. No one is telling you not to try, though.
"Newsflash - Glenn Anderson is not Dr. 'JTR'."
I already knew that.
"His ideas are not new. His preconceived notions are not original. His biases against certain suspects are not the first of their kind."
I already knew that too.
"And his inability to differentiate complete elimination of a suspect from theoretical elimination runs through the veins of most researchers. It will be okay. You are not alone Glenn. Many prominent people are just like you. And the case generally makes no progress because of it."
And a large number of distinguished researchers and scholars HAVE discovered new material and put forward new suspects. And the case is STILL not solved.
"On another note - Do you enjoy the morbid nature of this particular crime? Without any hope of solving it why the hell do you hold any interest in it whatsoever? It's kind of creepy dude."
For once a legitimate and valid question.
yes, I guess I am kind of morbid. I do find murders exciting (the more gruesome the more interesting) -- like all those people who write crime novels and a lot of other researchers in the field of crime history. I don't have any problems with empathy, though, and it certainly doesen't make myself a serial killer candidate.
For your information, for many researchers in this field, their main goal is not to solve a case, but to study the external circumstances and the context. For me -- since I am a historian -- it's the Victorian foggy environment that intrigues me, and the fact that the case contains so many interesting social contexts and aspects. Playing detective is not necessarily of any great interest.
Enjoy the nap, dude.
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 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2508
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Chris,
"Glenn, I would put it to you that you have studied crime, but that Abberline also put in decades of working on crime. Evidently did not think it untoward to think that Chapman could have been the Ripper years earlier."
True. But it was also 1888. I believe it would be questionable to not study Abberline's conceptions and results in that light. In 1903 not that much more was known than in 1888.
"Note though that some of Abberline's thinking appears to have been informed by bad information, e.g., that Chapman was living in George Yard at the time of the Tabram murder and that a number of murders took place in the United States while Klosowski was living in Jersey City."
Exactly. I have also tried to argue that point.
I also think Chris Scott's suggestions here are quite probable and worth considering.
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 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2509
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Dave,
""Violent prick, sadist, terrible temper" AND "cool, calculating and patient" poisoner? Next you'll be arguing that Chapman should remain on the suspect list."
No, because I don't think (note that I wrote "think") that the Ripper was either a sadist or a cool, calculating and patient criminal. Much suggests that he was actually the complete opposite. And a sadist like Chapman he certainly was not. Just my two cents, though.
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 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
To an extent anybody that takes a intrest in murder mysterys could be classed as Morbid.
I am intrested in every classic murder case, although The ripper is my main concern.
Being involved in this case is simply being a modern day detective, and pitting ones wits against impossible odds.
I truely hope that one day the truth will be known and accepted by the majority of followers. In this series of murders, the truth should come out if only for some kind of justice for the unfortunate victims.
The main objective is solving this crime, not fighting amongst ourselves, we all have opinions, that is why this site holds such fascination to myself and many others.
regards Richard. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
"To carry a revolver or to threaten your wife with a knife does not in any way bring Chapman any closer to Jack the Ripper."
This misses the point, Glenn. The broader issue is that it puts doubt on Klosowski being merely a cool, calculated poisoner. You see, no matter how much we like to pidgeon-hole criminals into neat little catagories, it's always a pretty dangerous game. Most people's personalities don't boil down to Either/Or. It's not a matter of the Ripper "turning into" a slow poisoner, it's a matter of their being a chance that a very rare type of criminal might be both. And of course, we do have strange examples like Marcel Petiot who was seemingly capable of any and every crime imaginable (or unimaginable). Was Klosowski that type? I don't know; I don't pretend that here in the year 2004 we have suddenly reached an understanding of these things. Cheers, RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2513
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Palmer,
I think it's you who misses the point, if you don't mind me saying so.
A cool, calculated poisoner can most certainly be violent. Most slow poisoners are sadists, since their method is sadistic (their victims are suffering for quite some time before they die), and sadists can in general be considered violent, with a violent temper -- it is quite possible.
However, what differs this type of person from someone like Jack the Ripper, is that the revolver and the violent knife-thretening does not in any way indicate crimes that are sexual in its nature, which I would say Jack the Ripper's clearly are.
So the violent traits shown by Klosowski in possessing a gun and a knife, doesen't put him closer to Jack the Ripper.
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 |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 451
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:58 am: | |
Glenn,
You are trying to take a tool (profiling, whether you want to admit it's what you are using or not) used to try to come up with the most likely type of person to commit a crime and then claim that it's impossible for anyone else to have done it.
I would agree with you that Klosowski/Chapman is probably unlikely as the Ripper, but you are ruling him out on your opinion only, and overstating the psychology involved.
