|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through December 1, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Chapman, George (a.k.a. Severin Klosowski):
Archive through December 1, 1999
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 12:35 pm |        | Hi, Bob:
I believe that the Lusk kidney is no longer extant. If it were still in existence, a useful exercise might be to compare the DNA therein with the DNA in Catherine Eddowe's remains so we would know once and for all if the Lusk letter was from the killer. The original of the Lusk letter, I understand, has also unfortunately been mislaid (or stolen) from the PRO.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R.M. Gordon
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 12:45 pm | | Good afternoon everyone R. Michael here.
David Radka - Crow did notice a "transient asleep" at least he thought so. I don't know what old Robert is about on this one. Bottom line is that Mr. Crow saw Martha!
Jeff D. - You said "Poisoning is an extremely cowardly deed." I agree, but so is the murder of drunk unarmed women in the dark of night. A close look at the murders also shows him responding to events around him. He was not as driven as we are led to believe. As for Klosowski's "tenuous links to Whitechapel in 1888" there is really no evidence to support that view and testimony that he was there.
Bob C. - "detached shooting at 200 yards." It's not so detached my friend! As for a kidney package - you may want to have a look at the Black Museum - who knows? They may have it. I have been in contact with them for a photo of Chapman's medical equiptment but so far they have said NO! I really wonder why?
Karoline - Can I have a copy of your "Jack diary"? :-) I like your theory that he was a small yellow glove puppet from Blackpool. Got any photos I can put in the book?
Caz - Hoody there. My we do seem to have a bunch of folks with their draws in a twist - do we not? By the way if one looks at each Ripper murder you can see changes in MO throughtout the entire series in not only attack style but body position and time frame. He seems to have been experimenting.
Diana Comer - Klosowski spoke Polish, Russian and Yiddish. There is no reason why he could not have spoken a bit of English as well.
Robert - "... R. Michael Gordon dark side emerging. He is bitter in the face of criticism..." Grow up Robert - we don't have time for this.
In answer to Klosowski's location to the Ripper victims - we may disagree as to George Yard or Cable Street, but one point is VERY CLEAR, Klosowski had easy access to each and every Ripper victim - PERIOD!
I guess old Robert only believes that a "true enthusiast" could possibly bring anything to this discussion. I also worry about the words "true enthusiast". Does that mean that old Robert likes to talk about women being cut to pieces by a madman? I wonder what he does in his spare time? Just asking.
To the board - Now if I may be so bold as to ask - Can anyone come up with ONE real documented FACT -beyond debate- proving that Klosowski/Chapman was NOT Jack the Ripper? Just one real fact!
Fun :-) as always and the very best to all. Sorry, I forgot to say something. David reminded me to be sure to say -Oh My!
R. Michael Gordon |
Author: Robert
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 01:55 pm | | I am surprised that Mr. Gordon had the nerve to show his hand here again. However, I was not surprised to see that he comes up with no real answers to the questions put to him, as a look at the preceding posts will show.
Crow noticed "a body" (there is nothing stating 'a transient asleep'), and he "took no notice as he was accustomed to seeing people lying about there." This I stated in my previous post, as far as I know everyone accepts the fact that this was Tabram's body, but what I was disagreeing with, 'old R. Michael', is Mr Radka's review which stated he thought it was 'a pile of rags.' There, that saves you having to trawl back to see exactly what I was 'about on this one.'
I think that what Jeff D was trying to tell you, but which you resolutely fail to see, is the fact that the 'Ripper' crimes, and Chapman's poisoning of three 'wives' are about as different as is possible between two types of multiple killer.
Klosowski was in the Whitechapel area in 1888, as a 23-years old new immigrant who probably spoke little English, but then so were thousands of other people.
The Black Museum does not hold the remains of the 'Lusk kidney' nor the 'Lusk letter.'
I would venture to suggest that the only person with 'their draws in a twist' is you. You remark that "..,if one looks at each Ripper murder you can see changes in MO throughout the entire series in not only attack style but body position and time frame." There's a simple answer to that one Mr. Gordon, there were different offenders involved.
You are really getting waspy now I see, which only proves the comments I made earlier to be true.
