|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 February 10, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Chapman, George (a.k.a. Severin Klosowski):
Archive through February 10, 1999
Author: John Speaking
Tuesday, 02 February 1999 - 07:31 pm |        | To R. M. Gordon
Your details with regards to additional murders tied to Chapman certainly further prove that this guy is the best Ripper suspect. This guy is IT. Good work!
John Speaking |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:21 am | | Very interesting comments and information!
It would be fascinating to find out that Chapman was not the Ripper, but perhaps the man responsible for the torso killings. It would be even more fascinating if he turned out to have been the ripper as well. In so far as I believe that any of the known suspects is the ripper, it would be Chapman. Very Scary guy! |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:43 am | | Mr. Gordon,
I am interested in your comments about the case, especially concerning your view that the WM didn't write the letters attributed to him. I agree fully--his way was to hide his identity, and not reveal any part of himself in any way. The letters indicate someone who is exhibiting his personality as kill-happy lout, essentially. I don't think the real McCoy would have any instinct at all to expose himself to anyone, ever--and wouldn't know the vocabulary or mores' for doing so. I was wondering if I might ask your views on the genuineness of the graffito and the Lusk letter as well? Thank you.
David |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 12:44 am | | Mr. Gordon,
I am interested in your comments about the case, especially concerning your view that the WM didn't write the letters attributed to him. I agree fully--his way was to hide his identity, and not reveal any part of himself in any way. The letters indicate someone who is exhibiting his personality as a kill-happy lout, essentially. I don't think the real McCoy would have any instinct at all to expose himself to anyone, ever--and wouldn't know the vocabulary or mores' for doing so. I was wondering if I might ask your views on the genuineness of the graffito and the Lusk letter as well? Thank you.
David |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 01:15 am | | Wow! This site is fabulous. I've only read one novel, watched a few documentaries & several movies on Jack. Thanks everyone for suggesting the non-fiction accounts.
Don't have a favorite suspect yet, but nothing I've read knocks Chapman out of the running for me. I want to comment on some early statements here, wherein Jack's motives for mutilation & murder were defined by words like - sexual pleasure. This premise was used as a foundation for debunking Chapman as a suspect - since poisoning isn't (alledgedly) sexually satisfying.
I think it's understandable for us to try to climb into the murderer's mind by finding some emotion the murderer & ourselves have both experienced - like rage. But everything I have read by FBI profilers, journalists, etc. on Bundy & scads of other serial killers, tells me they have their own dictionary written in a language only another "alien" like themselves could really comprehend.
IMHO 20th century experts are right in saying that that sex or "imitation" sex acts like stabbing or mutilation aren't about sex per se -- they are about POWER. The illusion of playing God - holding another human's life in your hand, making them terrified, making them beg for their life, then wreaking total destruction upon the person's body ---- that creates the serial killer's Rush, their Sexual Climax - in their brain, not between their legs. (Yes, some rapists have physical sex at the same time, but I believe it's of secondary importance to the mental kind -- to them.)
The mutuliations after death? It scares(heightens his power over) every woman in the city & increases the fear in the following victims. Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her arms ... If only for 5 seconds before she died --- she knew the man attacking her was Jack the Ripper.
Now, that said -- A murderer watches his wife being constantly sick at her stomach - a heart wrenching picture of helplessness (ever see a little kid with the flu?). He watches his wife lose weight, pound by pound until her pale skin is stretched tight over her protruding bones. He does this KNOWING He is the only one that knows what's wrong - only he could save her -- & he lets her die. This man would get the same Adrenalin Power rush. The death would be quieter, not so gory, but the rush would last longer. How many men can boast a climax that goes on non-stop for weeks? And being a legend in his own mind (stole that from Clint Eastwood movie) is a primary motive for any serial killer.
Also, many serial killers were of above average intelligence. Smart enough to stay free for decades -- Jack's been laughing for over 100 years. A man like that wouldn't be stupid enough to murder a series of women by brutual mutuiliaton to which he was CLOSELY linked. The police never proved a link between any Jack suspect & all of the prostitutes. Only a brain dead police force wouldn't have suspected Chapman immediately if he'd stabbed all his wives -- so he Evolved (not really changed) his MO.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth y'all - really more like a dime. I'll try to be more concise next time, & I hope we can agree to disagree.
Ashling |
Author: Anonymous
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 08:55 am | | Ashling, good stuff!
You took the words right out of my mouth on the subject of poisoning!
N. |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 03:07 pm | | To John Speaking
Thank you for the kind words.
You may be interested to know that I have found TWO independent sources showing that Chapman tried to aquire poison just before or during (depending on the source) the Ripper murders. This shows that he wanted to kill in 1888 but could not locate the required poison. That's when he turned to his skills with the blade.