Poisoners who poison people because they like to see them die a long and painful death are sadists. Poisoners who poison people because it's an effective way to kill someone who is in their way and not get caught generally are not sadists.
I see nothing in the psychology of Klosowski that would rule him out as a killer who could mutilate people. You apparently are ruling him out based upon a certainty about the type of person you think the Ripper was and even more certainty that Klosowski wasn't that kind of person. That's too big leaps that don't really have the support you think they do. You call it common sense, but it's just your opinion and your interpretation of what (supposedly "all") other experts say.
But at least your opinion is somewhat popular. Klosowski was dismissed as a Ripper suspect by Wolf Vanderlinden (now the Associate Editor) in an article in the July issue of Ripper Notes, and he's also dismissed in an article from 1930 that we're reprinting in the January 2005 issue (but at least in that one the author actually went to talk to people who knew him).
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 79
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:55 am: | |
Hello all,
Well, this is going to be a pretty long post, in response to the replies, but here goes!
Jennifer, you wrote:
"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 could think of a few more descriptions for Glenn's "way" other than enthusiastic and delightful, I assure you Jen, but they are probably best not to be mentioned on the forum. 
But hey, you're right, I've got the guy who was in charge of the case, Inspector Frederick Abberline on my side! HAHA! Wow, I didn't think of it that way before...I suddenly feel a whole lot better about suspecting Klosowski!
Chris, you wrote:
"A couple of quick questions for my own information, if I may."
Of course, and thank you for your politeness. It's very much appreciated.
"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?"
No, I disagree on that point. I think that the torso murders and the Jack the Ripper murders were 2 different and completely seperate sequences of events. I believe Jack killed 6 victims (I believe Martha Tabram was a JtR victim) and that was all. No other ones.
"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?"
Godley as well, yes, but also Superintendent Arthur Neil suspected Klosowski was the Ripper. Think about it - Abberline, Godley and Neil, all top detectives, and all suspected Klosowski. Allow me to quote an excerpt:
Quoted from Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" on pages 454 - 455:
"In 1932 the voice of ex-Superintendent Arthur Neil joined the chorus. Coming from a detective who had worked on the Chapman inquiry, the case he makes against Chapman, published in Forty Years of Man-Hunting, is valuable:
The Polish Jew, Kloskovski [Chapman]...got a job at a barber's shop in High Street, Whitechapel. He was right on the scene of these atrocities [the Ripper murders] during the whole period...
The first 'Ripper' crime occurred in August 1888. Chapman worked in Whitechapel at this time, and was there during the whole period of these wholesale killings. 'The Ripper,' by the account of four medical men, was testified as to having surgical knowledge. Severino Kloskovski, alias George Chapman, had this qualification. Also it was thought, by the expert manner of the mutilations examined on the various bodies of his victims, that the 'Ripper' was ambidexterous, that is left-and right-handed. Chapman was seen to use his hands in this way during the time he lived in the Borough. The only living description ever given by an eyewitness of the 'Ripper,' tallied exactly with Chapman, even to the height, deep-sunk black eyes, sallow complexion and thick, black moustache.
Towards the end of 1888, Severino Kloskovski left Britain for the United States. The 'Ripper' murders had by this time ceased, so far as London was concerned. But a series of equally terrible crimes, causing a precisely similar reign of terror, began in America. These crimes ceased when, in 1892, Kloskovski returned to this country.
We were never able to secure definite proof that Chapman was the 'Ripper'. But the strong theory remains just the same. No one who had not been trained as a surgeon and medical man, could have committed the 'Ripper' crimes. As we discovered, Chapman had been a surgeon in Poland, and would, therefore, be the only possible fiend capable of putting such trained knowledge into use against humanity, instead of for it. 'Jack the Ripper' was a cold-blooded, inhuman monster, who killed for the sake of killing.
The same could be said of Severino Kloskovski, alias George Chapman, the Borough poisoner.
Why he took to poisoning his women victims on his second visit to this country can only be abscribed to his diabolical cunning, or some insane idea or urge to satisfy his inordinate vanity.
In any case, it is the most fitting and sensible solution to the possible identity of the murderer in one of the world's greatest crime mysteries."
I know that was a pretty long post, and my apologies for that, but I hope that it answers your question well.
"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."
Oh I know, yes, please don't think that I was referring to everyone on the boards, almost everyone has been welcoming and interesting to talk to. It's just that I developed some early thoughts like that when even in my first few posts here, I was already in arguments. It left a marked impression on me, but, as they say "First impressions aren't always right."
Robert, you wrote:
"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."