How on earth can you say "...Klosowski had easy access to each and every victim - PERIOD."? Using your yardstick for saying this you might as well say "Every resident in the East End in 1888 had easy access to each and every Ripper victim." You are only assuming this anyway as you do not know Klosowski's movements or location at the relevant dates.
My 'true enthusiast' comment was, as can be clearly seen from the context of my sentence, meant to refer to those individuals with a real, and lasting interest in the Jack the Ripper case. But, obviously, you realise this; but saw the chance for a cheap shot and to say "...I also worry about the words 'true enthusiast.' Does that mean that old Robert likes to talk about women being cut to pieces by a madman? I wonder what he does in his spare time?" This statement is so cheap and immature I find it hard to believe that it emanated from a so-called author. Of course, you may be upset to be shown for the fraud that you are as a wannabe 'Ripper' author.
As for your next question this is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE! Again you might as well say 'Can anyone come up with ONE real documented FACT -beyond debate- proving that just about any of the viable suspects was NOT Jack the Ripper.?' It is a totally nonsensical comment, for if such a fact existed against Chapman or many of the other named suspects it would have been revealed long before now and they would not even be considered a suspect in the first place.
Pleased you find all this 'fun.' As a hopeful author in your position, with much of your nonsense now exposed, I would be a little bit worried about my book.
Oh My! Indeed! |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:03 am | | Hi RM
I am happy that you wouldn't feel detached at shooting someone at 200 yards. No-one should. There are, however, unfortunant people who are obliged to admit that they were.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Karoline's Agentitorent
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 03:13 am | | hello all,
Vic Furtive, here, Karoline's agent. Karoline's too tied up with writing another book to post here just now.
I'm afraid Mr. Gordon will have to wait for the diary to be published to have his curiosity satisfied. It will be very soon! It's just a question of negotiating the movie rights with James Cameron (Jim is SUCH an old fusspot over details! - he can't decide whether to put Casebook regulars in the starring roles, use a hand-held camera, and for for that trendy grainy realism, or just splurge the budget, get Ralph Fiennes and Cameron Diaz and re-locate the whole thing to a doomed luxury liner!)
But mock not, Mr. Gordon! After all, can you (or anyone here) come up with ONE real documented FACT - beyond debate - proving that a small yellow glove puppet from Blackpool was NOT Jack the Ripper?
Well, can you?
Vic
(all right, I'm Karoline actually, but I DO have an agent, honest) |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 06:24 am | | Bob -
As the general opinion of both the Met and City forces by the beginning of November was that the Lusk Kidney was most likely a hoax, there would have been no need to keep it. It is within the realm of possibility that Dr Gordon Brown (who was the last medical man we know for certain to have the kidney in his posession) might have preserved it in spirits of wine or in glycerine, but unless he was a crime enthusiast such as Melville Macnaghten, the probability is remote. I think we might take it for granted the Lusk Kidney has long since vanished.
R. Michael - Though I personally have no interest in Chapman as a suspect, I would like to read your book to see the case against him. However, I must make a slight response to your posting of the 29th. It is not up to us to prove Chapman WASN'T the Ripper; it is up to you to prove he WAS. If your book does so, then more power to you. But it's not our place to put the case against him; you are his "sponsor," so to speak, and the onus is on you.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 09:07 am | | Hi CM,
A very good point. I do wonder why they took the kidney episode so lightly at the time, but as they didn't know then that they would never solve the case, I can assume that they took to other tracks rather than 'waste time' with the kidney.
It would have been difficult for them anyway to have proved that the kidney was hers, but the letter would have been a good lead, even for them then.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: David Todd
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 12:07 pm | | To the board
Due to the general interest in the Ripper subject on this web site and the above spirited discussion I have decided to release the non-contractual section from the London based Minerva Press "Reader Report" on Mr Gordon's Alias - Jack the Ripper. It was sent to my office as part of a proposed publishing contract we are still looking at.
Editorial Director
I have now had the chance to read R. Michael Gordon's 'Alias - Jack the Ripper' and did so with great interest. I found it to be a superbly written and produced, thoroughly researched and incisive piece of historical and detective analysis which makes bold use of factual data to arrive at innumerable illuminating conclusions concerning the methods and identity of this most famous of serial killers.
A great attribute of the work is its filling in of the background of the East End of a century ago; the author is able to create an atmosphere of repellent filth and poverty.