To D. Radka
Interesting questions. If one looks at a map of the East End and you look at a time scale from Berner Street to Chapman's place in George Yard you will find this: There is enough time to go to Chapman's rooms change clothes; and then go to Mitre Square; kill again; head back to his rooms and change clothes; pick up some chalk and go out and leave the graffito. It must be remembered that the police would be looking for someone leaving the area NOT towards it! I do believe Chapman wrote the message.
As for the Lusk letter I feel the killer was angry at someone else claiming credit for his work. He did something no fraud could do, he sent a body part to prove that it came from him and it indicated that he was moving his location at the time he sent it.
To Ashling
Both the Ripper and poison deaths were about power and control. Good insites.
Best to all. R. Michael Gordon. |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 05:54 pm | | G'day Ashling, MG and co.
Interesting and clearly thought out ideas all around congrats.
I think what we've got to look at with Chapman and the Ripper are the motives for the murders. Chapman wanted his women out of the way because he got bored with them sexually after a very short time. But not knowing how to say "thanks for the great times,I'm leaving", he poisoned them and went off to find someone else to chase around under the doona.
Jack on the other hand just went out there and slaughtered. We're looking at two totally different ways of 'getting off' and unless Chapman was two totally different people he doesn't fit the persona.
Jules. |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 04 February 1999 - 10:43 pm | | Mr. Gordon,
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you mean concerning the Lusk letter and kidney indicating the killer was changing his location at the time. Would you kindly explain? Thanks!
David |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 04:24 am | | Hi all!
Jules --- Been enjoying your posts, but your latest conclusion is founded on a faulty premise.
"Chapman wanted his women out of the way because he got bored with them sexually after a very short time."
I've been happily married for 20 years, but my first marriage only lasted 4. When people ask why I got divorced, I say they're asking the wrong question. The real deal is, "Why did we get married?" Answer - we shouldn't have. We married six weeks after we met, too soon to discover that our personalities clashed, and our priorites & goals differed too widely. I was fairly young & a little dumb about what I wanted.
George Chapman however, knew exactly what he wanted from women, and fast "marriages" & quick separations dovetailed neatly with the illusion of power trip he was on.
Several clues pointed to JtR being a petty thief.
Whenever possible, George "married" women with a bit of money or, who were capable of making a decent living. When the money ran out, or pregnancy interferred with earning power, or a more golden goose appeared on the horizon - Chapman indulged his power rush with murder, and moved on to next victim.
Chapman reminds me of a pimp. George treats women like objects, they exist only to fill his needs. You think he wasn't power-tripping when he beat the stuffing out of his wives & they kept on staying with him anyway? I understand the women's most likely reasons: the laws of the day protected the men only, they got pregnant & couldn't support the baby alone, they didn't have enough emotional support from their family, whatever - don't want to get off on a tangent today. But from George's side - every time he hit one of his wives AGAIN, he was power tripping.
Now, if ole Georgie just wanted a varied sex life, he didn't have to form live-in arrangements to get it. The number of women who "married" Chapman attests to his "charmingness." Some of his wives knew of his former or on-going relationships. While married to Maud Marsh, Chapman starts an affair with Florence Rayner. Florence refuses his urging to go to America with him. "No, you have your wife downstairs." She definitely knows he's married & if she lived in the same building, she could have heard him beating Maud. Other neighbors had heard him brutally beat his other wives.
Any man who could sweet talk this well, had no need to "marry" in order to have a steady supply of sex. Like I said, a pimp. Ummm ... I hear a door creaking open in the back of my mind. Could Chapman have been pimping in the Dorset Street, etc. area, as a means of supplementing his income from women?
Chapman was an educated man in his original country, he could have made a good living in England in a variety of ways. I don't think he wanted the money from the women for the money itself so much as, power tripping on being able to seduce or force women to give their money to him.
Whew! Thanks for the mental work-out Jules.
R. Michael & Anonymous --- Thanks for the encouragement.
Oh BTW, in the Casebook - Suspects section, The photo of George Chapman & a woman, placed beside the beginning of the paragraph about Maud Marsh --- Does anyone know if the woman is Maud, or who it is? Her facial expression really haunts me. To me it says, "I know what you are & I love you anyway. Am I insane?" Ah well, there's enough documented heartbreak in this saga, without me imagining more.
Ashling |
Author: Robert
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 08:10 am | | It is interesting to note that we have here Mr. Gordon claiming to have written yet another 'Jack the Ripper' book based on another of the 'old' alleged suspects, Chapman.
However, presenting an argument for this person or that being the killer is a far cry from actually identifying the Ripper. Yet this is just what Mr. Gordon claims when he says, "He was indeed old Jack." This statement would be far more impressive if the few 'facts' to back this that Mr Gordon has so far presented were correct. Sadly they are not. And many other of Mr Gordon's ideas on Chapman and his motives are merely that, 'ideas.'
And no Mr Gordon, no part of George Yard Buildings now exist, they were demolished many years ago. |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Friday, 05 February 1999 - 04:25 pm | | Good afternoon one and all.