Yes, I have noticed how almost everyone tries to help each other out, and that's a wonderful thing to see. I have largely enjoyed my time here so far and enjoyed the discussion, don't get me wrong, but I just wish I had more time to get acquainted with everyone and everything before I had launched into debates. It's my own fault, though.
Worry not, I'll stick around and keep posting, whether Glenn likes it or not! (Just kidding, Glenn.)
Glenn, you wrote:
"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.
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."
But that is exactly my problem.
Not every older member that has been around for those discussions, and others, realises that certain people haven't been reading every topic on the forum for the past 5 years. And then we sometimes get shunned when questions get asked that we don't know have been answered or discussed numerously before. As I said above, most people here have been welcoming and interesting, but it is annoying for me and I'm sure other newbies too, when older members just say "This has been discussed to death before." Even if you only add a few notes, or even just a few links for them to check out, it's better than just shunning it. Can you understand that?
"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):"
Thank you, Glenn, that's the spirit!
"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."
Whilst I do agree with your saying that there is clear marked differences between the driving forces of a serial mutilator and a serial poisoner, I don't really agree with the notion that it is impossible for a killer to change his driving forces over time. It's not every day that someone jumps out and rips 5 women to pieces in the street, so he can't be compared to serial killers who had different M.O's and driving forces in the first place.
And, as mentioned before, the several year wait between the Ripper murders and the attacks/poisoning of Chapman's wives could signal a change in driving forces, and what he wanted most to satisfy himself.
Aside from that fact, you CANT base the Ripper on modern serial killers, because killers these days would hear about what previous killers have done, and thus some killings are almost identical yet done by completely different people. That seems to often be the case in atleast the sexual killer, the cases can be remarkably similar. So why not the Ripper?
...
Because Jack the Ripper was basically the first sexual serial killer ever! He had no major predecessors to look back on, he had no M.O. in common, all of what he did was obviously of his own devising. Thus, he cannot be compared to modern serial killers, because he was pretty much the first of them, which is obviously not the case now.
Profiling, as other posters have said, is not always the perfect way to go anyway. Neither is common sense. You can't generalise the Ripper on other serial killers of the next century. It's completely backwards.
"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."
Well, you've just said it yourself, it was not known in 1888. My points above have just been illustrated. Besides that, I doubt the papers really influenced Abberline's opinions. He received ridicule enough for suspecting Klosowski even from the papers, so my personal belief is that he said that just to cover up, and he had really suspected Klosowski in his own mind the whole time. But, that's just what I think.
"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."
So he was alone in that belief was he?
Oh Glenn, you don't know the great pleasure it gives me to announce that you are completely, utterly and thoroughly WRONG in that respect.
Have you ever heard of Sergeant George Godley and Superintendent Arthur Neil?
They too believed Chapman was the Ripper. Read above, where I quoted Neil from Philip Sugden's book. Then try and tell me he was alone in that belief.
If you say Abberline had no idea what he was talking about, then there really is no hope of solving this case, because his was a first hand knowledge no other officer had. To insult Abberline is to insult 116 years of Ripperology.
"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."
I'll mark your words, but I would be happy to take you up on a bet that I will say exactly the same thing 1 year from now. If you want to, of course. If you believe in a suspect as much as I do, then it's no trouble to argue the case for them.
"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."
But the point to that would be what exactly? You would only to continue to complain about how much of a bother it was to type out a response, no matter where I posted it.
David, you wrote:
"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, common sense will tell you that there are exceptions to every rule."
Thank you David, those are very good points, and I agree with you.
Nothing is set in stone, not in a case like this, and generally not at all. We are basically working in the dark with the Ripper, and I don't think he can be generalised with other killers.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2518
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:43 am: | |
Dan,
"Poisoners who poison people because they like to see them die a long and painful death are sadists. Poisoners who poison people because it's an effective way to kill someone who is in their way and not get caught generally are not sadists."
That's true, but I belive Chapman would be a sadist, since it took rather long time for his wives to die. They didnt die flat on the spot.
Besides, the a sadist can actually use poison for gain and get rid of someone AND at the same time enjoy the process. It seems to me that Chapman was that type of person.
"You apparently are ruling him out based upon a certainty about the type of person you think the Ripper was and even more certainty that Klosowski wasn't that kind of person."
Well, yes, that's pretty much it. That is all one can do after 116 years.
I am ruling him out because the Ripper was a sexual serial killer. Chapman didn't show those traits. It's not psychological theory, it's pure logic. It may be wrong, but that's how I reason and I can't come to any other conclusion.