Having said this, this is also a scholarly work; a detailed and methodical approach to its subject's life and crimes from an author passionate about his work and obviously well qualified to write in this field and, as such, this would certainly be of interest to students of crime and Victorian social history. There are no sections of the text which are overtly 'academic' in style and tone. This is certainly an informed work, but it conveys information in an adequately digestible form; the style is precise, and lucid.
This, then, is work of high quality, particularly notable for managing to be both detailed, highly focused and wide-ranging on the one hand and highly accessible and readable on the other.
That concludes the reader report.
David L. Todd |
Author: Monica
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 12:36 pm | | Wow! What a site.
I vote we give Robert the "Bitter Unpublished Old Man Award" He must have a pile of ripper book rejection notices 200 meters high.
Mr. R. Michael, from all of the comments made by this site I feel your book will do very well. Are you sure Robert does not work for you? Interesting reader review.
Monica :-) |
Author: Jan
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 12:41 pm | | I would say that Robert's pile of rejection notices MUST be far higher than that. It sounds like he has several rejection notices from life.
;-) |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:18 pm | | Bob -
I don't think the episode of the Lusk Kidney was at all "taken lightly." To be brief about it, by the beginning of November both the City and Met had come to the conclusion that the kidney was human. Beyond that, they could not say, and really could not prove that it came from poor Catherine Eddowes. The matter was investigated as thoroughly as medical knowledge would permit, the parcel itself was investigated with the help of the Royal Mail (though as it was only postmarked "OND," there wasn't much to go on), and a likely description of the package's sender was obtained (for the latter, I refer you to pp. 266-267 of paperback Sugden).
My opinion is that because we have been confronted with a lot of half-baked opinion regarding the kidney and general muddied consideration of what was medically possible in 1888, we accord the Lusk Kidney more significance that it really rated. I think the police would have been happy to find Mr "catch me when you can," but because the general opinion was that the kidney was a medical student's prank, they felt more pressing matters required their attention.
IMHO.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: M.D.
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:49 pm | | Robert
Have you ever produced a book on JtR? |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 04:43 pm | | | If Severin spoke three languages already, he probably was pretty adroit linguistically. Its one of those areas where ya either got it or ya don't (don't argue with me, I'm a teacher). Language ability is controlled by a specific area of the brain. Some people are wired better for language than others. Sounds like our Severin was one of those. Mastery of the English language to the point of being able to write the Goulston Street Graffito in nineteen months then becomes achievable, especially since he was constantly exposed. If any of SK's writings have survived, I would love to see if they have the same "feel" as Goulston. |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 08:19 pm | | Diana,
Klosowski said and wrote various things that were published in newspapers and placed into court records during his trial and appeal phase. Newspapers of the day would be a good place to try researching them. I had the same thought as yours when I was reading R. Michael's manuscript, and made notes of his speech where R. Michael quoted him. Here is a sampling--
"One thing whod I wish to be remembered as I am
an American orphend of good family and I left my foster father, against his wish, and I took to erning my own living at age of ten."
"Oh, I could give her that and she wouldn't be no more."
"Believe me, be careful in your life of dangers
of other enimis whom are unnow to you."
David |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 08:23 pm | | Correction--
"One thing whod I wish is this to be remembered as I am an American orphend of good family and I left my foster father, against his wish, and I took to erning my own living at age of ten."
Whew! He's hard to keep track of.
David |
Author: Robert
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 09:26 pm | | Regarding Mr Todd's posting above a nice, and typical, agent's plug for a manuscript he is pushing. All that can be said from what the reader is quoted to have said on the manuscript is that they are obviously not au fait with the facts of the Ripper case, nor the methodology of historical research. For Mr Gordon's own writings reveal that he has no real understanding of the case.
If the proposed publishing contract of the Minerva Press is still being looked at what on earth are McFarland doing publishing?