R. Michael here.
Ashling - Once again, very good insights - write a book! Chapman as a pimp? Interesting aside, but I doubt that it could be proven. It is interesting nonetheless.
David Radka - In the "letter from hell" he told Lusk that he may send him the "bloody knife" if he would wait a while as well as "Catch me when you can". He seems to be on the run based on these threads and it must be remembered that it was sent at the time of the massive house-to-house search, just after the "double event" There was also a time gap of a few weeks at that time suggestive of a man on the move.
Chapman medical training:
Dec 1, 1880 - June 1, 1885 surgical apprentice
Oct 1, 85 - Jan 1, 86 practical surgery course at Hospital of Praga, Warsaw
Aug 20, 85 - Feb 1, 86 surgical assistant Praga
Jan 20, 86 - Nov 15, 86 surgical assistant Warsaw
Dec 1886 petition for Junior Surgeon Degree
Dec 5, 1886 Petition approved
He did indeed have enough skills to cut up a body and from every source he worked for he was very good at it!
Second Ripper style murder in the United States:
Elizabeth Senior, New Jersey, January 31, 1892 - Deep gashes on arms and hands, throat cut, 11 stab wounds to the breast inflicted after death.
Torso Murder:
Best guess for Klosowski's move to England is March - June 1887 based on known documentation.
April 1887 - prostitute is murdered in Paris at the time Chapman should have been on the move. It matched the Torso style murders.
May 1887 - First Torso murder - Rainham mystery.
More:
November 1886 Chapman aquires passport.
November 1886 - Paris - Prostitute murdered; legs, arm, and head cut off; right breast and uterus taken! Torso style murder. Someone was very busy.
Robert - Thank you for the info on the George Yard Buildings. More data is always welcome. I guess we must work with old photos. Do you also know what is presently located at 126 Cable Street? Iam most interested in this location for a future project.
By the way may I ask which SPECIFIC facts do you not approve of? I would be delighted to expand or discuss as much as time permits. I would however suggest one wait for the book's release before one jumps to any conclusions then I encourage your review, comments and any questions on the matter.
Madness of Chapman - I don't believe he was because he knew what he was doing was wrong since he tried to hide not only what he was actually doing but his identity as well. And oh yes, so was old Jack!
Best to all. I am enjoying the interface.
R. Michael Gordon |
Author: Robert
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 01:30 am | | Mr. Gordon,
You have stated that Mary Kelly lived in George Yard Buildings just prior to moving to Miller's Court. I do not know your source for this, but I venture to suggest it is incorrect. She did live in George Street a short while, but htis is a totally different location to George Yard.
You also state that Chapman lived at George Yard at or near the same time, and that Tabram was murdered near to where he lived. The problem with this is that Chapman did not start move to the White Hart, at the junction of George Yard with Whitechapel High Street until 1890. Until then he was living at the Cable Street address.
You also state that the description of the murderer of Carrie Brown was a 'word picture of Chapman.' The description was 'apparently thirty-two years old (Chapman was 26), five feet eight inches in height (Chapman was shorter), slim build, with a long sharp nose and a heavy mustache of light color' (Chapman's was very dark), and the impression was that he was German (Chapman was Polish). I realise that descriptions may be wrong on one point or another, but it certainly isn't a 'word picture' of Chapman.
You state that Chapman was a sexual serial killer, but his poisonings were for motives of gain, improvement of position and acquiring new female partners.
The idea of trying to link many patently unconnected murders, such as the torso murders, the Whitechapel murders, the NY murders, and the Southwark poisonings requires quite a stretch of the imagination, as does the elaborate theory on a return to the streets to write the graffito.
Yours truly, |
Author: Lee
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 02:32 pm | | Robert Who are you?
Sounds like you have a bit of anger at the possibility that this case may be solved and you were not the one to do it!
Why not wait and read the book so you can see the case he makes and see if it can be closed? Maybe he eliminated most of the so called suspects?
I read the Ripper diary and that was trash but at least I waited to make a judgement call.
As for the Torso murders, How much do you know about them? My bet would be that Mr. Gordon did a whole lot more research than you have done and he used his whole name! And he went to all the trouble of writing a book. I for one will wait until I can see the WHOLE story of Alias Jack the Ripper BEFORE I DECIDE.
Mr. Gordon may I ask what the "R" stands for?
Lee |
Author: Robert
Saturday, 06 February 1999 - 03:17 pm | | Lee Who are you?
Sounds like you have a bit of anger that someone has pointed out errors in something someone else has written. Or should we ignore them?
There is absolutely no possibility that this case has been solved and Chapman is no new suspect at all, his name was first mentioned in this connection on his arrest in 1902. No connection with the Whitechapel murders, whatsoever, could be made then, and it certainly couldn't at this remove in time.