"Klosowski was dismissed as a Ripper suspect by Wolf Vanderlinden (now the Associate Editor) in an article in the July issue of Ripper Notes, and he's also dismissed in an article from 1930 that we're reprinting in the January 2005 issue (but at least in that one the author actually went to talk to people who knew him)."
Well yes, I don't have that possibility, I am afraid.
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 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Adam,
glad to be of service.
Stan,
how about some middle ground from the too options above?
Defeatist, someone did it, we will never know!
isn't that where a lot of us sit at present. that doesn't mean we are striving any less to make inroads into who did it!!!
All,
this is turning into one of my favourite threads ever!! (is that good, i couldn't possible comment!)
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2519
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Adam!
Where on Earth have you been? This thread has raged on without you.
See what you started?
Now, this is going to be a very long post as well.
So hold on to your hat.
"No, I disagree on that point. I think that the torso murders and the Jack the Ripper murders were 2 different and completely seperate sequences of events. I believe Jack killed 6 victims (I believe Martha Tabram was a JtR victim) and that was all. No other ones."
Interesting. So -- if we go on to discuss victims like Tabram, Millwood etc. -- you actually believe that there WERE other mutilating killers besides the Ripper at this time? So, what are your reasons for excluding the possibility that the one who killed Tabram and Millwood was another one as well?
"So he was alone in that belief was he?
Oh Glenn, you don't know the great pleasure it gives me to announce that you are completely, utterly and thoroughly WRONG in that respect."
Oooops!  I can understand that, and I'll certainly give you that one. My mistake. I had completely forgotten about that passage in Sugden's book. It's a rather thick book; seems like I have to read up on the case again, it's been all too long.
I agree, I think Neil's rather extensive and detailed points and explanations here are way more interesting than Abberline's rather diffuse personal opinions. Neil actually has valid explanations and theories, that I must say I find quite interesting.
Especially that part about: "The 'Ripper' murders had by this time ceased, so far as London was concerned. But a series of equally terrible crimes, causing a precisely similar reign of terror, began in America. These crimes ceased when, in 1892, Kloskovski returned to this country." This point could actually make me reconsider the possibility, at least. I don't actually remember this information.
That being said, the same things were said regarding Tumblety and the American doctor. At least he was a contemporary suspect, mentioned in the documents, Chapman was not. Does this mean that Neil changed his mind forty years after the murders and suddenly came to the conclusion that Chapman was the killer, influenced by Abberline's diffuse and contradictory statements in 1903 (where he also said that the police was not really much closer to a solution than in 1888)?
It shall also be noted that Neil was the one who captured Chapman -- he was his criminal -- and therefore had special feelings about him and therefore it is not that strange that he also proposes that Chapman as the Ripper; in that case he could have claimed -- in an autobiography -- that he had solved two cases by capturing one criminal. With Anderson in mind, it seems like there were some kind of competition regarding throwing up JtR theories every time an autobiography was written. I wonder if that makes Neil objective. At least Abberline never felt compelled to do that in his own memoirs. Besides that interview in 1903, Abberline kept the lid on it.
Neil also does the mistake to take for granted that the Ripper must have been someone with medical training, which certainly is a disputed notion. My feelings are that he tries to construct and adapt his notions about the Ripper so that they fit Chapman, although some of those facts are not at all clearly established.
Besides, I think Neil shows the same rather strange notions on thse matters as Abberline did: "As we discovered, Chapman had been a surgeon in Poland, and would, therefore, be the only possible fiend capable of putting such trained knowledge into use against humanity, instead of for it. 'Jack the Ripper' was a cold-blooded, inhuman monster, who killed for the sake of killing.
The same could be said of Severino Kloskovski, alias George Chapman, the Borough poisoner.
Why he took to poisoning his women victims on his second visit to this country can only be abscribed to his diabolical cunning, or some insane idea or urge to satisfy his inordinate vanity."
So, in other words, just because Chapman was mean enough to murder his wives, he must also have been the Ripper. That is a totally unsatisfactory deduction, and it's certainly not a reasoning a police officer today would apply. I think he's really talking a lot of crap here. Might sound arrogant on my part, but I don't care. He can't even be sure of that the Ripper was "diabolical cunning", what ever that really means. Here he are clearly stating things that are his personal opinions, not based on either knowledge or facts.
"If you say Abberline had no idea what he was talking about, then there really is no hope of solving this case, because his was a first hand knowledge no other officer had."
Yes, but it was 1888, for God's sake, Adam.
You can't rely totally on the ideas of a police officer who worked 116 years ago, when criminal science nearly didn't exist. It would be natural for them to do a lot of mistakes, and they did. I have investigated and studied enough old cases in order to get a picture of how poorly these things were done and seen in the context of the knowledge of the time, it is perfectly understandable.