To those who believe that Mr Gordon's writing is scholarly, and that his work is 'incisive detective analysis' I would recommend a re-reading of the past nonsense he has posted on these boards. He certainly reaches 'innumerable illuminating conclusions concerning the methods and identity of this most famous of serial killers' but those conclusions are flawed, and beyond the pale of credibility. I bet the reader had no real knowledge of his subject matter. |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 11:42 pm | | Hi Diana,
To say knowing 3 languages makes a person very linguistic is arguable. In Belgium 3 languages is the minimum you have to know. My motherlanguage is Dutch; we learn French from the age of 10 and English from highschool (writing, reading, speaking, understanding). If we choose to specialise in more languages, you can get either German or Spanish from the age of 14, Latin from 12 and ancient Greek from 16. In a job interview, it is expected we know either English or French flawless (or almost) and the other one good. Now would you then conclude that a whole country is more linguistic than the other?
The same counts for Severin. In Poland there also is a long tradition to know many languages if you followed any education, the same as in Belgium. Thus if Severin studied for surgeon in Poland, he certainly would have studied some languages. Other Polanders would not have thought him linguistic for it, only educated.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 01 December 1999 - 12:49 am | | Hi CM,
I have read Sugden's work on the kidney episode, in fact I tend to draw on the good man's book for most of my immediate information. I agree that they did take some measures (how could they possibly not?)but with the pressure on the police at the time, I still feel that more could (should) have been done, and that the package be not so lightly (relatively speaking) considered a prank.
Of course, I don't have any special reason for considering the parcel to be from Jack. It must, IMHO, be accepted that there was no special circumstance which could prove that it wasn't, however. The kidney-half was found to be human, was a 'ginny-kidney', was preserved in spirits instead of oils, was trimmed and could have been removed from the body at the same time as Eddowes was killed. All these points tend to show explainable connections to the victim.
All this against the suposition that some student could have allowed himself a prank. Now, not having the advantage of being there at the time, nor seeing the parcel/kidney/Lusk letter and the possible six-foot possible Irishman who asked for Lusk's address, I admit that I am not the proper person to have decided. I contend, however, that even if the six-foot man was the sender, that doesn't exclude the possibility of Jack being the originator of it.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 01 December 1999 - 09:17 am | | On the contrary, Bob, there were several circumstances which weigh against the kidney:
1. It was human, yes, but medical knowledge in 1888 would be extremely hard-pressed (if not entirely unable) to say it came from a woman and certainly could not say it came from someone approximately Eddowes' age. It was human. That was all.
2. The term "ginny kidney" is nonsense, and based on mistaken medical belief. Alcohol does not damage kidneys. It is obvious that there were some signs of disease in the Lusk Kidney, and we know that Eddowes' right kidney showed signs of Bright's Disease. However, no comprehensive, detailed description of the LK exists and we cannot presume it to have had Bright's Disease (or being a "ginny kidney," if you wish) beyond a factor of relative probability.
3. Preserved in spirits, IMHO, argues either way. You can say it was preserved in spirits because it came from Eddowes, or preserved in spirits because it came from a dissecting room (which was Inspector Swanson's opinion).
4. The LK might have come from Eddowes and might have been removed from her body on the night of September 30. It ought to be noted, however, that Dr. Gordon Brown (who conducted Eddowes' post-mortem and examined the LK) noted:
"As it exhibits no trace of decomposition, when we consider the length of time that has elapsed since the commission of the murder, we come to the conclusion that the possibility is slight of its being a portion of the murdered woman of Mitre Square."
And he had the loathsome thing in front of him whe he was saying this.
Please don't think I'm being obstinate for the sake of obstinacy, Bob; I simply believe that more circumstantial evidence points to the kidney being fake than real. However, if you want to have a good, old-fashioned knock-down brawl about this, head over to the Lusk Kidney board and leave a message, since I think we've wasted space that ought to go to Chapman. See you there.
If you're man enough. :-)
CMD |
Author: Robert M.
Wednesday, 01 December 1999 - 11:50 am | | Hey Robert, Why is it that the people who have had a chance to read Gordon's book enjoyed it and are willing to say so and you who have not read a single page sound more and more like the "bitter old man" posted above? I would also like to hear about all of the books you have written and had published. My guess would be zero. At least Mr. Gordon took the effort to produce a new work which may in fact bring new light to this case. All I read from you sir are bitter comments about a subject you spend far too much time on.
Mr. Gordon, Hope to see your book out soon. I want to be able to say something about it on these boards so that I can speak with as much conviction about it as those who have already had a look at it. As for Robert, those kind of people simply fade away into the dust of history having left no good works only bitter words which soon are forgotten.
Another Robert |
|
|
|
|