I know a lot about the torso murders, how much do you know? I would be surprised if Mr. Gordon has done more research than me as his remarks indicate the contrary. I am not making any decision on his book, only on what he has written so far on these boards.
Robert |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 08:21 am | | Dear Michael,
I hope you don't mind a stranger addressing you as such?
I have made the inexcusable mistake of not straying on to the suspect boards much because I have my own to eliminate. Little did I realise how much good information can be gathered here, and for that I am truly grateful.
I am also sorry that I had not heard of your book until this moment. Please could I ask you a quick question here to save me a bit of time searching for the answer, which is probably somewhere on these boards if I had a few more moments to look carefully!
I have inwardly digested the details I need at present for Elizabeth Senior's murder, and I now ask for the same brief details for that of Carrie Brown, you say a year earlier. Could you at least let me know the exact date of the attack, the nature of her injuries, and where the attack took place.
My own suspect for JtR, not mentioned before, would also appear to fit these two murders at first glance, so obviously I am extremely interested in the salient points.
If you can spare the time to answer here, I would be enormously grateful.
Thanks,
Caroline (Caz 'Senior' or 'Carrie'!) |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 04:21 pm | | Good afternoon. R. Michael here.
Hello Robert. Interesting - lets begin.
Mary Kelly at George Yard source: James Tully. I would expect more sources in the future. In point of fact I am still looking. As for George Yard Buildings (real name George Yard Dwellings) they were adjacent to George Street less than a stones throw away so it would be easy for someone to live on George Yard or George Street and be aquainted with someone who lived on either. Personally, I'll take either one. They are certianly close enough.
Chapman at George Yard Building in 1888:
Source: Martin Fido, "Murder Guide to London" "...Klosowski was working as a hairdressers assistant in or around the White Hart, Whitechapel High Street, right in the Ripper Territory throughout 1888."
Source: Benjamin Charles, "Lost London" "Chapman lived in Whitechapel, where he carried on a hairdressers business in a sort of dive under a public-house at the corner of George Yard and Whitechapel High Street."
Source: Richard Altick, "Victorian Studies in Scarlet" "For a time... a floating barber in the East End and elsewhere in London."
Source: Daily Chronicle March 23, 1903 "The police have found that at the time of the first two murders Klosowski was UNDOUBTEDLY occupying a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed" This report was based on information located in the Metropolitan police file on the Ripper!
Source: Inspector George Abberline, "The FACT that Klosowski, when he came to reside in this country, occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed..."
Source: Detective Arthur Neil, "Klosowski... got a job at a barber's shop in High Street, Whitechapel. He was right on the scene of these atrocities during the whole period."
Robert I believe I will go with these six sources as to where Mr Chapman lived during the 1888 Ripper murders. As for Cable Street, the primary reference to Chapman living there is an 1889 Post Office Directory NOT 1888. It is an interesting document to review! I rest my case on the subject.
Carrie Brown description of her killer:
"apparently 32 years old" - Chapman may have been 26 but ALL sources have stated that he always looked much older so who am I to question those witnesses? I see no problem here.
"five feet eight inches" - IF Chapman were 5-7 or 5-6 that is close and what source do you have that he was not five feet eight inches tall?
"heavy mustache of light colour" - Old dark photos years later show a heavy dark mustache but who's to say he even had one in New York? Perhaps he put on a fake one to MURDER ANOTHER WOMAN!
"impression that he was German" - Very weak inductive argument here. Chapman was Polish and some people can't tell the difference. I wonder if the woman, and the second witness, in the cheap rundown New York flop house on the river front could? I still like the phrase "word picture" If someone does not like my verbage they can always use their own when they write their own book!
Chapman Sexual Serial Killer - Chapman was a misogynist, defined as a hater of women, and he was a sexual preditor.
Philip Sugden, "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" "Chapman, like the Ripper, had a powerful sex drive..."
Serial Killer - I would say that three confirmed kills puts him in that catagory.
Sexual Preditor - Concidering how many women he went after, beat and abused not to mention killed I don't think most people would have any problems with that description.
Sexual gratificatio by slow poison - Has been catagorized by psycologists(to include the one I interviewed for my book. He will not be named here, his call not mine)
Hargrave L. Adam "The Trial of George Chapman" "It would be interesting to discover when the idea of murder for gross personal gratification first germinated in the brain of this unscupulous Polish adventurer. It is possible that he may have committed murder before he left Poland..."
Gain? Improvement of position? Acquiring new female partner? Chapman could gain new women at the drop of a hat without killing off the last one in fact he wanted two or more at a time. He got rid of at least two without killing them. Try "gross personal gratification" for a murder motive.
I like the term 'Sexual Serial Killer" for Chapman because it fits him so very well.
Graffito Theory - Hey, I like it! And its mine in answer to a question. If you don't like mine form one of your own. Neither one of us (I hope) were there to see it done so it is ALL theory.
"Patently unconnected murders?" Really?