"To insult Abberline is to insult 116 years of Ripperology"
Oh come on, don't be a drama queen...
Besides, in spite of the mistakes made and the strange and sometimes confused statements from many of the involved, I'd say the London police did things fairy well, compared to many others at the same time.
I still find it all rather unthinkable, though. As I said, if Jack the Ripper was a sexual serial killer, why would his needs to do this stop? And from what we know, Chapman was not a sexual serial killer. You don't have to use profiling in order to answer that question, you only have to use your head. It just doesen't add up. Your assessement about the pause period doesen't help at all to explain it. I still haven't come across any serial killer of the Ripper's kind who just stops and turn into somehting completely different. It just makes no sense. I know it does to you, because you really want Chapman to be the Ripper, so I guess that is clouding your judgemenent, so you don't bother about those things. But I do.
"Because Jack the Ripper was basically the first sexual serial killer ever! He had no major predecessors to look back on, he had no M.O. in common, all of what he did was obviously of his own devising. Thus, he cannot be compared to modern serial killers, because he was pretty much the first of them, which is obviously not the case now"
No, that is completely wrong and I have told you that one time before. The Ripper was NOT the first mutilating sexual killer, not by far. He was the first SERIAL one that we know of, though (I think), but he was certainly not the first sexually insane murderer who killed women in this gruesome manner. We can find cases several decades back before the Ripper. And they did get media attention.
What made the Ripper stand out from the rest was that his murders became part of a series and that he was never identified.
"It's not every day that someone jumps out and rips 5 women to pieces in the street, so he can't be compared to serial killers who had different M.O's and driving forces in the first place."
Oh come on, I refer to my answer above. It's more common that you think and is probably one of the more widespread misconceptions, which you could correct yourself if you only read up on crime history or criminology. The cases are so many that it's astonishing and too many to mention, and acually, compared to many of them, the Ripper's deeds are absolutely nothing in comparison. So, an incorrect statement.
"You can't generalise the Ripper on other serial killers of the next century. It's completely backwards."
Yes, I can. Because that is the only way we might have a clue about how sexual serial killers work. It doesen't matter if it's 1888 or yesterday; there is no reason whatsoever why a sexual serial killer wouldn't act the same way as he does today, although the historical context is different. It's not clear-cut, though, and it IS generalisations, but sometmies generalisations has to be made uless we want to accept all kinds of lunacy theories.
Your dismissal of these aspects is just too easy.
Besides, I am not using profiling methodology here. Profiling is not popular within the police force as a general rule, and still the police of today would hardly consider Chapman as a credible suspect. I am never leaning against academic reasoning, because I don't believe in it. I am only trying to use my personal logic. "MO" and "signature" are not exclusive profiling terminology, but are used within the police force daily. Not everything that deals with psychological reasoning is profiling.
"Whilst I do agree with your saying that there is clear marked differences between the driving forces of a serial mutilator and a serial poisoner, I don't really agree with the notion that it is impossible for a killer to change his driving forces over time"
Well, it is obviously here we totally disagree, but that can't be helped. My interpretation of this is not as optimistic as yours. I can't add that up in my mind in order for it to make sense.
"I'll mark your words, but I would be happy to take you up on a bet that I will say exactly the same thing 1 year from now."
Well, if you did that, I'd say that you've got too much time on your hands... (just look at me...)
"Not every older member that has been around for those discussions, and others, realises that certain people haven't been reading every topic on the forum for the past 5 years. And then we sometimes get shunned when questions get asked that we don't know have been answered or discussed numerously before. As I said above, most people here have been welcoming and interesting, but it is annoying for me and I'm sure other newbies too, when older members just say "This has been discussed to death before."
I am sorry, but that is just the way it is. It is easy to be enthusiastic when you're new, but when every argument have been bashed a million times, one is not often patient or willing enough to go over it again. I think most newcomers have a poor understanding of this.
But I always refer to threads to read, I never leave a newbie without information where to look. And in your case I referred to the Klosowski and Cream threads.
The reason for me getting so involved here this time, is because so many have commented on it. Don't expect this to happen every time.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 28, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Glenn,
You want to generalise Jack the ripper on other serial killers. This is a valid approach but (and it is a big but) you cannot draw definite conclusions from past cases. How many cases which are similar to JtheR can you find in the history of serial killers? How can we make strong inference from a so small number of observations?
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2523
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi Olivier,
"You want to generalise Jack the ripper on other serial killers...."
Well, I don't want to exaggerate this approach. It is just ONE of many ways to go about this. It's the only way to get some idea of how a sexual serial killer works, but's it's not clear-cut as such. I don't want it to come out like I am only basing my deductions on this.
"How many cases which are similar to JtheR can you find in the history of serial killers? How can we make strong inference from a so small number of observations?"
As I told Adam, this is incorrect. The cases are quite many, and some of them are even worse than the Ripper. It's mostly the US that has been littered with these types of crimes, though, and then I would say Britain comes on second place.
Probably alongside Germany.
I haven't heard of that many in other parts of the world, though.
But it's a terrible mistake to think that the Ripper is unique. It is my opinion that we know to a reasonable extent how these mutilating sexual serial killers functions, although one has to expect variations (but within reasonable degree). But as I said, it has come out like I am only basing my deductions on these psychological references, which of course is not the case. But I don't think they can be that easily disregarded.
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 |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Glenn,
I am sure there has been similar mutilators in the past.
My point is that this number is not very large and it is not easy to make inference from such a small number of cases.
To give a broad approximation (of course, giving such a number is very arbitrary), we can find 20-30 similar cases. Am I right? It is very small!
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2526
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Well, I wouldn't call that small, Olivier....
If it's enough to base any conclusions whatsoever fro, is another matter, and there one can argue for or against. I do think that the ones that we know of tells us something.
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 |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Glenn,
I do think that the ones that we know of tells us something.
Yes, it tells us something but, from a statsitical point of view, it is a very small sample and we have to be very cautious when we draw conclusions.
Best,
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2527
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
What we do know from other cases, Olivier,
is that those who mutilate in this manner are either delusional or are doing it from sexual motivation -- regardless if we're talking serial killers or the "occasional" mutilators.
And if we count in the second category, the number rises to quite different levels; here we are talking hundreds. and they all have certain motivations and other characterizations in common.
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 |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:04 am: | |
Glenn,
I think that human behaviors are very unpredictable, so that it is virtually impossible to draw general conclusions on extreme personalities like serial killers (the number of cases is very small, and these cases are also very heterogeneous).
However, I understand your point and I think it is not necessary to argue ad infinitum about that.
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2528
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Agreed, Olivier,
I don't want it to appear as I am stressing this point to an extreme degree anyway, I just want to state that what we DO know is better than nothing; it's better than theorise without any knowledge at all and many people seems to be of the completely wrong impression that the Ripper is unique as a serial killer. He most certainly isn't.
I am really not a devoted follower of profiling. As far as Chapman is concerned, I am just trying to reason with the possibilities in my own head, not at all lean against statistics.
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 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Hi Chris G
In the note I wrote above, the sentence:
Maybe, just maybe, he hoped that press interest in him would die with Chapman
the "him" referred to is not Jack but Abberline himself. I was not implying that Abberline thought press interest in the case per se would die - no chance of that! - but merely that they would leave him (Abberline) alone if they thought they knew who his favoured suspect was
All the best
Chris
|
C J Morley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:49 am: | |
Hi everyone, Adam is quite correct regarding the hostility new members have faced on these message boards. While I would not consider myself "new" to ripperology, (I have been studying the ripper case for over 25 years, and have wrote two books on the subject)the debates posted on the message board do tend, rather quickly, to descend into personal attacks and "bitchy jibes" upon one another, almost like a school playground. Sides are quickly taken, people who don't agree with your opinions are often dismissed, the arrogance of some people on these boards, is at times, quite astonishing. The point of the original thread is quickly forgotten, and the debate descends to the level of the gutter. This is one of the reasons I rarely post on here myself, dispite many a time seeing a good debate starting, and feel I could contribute something. If someone new reading these message boards, with something to contribute, actually read some of these boards before posting their message, they probably would not bother. Hence the lack of new fresh ideas, opinions and theories. Unfortunately without these new opinions, what would we be left with ? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
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?
One of the basic principles of logic, philosophy or history is that you cannot prove a negative.
What I was arguing above, if you re-read the post - was not that points should not be made, but that someone proposing an OLD theory, or reviving it - should not expect others to re-invent the wheel and argue from scratch.
The dismissal of the royal conspiracy is, in my reasonable well-informed and mature opinion (probably far less so than others who post here btw) pretty conclusive. The arguments against it can be found in many books and articles.
Simply because someone (say Kitty) simply says we should reconsider the conspiracy theory is no reason to go over old ground. I am sure many here would share my relative open-mindedness about re-considering that theory if new evidence or information not previously cited were brought to our attention; or the poster has reasons to question the old evaluation and cites them.
That is the starting point, NOT (for me at least) playing hamster in the wheel and going over the same ground time after time in mindless fashion.