Torso murders - Did I say Chapman did them? Interesting. Lets have a closer look.
Salamanca Place Mystery - June 1902, Coroner, Dr. Michael Taylor stated that "the latest torso murder was on all fours with the torso murder of Elizabeth Jackson of 1889" That of course means same killer for you American readers. That pile "O" body parts were located 1200 yards s/w of Chapman's pub on Bourogh High Street.
Pinchin Street Mystery - September 1889, Torso was found on Pinchin Street 150 yards north of Cable Street where Chapman lived at the time. Body parts were tossed in the Thames River just south. Chapman was literally between the body and the parts. By the way Chapman's Polish wife disappeared around the same time period. Just thought I would mention that for no particular reason.
One final point on the Torso Murders - If you look at the police victims folder for suspected Ripper murders you will find a folder marked "TRUNK OF A FEMALE, FOUND ON 10TH September 1889." And that is not a "patently unconnected murder" Unless one does not trust Scotland Yard? I do!
Well my fingers are getting tired and my editor just called to put me back to work. By the way I don't live in London so could someone, anyone, pop down to the East End and take a look at what is located at 126 Cable Street, I really would like to know. I have a bit of future business there.
Thanks for the interesting challenges Robert. I have enjoyed each and everyone of them.
To Lee - Thank you for the support but please remember that augumentum ad hominem responces are not the way one should logically disagree with a point. Robert, as others, should be more than welcome with their views, right or wrong. And remember old Jack is not going anywhere soon!
What does "R" stand for? No comment.
To Caroline - Michael is fine, R. Michael is better. I never argue with a lady.
Carrie Brown was murdered on April 23/24, 1891 in New York City. Throat cut, possible strangulation, major damage to the torso with a shallow "X" carved on her back.
And to all a good night. R. Michael Gordon |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 04:49 pm | | To Caroline
More details on the Carrie Brown murder may be located on this site under the George Chapman area.
R. Michael |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 05:29 pm | | Hello Caroline
You can find more details about Carrie Brown on the Casebook too. Select Victims from the main Homepage. Regards, V |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 06:11 pm | | G'day everyone.
R. Michael - Fair dinkum mate you put up a very convincing argument. From what you've researched so far we've got this bloke in the right place at the right time, someone who hates women enough to beat them up and poison them, someone who has a knoledge of anatomy, yadda, yadda, yadda.
A couple of problems I have with this guy is that he was pretty open about the abuse he dealt out to his partners. As testified by the neighbors who often heard him. Jack was a devious piece of s**t who skulked around in the dark preying on his victims. We've got two different sorts of MO here and while I think it is possible that a person could be capable of both types of assault I don't think it is possible for someone who gets their rocks off bashing people to suddenly change and start poisoning them.
I'll chuck in something else here to get kicked around as well. I would like to question the wisdom of calling Jack a sexual deviant. In all probability he was but like all major crimes today they are put down to someone who has a suppressed sexual desire of some sort. Arsonist are credited with it, murderers are credited with it, even some poor soldier who went to the Falklands wa sasked if he got a hard-on when he blew someones brains out. I just think there is too much emphasis placed on everyones sexual drive, it's being blamed for everything when realisticaly it's got bugger all to do with anything.
I've gotta ask though, is this connection being made because the victims were all women and possibly prosttitutes and had their uteri removed? We have to remember that they also had other parts removed too, kidneys, heart, etc. We might also want to argue that the wounds inflicted were of a sexual nature ie breasts removed. In this case I would debate that there were a heap of other wounds too. In the cases of Catherine and MJK their faces were hideously mutilated, I can't see anything sexual about that.
Anyway I'll through it open and if anyone can enlighten me I'll shout you a few beers.
Jules |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 07 February 1999 - 07:14 pm | | R. Michael Gordon:
What is persuasive is primary sources to place your suspect where you say he was in 1888 not reeling off a bunch of secondary sources. All of those people may have thought Chapman was at George Yard in 1888, but were they right? Evidently not. You have to come up with some primary source proof not to repeat what Fido and other authors say.
Chris George |
Author: adam wood
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 07:41 am | | R. Michael Gordon wrote:
As for Cable Street, the primary reference to Chapman living there is an 1889 Post Office Directory NOT 1888. It is an interesting document to review!
It should be noted that these Directories (Kelly's Office Directory of London) were prepared the previous year to publication; therefore Chapman's listing for Cable Street in the 1889 Directory would have been taken in 1888.
Adam |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 07:51 am | | Hi, again, R. Michael Gordon:
To follow up on my previous post and to endorse what Adam Wood said about the Cable Street address being the correct address for Chapman in 1888, the authors of secondary works that you cited are all repeating the same erroneous information about Chapman being at George Yard in the autumn of 1888. The repetition of faulty information is a fault in the Ripper field as in any other field of research.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 09:39 am | | Thanks so much, R.Michael and Viper for your help.