Perhaps we should leave it directly up to you to identify the ridiculous versus the acceptable? Please do that for us newbies.
I neither suggested nor deserved being accused of such a thing.
I would simply point to those who have published their research and refutations in detail and say read them. I am in no position to do other than to cite my own views and expect something above the banal from others posting here and engaging in what is commendably and generally a high standard of informed debate.
That will get you somewhere, rather than where you are right now, a poster with an opinion without evidence to back up their claim.
I think you will find if you read my posts that I do by and large cite my reasons for an opinion.
I would simply ask why you would give a moment's credence to names like King Leopold, Carol, Barnardo etc - names simply picked from the cross-row of notable Victorians - where is the slightest scrap of evidence to suggest connection between any of them and the crimes. (I leave aside Barnardo's presence in lodging houses as a non-sequitur - there is no evidence that he had any murderous intent.
A different category exists for Eddy, Sickert etc who have been thoroughly trawled over and either been shown to have alibis or in the case of Sickert millions of $ have failed to prove any association beyond possibly writing letters.
I would add Gladstone to Glenn's list - the one-time Prime Minister regularly walked the London streets at night seeking to aid fallen women. I have never seen him seriously considered, but if gull could have done it, why not Gladstone and he had opportunity, maybe motive.... But where is any evidence to make the link?
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:03 am: | |
Adam wrote:
...it is annoying for me and I'm sure other newbies too, when older members just say "This has been discussed to death before." Even if you only add a few notes, or even just a few links for them to check out, it's better than just shunning it. Can you understand that?
The problem is - I can only speak for myself, and not having been on the forum for long (indeed less time than you, Adam) I cannot speak from knowledge of past debates - but for me it is not only discussions here, but thinking over 30 years, that is involved. A lot of that has involved reading the books and seeking to understand the arguments on either side, then weighing them up.
I have no interest, to be frank, in reciting on here my reasons for doubting the existence of Dr Stanley, or why I think Sir W Gull is a much maligned man. If I do, it will be largely in the form of a shorthand, which others who know the case will readily grasp. If people need the background its is, as I say, there in the books.
I am certainly not going to go over such old ground in detail Adam, for those who do not have open minds. What's the point? But a discussion on the detail, or on an issue, does not require that approach anyway. one focuses on what matters.
If. today, someone believes that the conspiracy theory (say) has "legs" - as Kitty states she does - then it is up to that person to cite his/her reasons. the counter-argument already exists and I would ask whether, if that material has not been absorbed by the proponent in question, they should be debating strongly anyway, as they are likely to be ill-informed.
I do not see this, by the way, as elitist, but simply as practical. I do not come on here to teach, but to learn.
Maybe there should be specific kindergarten threads on casebook, where newcomers to the subject could pose their questions and those with time could help them? What a silly idea!!
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
...on the night of the Double Event, the Ripper seems to have been moving away from Cable Street, where Chapman was living...
But if Kidney killed Stride that would be a completely unfounded assumption. So any conclusion drawn from it is built on dodgy foundations.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
There are many reasons why Abberline might have expressed the view he did in 1903.
We don't have a tape of him speaking to get the tone of voice, or a photo with his exact expression. the words could have been meant ironically or as black humour, even as a joke.
"I see you got JtR at last!" Spoken to a former colleague, could well not be meant seriously.
Abberline might equally well have been out of touch, or (if he was in touch) wished to counter some of the private views he heard from Whitehall - MM's, Swanson's or Anderson's.
We know nothing of whether Abberline retained ontacts at Scotland Yard or in the HO after his retirement. we do not know whether he was bitter or mellow. And we do not know if he had followed the Chapman/Klosowski trial in any detail.
What did he base his view on - a reading of the trial reports? I don't think that that would be particularly reliable.
So I think we must be very cautious about what Abberline said in 1903. Remarks in 1888 when he was on the case are something else entirely.
Phil |
Si
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
always wondered why Abberlines house at 195 Holdenhurst Rd, Bournmouth was called " Est Court" any Ideas? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:48 am: | |
It's ironic, Adam, that YOU have been on these Boards longer than me, and have registered. I remain a newcomer and relative outsider. I have no OLD posts to summarise - what I have written since finding Casebook you have probably read.
I will always debate with someone who has ideas, but I simply don't have time to act as a teacher to those who can educate themselves by exploring the factual material on this site and reading the literature that is readily available in bookshops or libraries.
Take the material you cite on Klosowski/Chapman - what is there to debate. It's all circumstantial and not well deployed. As a barber he must have had sharp instruments!! Scissors and (cut-throat) razors I assume - NOT surgical knives. And I never read that the doctors in 1888 claimed that JtR's victims were disembowelled with hairdressing scissors or a razor.