I thought I'd heard the name Carrie Brown somewhere and couldn't find either Brown or Senior in the JtR A-Z. I shall dash across to the victims board toot sweet!
For what it's worth, I'll just add that my own suspect, if he attacked women's bits with his shiny knife, would not have gone near them with a barge-pole in the ordinary way! Make of that what you will, everyone.
All the best,
Caroline |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 10:59 am | | Good afternoon again, R.Michael.
So sorry to trouble you again, but could you let me know how old Elizabeth Senior was when she was attacked in 1892?
Thank you very much.
Caroline |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 03:29 pm | | Good afternoon all. R. Michael here once again.
Ashling - You mentioned that several clues pointed to Jack being a petty thief. I am most interested in some details if you could and any sources you may have. Another area; was Jack the pimp of the victims? Photos, the women were Maud Marsh and Bessy Taylor if memory serves.
Robert - You said you knew a lot about the torso murders? Any good ideas on source materials I may have overlooked? Always interested in new data!
Caroline - May I be permitted to know who you feel is the Ripper? Without my notes off the top of my head I recall that E. Senior was in her 60's+.
Julian, G'day - Split personality for Chapman and Ripper? More than very interesting. THIS needs to be looked into much closer. It could be a tie-in as to why it took so long for the final torso murder to developed. This brings the sanity issue up to a whole new level.
Judge Grantham at Chapman's trial "... the frightful cruelty you have been guilty of in murdering year by year women on whom you have gratified your vile lust."
About Chapman's open abuse. We must remember he abused inside not on the street out in the open where he would have been arrested. The Ripper of course displayed his "work" for the most part in the open.
Christopher - As for Chapman's location, I take the police officers as a primary source and authors as secondary and supportive only. I stand as above. Guys, there are no better witnesses to his location at the time of the murders than the officers who investigated the case! We were not there, they were.
Adam - Yes, Directory 1889. Yes, but how late in 1888 was it completed? September or later in 1888 would fall in VERY nicely, very nicely indeed! And please remember that no one ever testified that he was NOT in George Yard in 1888! One thing is very clear, he had close access to the Ripper area, George Yard or Cable Street, so we all know that he was in the area no matter what was on his mailbox. Putting him in their back pocket is not really needed.
One general note on the Chapman poisonings being sex crimes. It must be remembered that Chapman was having sex with each and everyone of his victims while he was ever-so-slowly killing them! Now you tell me if that quailfies? The doctor I interviewed said yes. He wanted to enjoy killing them at as many levels as possible. This guy was really sick.
Chapman as "no new suspect" is of no logical value, as I said before Chapman must stand as the Ripper or fall only on the evidence and NOTHING ELSE!
Once again very interesting discourse on the case. I have really enjoyed the questions. They tend to keep us all on our toes.
Cheers to all. R. Michael Gordon |
Author: Lee
Monday, 08 February 1999 - 04:11 pm | | Hello R. Michael
Sounds like you have nailed the George Yard address. Like you said what better evidence could there be but what the cops on the case came up with. Bravo!!!!
Lee |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 06:46 am | | Hello, R. Michael:
You wrote in reply to my message about your sources on Chapman's whereabouts in 1888:
"As for Chapman's location, I take the police officers as a primary source and authors as secondary and supportive only. I stand as above. Guys, there are no better witnesses to his location at the time of the murders than the officers who investigated the case!"
Your sources for these points are given in your previous post as:
Inspector George Abberline, "The FACT that Klosowski, when he came to reside in this country, occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed..."
Detective Arthur Neil, "Klosowski... got a job at a barber's shop in High Street, Whitechapel. He was right on the scene of these atrocities during the whole period."
Well, isn't it so that Abberline and Neil were talking in 1903? They may not have known whether Chapman was in George Yard in 1888 but were just assuming so based on 1902-1903 press reports that wrongly placed Chapman there in 1888. Just as the police officers writing in decades after 1888 were wrong in saying Montague John Druitt was a doctor rather than a barrister, I believe Abberline and Neil were similarly wrong in these statements about Chapman.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 08:11 am | | Hi again R. Michael:
To clarify my previous post about your sources, I seem to be giving you a hard time, but I feel there is a need to distinguish the difference between new information that places Chapman at the scene of the Tabram murder in 1888 and the less than reliable other sources that say he was there but are most probably mistaken. You are relying on the say-so of Abberline and Neil, but were those opinions based on police work done in 1888 or information that was reported in 1903? I think the latter. If the police traced Chapman to George Yard in 1888 that is one thing but I bet it more likely that neither of these policemen had the sources to hand to know that Chapman resided in or near George Yard in the Autumn of Terror. Most probably he only appeared in the vicinity of George Yard later.
The locations of Chapman in 1887-1890 were probably those that are reported in Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper," 1995 revised paperback edition, pp. 441-2, i.e., assistant barber in the shop of Abraham Radin at 70 West India Dock Road in 1887 or early 1888; barber running his own shop at 126 Cable Street in 1888, based on the "Post Office London Directory" of 1889, compiled, as Adam Wood has noted, using information gathered in 1888; 1890, barber at a shop in the basement of the White Hart pub, 89 Whitechapel High Street. Thus he did not appear in the vicinity of George Yard until two years after the Whitechapel crimes.
I know we should reserve judgement on your research until your book comes out but you did offer us a rundown of your sources that supposedly said that Chapman was at George Yard in 1888. I really believe those sources are incorrect.
Chris George |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 08:43 am | | Caroline, you are teasing us so bad! I'm dying to find out who your suspect is! Your tantalizing little clue about him not wanting anything to do with the women before he applied his nasty knife to them, makes me think that perhaps he was gay? Now, I'm thinking about Frank Miles again, the suspect who originally led me to these boards.
Ta, you tease!
Edana |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 09:34 am | | Sorry R.Michael and Edana,
No can do yet, although E.Senior's age fits okay with my findings.
You see, the trouble is, you all seem to be working with theories about suspects. The difference with me is that my suspect jumped out at me from, what I hope to show you all soon, a piece of hard, give-away evidence.
The reason for it striking me, and no one else, is a bit baffling to say the least.
I can only conclude that there are not many people around with the same two passions in life which I seem to have shared with JtR! In both, he was the participator while I have been happy to spectate, horrified at the one, and entertained by the other.
There. No more clues. Theory will have to gel a bit more with fact 'ere I name names.
Exciting stuff no less for that I trust.
Oh, and Edana, about that film. It's beginning to make Gone With The Wind look like it was meant literally, and J.C's Titanic a rather leaky 35-footer!
Can I include Eric Clapton's Edge of Darkness and practically any title by Freddie Mercury please? (Killer Queen, I'm Going Slightly Mad, Innuendo, shall I go on?)
Lots of love,
Caroline |
Author: R. M. Gordon
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 01:27 pm | | Good afternoon all. R. Michael again
Caroline - After checking my notes I find that Elizabeth Senior was 73 years old at her death. Good luck in the reasearch.
Christopher - All good points but we shall agree to disagree. Was that an author you used as a source? As before I must stand with known sources and not speculation of mine or anyone elses 110 years after the fact. If we attempt to put our own spin on the investigations own words and their sources and motives we run the risk of discounting ALL that is known about the case. Then nothing becomes known. As for giving me a hard time think nothing of it. I enjoy the give and take on theory and counter theory. Defined clarification will only come forward if we can find a Chapman relation who has a letter from old grand dad showing his location! Again, I'm not overly concerned about his address. Bottom line is - he was in the area and as such had the required access. Address is of interest but it is not critical.
Best to all R. Michael |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 02:26 pm | | Good afternoon, R. Michael:
We will indeed agree to disagree about Chapman's exact whereabouts in 1888. I greatly look forward to the appearance of your book. Whether or not Chapman lived in or near George Yard in 1888 as you contend, and which I doubt, he was certainly in the East End during the Autumn of Terror, and he was later proved to be a card-carrying murderer, which is more than can be said for such suspects as Barnett and Hutchinson, so this makes his candidacy as Jack especially intriguing. I sincerely hope that you can marshal the facts to prove your case.
Chris George |
Author: LEE
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 02:36 pm | | Anyone out there.
Can any other suspect be placed at the scene of the Ripper murders, the torso murders, the New York and New Jersey murders as well as the Poison murders other than Chapman?
After a while the body count becomes a bit much. If Chapman did not kill them all off I would put money on at least more than the poison deaths.
These bodies seem to follow this chap all over the place.
LEE |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 02:40 pm | | | I think a better question would be: Can any other suspect be placed at all of those locations at the required time frame? |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 04:14 pm | | Hi Guys 'n' Gals !
I'm getting a little bit carried away with my postings tonight...... I have so much to say !
On the Chapman/Koslowski matter, I just think that no way could this guy be Jack the Ripper. Poisoning has always been considered a very feminine way of murder. If you look up all the female murderers throughout history, you will see that something like 90% always used poison. It's feminine, it's neat, it's not violent, and leaves no mess on the carpet, while it gets the job done.
This in istelf doesn't rule out Chapman, but it does indicate to me the kind of person he was. Very cowardly, the kind to use and abuse women, for his own ends, yet if ever confronted by a real man, would cower and whimper. He could sort-of "Lord it" over, and abuse a week woman, with no conscience, forever getting his own wicked way. As mentioned previously, dispatching them when their usefulness has expired, then onto the next victim. Basically though, Chapman had a motive for his crimes, no matter how perverse, or cowardly he was.