Secondly you conveniently downplay the main argument AGAINST Chapman - that his known MO was totally different to the Ripper's. IMHO it's not enough simply to say "he might have changed". Some form of evidence that he DID change would be required. I have seen none.
Third, you weakened your own case substantially in early posts when you recounted your method of thinking - to go 100% for a candidate whether true or not. That is never going to fit comfortably with those of us who take (I hesitate to use the word, because I am not trying to be offensive) sophisticated - multifaceted might be a more appropriate choice of word - approaches. Your approach is (again MHO)simplistic and dangerous, since you grasp at straws to find support for your case and then are amazed when others shrug it off as irrelevant.
Finally, you have said, several times that you have not so far tackled important elements of the crimes and the evidence. That is natural in someone coming new to the case, but the onus is on you, my friend, to acquire the knowledge you need. It is NOT on us to spoon feed you.
Our posts mark us out as what we are and where we come from. The only respect we can gain is from what we say and how we say it, how persuasive, authoritative or perceptive (I might also say witty or original) we are seen as being. Above all, to me, those who publish new research and the fruits of their long labours in archives, have my utter respect. they are the pioneers. I have neither the time, inclination or aptitude to be such. But they are the ones who move this site and the subject forward inch by inch.
Adam, I have not been here long. As I said, I am more of a newbie than you. I like this site and I think the energy, enthusiasm and commitment (not to mention the intelligence) shown in your posts is commendable and enjoyable. I seek out what you have written and read with interest. But you have also an obligtion to be more flexible in your views and to extend your knowledge. THEN the debate can really open up.
With genuine respect,
Phil |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Hello all
If Abberline wasn't Jack then how about him being involved in an operation to trap the Ripper that went horribly wrong?!!
Just imagine the portley inspector going under cover in Dorset street,donning shabby clothes,dawbing his face with a bit of rouge and placing himself in a veritable hive of "Working Girls" ie. Millers Court.Then staying till the wee small hours just in case Jack showed up.
Not realising somebody else was also watching the court but waiting for him to leave.
Maybe any photos of Abberline may have shown that along with his side whiskers,he also sported a rather wild carroty moustache!
Could this be the reason no photograps been found?
"Ah",I hear you say,"What about Mary's later customer who gave her the red hankercheif"? Surely Carroty Moustache had left by that time.
Then I would reply "Mr red hankercheif is only a product of watcher No.2's very vivid imagination!
All a product of my own vivid imagination?
Kane |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
I had hoped that "Ripperology" (horrid term) had outgrown this sort of futile arguing about suspects. Apparently not.
When I first became interested in the case (in the 60s when the files were still closed), the unspoken assumption seemed to be (probably based on Anderson's autobiography etc) that the police had known who the killer was but were unable to prosecute. Thus, the game was "name the individual on the police files".
In the 70s - with the publication of Cullen's version of the MM memorandum and the BBC access to the files, it was realised that the police in 1888 et seq did NOT really know, the emphasis seemed to shift to considering and evaluating suspects. Every new book had its section which went through all the previous books and rubbished their candidates - then proposed its own.
I thought things had moved on from there, to a maore mature period in which we accept that there are many suspects, and consider the evidence, police methods, the social aspects of 1888, and seek new insights through deeper delvings into the press and books and through research in the records (census/asylum, etc).
It is the latter approach that interests me most, I must say. I had found Casebook very conducive to that sort of discussion - and then I
find this thread developing as it has.
I have little beyond contempt for this fashion of picking a name (usually famous) out of the air and then trying to force the evidence to fit by special pleading, inconsistent logic and a strange evaluation of source material. I know I can say with absolute 100% positive confidence that Fred Abberline was NOT JtR. neither was prince eddy or JK Stephen - see Harrison's reasons for nominating him sometime.
This sort of thing is suitable for nothing more than an April Fool's Day jape - and then more fool those who give it a moment's credence.
Where frankly does a discussion like this lead?
Rant over... in frustration,
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 692
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Phil,
We have to remember that this is an open forum. Speculations are welcome from novices to the case as well as those of us who have been reading and researching for many years. Suggestions that are outlandish are largely and deservedly ignored.
While I consider myself an "expert" in the case compared to the general public (I once spoke to a senior police officer in Chicago who didn't even know the year of the murders), I also must humble myself by acknowledging my lack of familiarity with some newer suspects. Unfortunately, recent books are largely self-published and as such are terribly expensive, especially for shipment to America. I just can't afford to drop $40-50 on a 200-page book.
Andy S. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