Jack the Ripper was someone, who (I believe) was very much intimidated by women. He couldn't talk with them on their own level, he was frightened of them, and felt very insecure in their presence. This is why he murdered, mutilated, then displayed his victim without modesty, as a sort of revenge. Jack had a major inferiority complex throughout his life, that led him to seek such vengence on those, who represented a particular type of woman. These characteristics just don't describe Koslowski, as I said, Koslowski had a motive for everything he did, Jack the Ripper was very much seriously disturbed.
The way Jack murdered and mutilated, out in the street, where the victim would be soon discovered, took a type of courage that no-way could George Chapman muster. Chapman was a vermin, a veritable insect, a parasite who would slowly drain the life force of those unfortunate women who fell within his grasp. Jack blitzed his victims when the opportunity presented itself. Quickly and quietly, he overpowered his victim, then got his jollies, from the lifeless corpse. Probably retiring back home, to masturbate over the trophies he carried away with him, secretly enjoying later, the sexual act that he couldn't perform in person.
IMHO, and for what it's worth to this discussion only...... I have enjoyed reading R Michaels thoughts on Chapman, and the differing views here, and sincerely hope I have only added to the discussion without causing offense. We have excellent documentation on Chapman, and this guy and Jacks' signature, (to me) just don't jive.
Cheers all !
Jeff D |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 09 February 1999 - 06:50 pm | | Hi, Jeff D:
Thanks for your input, and let's see what R. Michael Gordon has to say about your thoughts. You started your post saying that poisoning is a female crime, and yet a host of male poisoners spring to mind: Crippen, Armstrong, Pritchard, Palmer, and--in Jack and Chapman's own era--Neill Cream. Interestingly, Dr. Cream does indeed seem to have poisoned women for pleasure, one time targeting a high class St. John's Wood prostitute, Miss Lou Harvey, giving his victim poison capsules, which she wisely threw in the Thames. As Melvin Harris put it in "Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth" (p. 49), "Having enjoyed her expensive delights Cream sought a perverted pleasure in planning her death. . . . Cream had timed the dose to take effect just when she was due to be comfortably seated in the Oxford Music Hall. Her death agonies were meant to be as public as possible." Harris, though, discounts both Cream and Chapman as candidates for Jack. Dr. Cream was inconveniently "still prisoner Cream" in Joliet, Illinois, and while he admits (p. 54) that Chapman "was most definitely in and around Whitechapel in 1888" to Harris it is the mode of killing favored by these men that rules them out. Agreeing with you, Jeff D., Harris concludes (p. 56), "Like Cream, [Chapman] chose the cowardly, surreptitious mode of killing: the extended agonies, the remorseless suffering appealed to both men's twisted personalities. The knife was too sudden, far too risky and far to bloody for their essentially timid natures. Rippers? Never!"
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 10 February 1999 - 01:59 am | | Hi y'all! Been busy reading & trying to find cheap
copies of books so often quoted here. PAUL B., YAZ, JUDITH, et al -- Thanks for mail order info.
R. MICHAEL --
1)Thanks for tid-bit on G. Chapman's Polish wife. Is there a document on her "disappearance?" Suppose a missing person's report filed by family or friends in Poland or New York is too much to hope for.
Is there proof of the quote in Casebook> Suspects> Chapman?: "The two women appear to have cohabited for a time, until Klosowski's legal wife finally gave up and left, possibly because of the birth of her husband's and Baderksi's son in September of 1890." Did she show up on later census reports in Poland? Did Poland keep such records & did they survive World War I & II?
I'm highly interested in tracking any of Chapman's kids who survived childhood. If my questions involve new discoveries to be unveiled in your upcoming book R.M - I'll try to be patient ... I'll try.
2)Found out about modern day 126 Commercial St.? I was printing maps off the Internet last night & nothing would come up for the entire 120's block. Maybe the whole street burned down, or something large like an auto dealership or factory covers a two block area.
3)Was JtR a pimp? Well, seemed to be a "need" for that position - as protection from the street gangs terrorizing & blackmailing prostitutes. See Manchester Guardian, 9/10/1888 quoting Inspector Helson of J Division on Emma Smith's murder.
JtR as pimp possibly explains 2 areas on most of cannonical five. My knowledge of pimps comes largely from T.V. & movies, plus a bit from true crime books & documentaries on drug abuse & kids living on the streets. If this view is accurate, a pimp usually comes on sweet to entice women or girls into his "family." He takes them to a nice hotel for a few days or to a fancy restaurant or buys them clothes or jewelry.
(A) Polly Nichols had "jolly bonnet" that her acquaintances hadn't seen before. A beat cop saw Eddowes wearing a rose shortly before she was killed. Don't have time right now to double check for new trinkets the others may have had.
(B) Going to meet their pimp with their night's earnings or to explain why they had none ("I just got out of jail.") -- would clarify why some were found in an "illogical" area.
[Even if 1 of the women wasn't a prostitute - if the street gangs believed she was, the woman may still have tried to buy herself protection.]
4) Jack as petty thief -- Didn't mean that in traditional sense, but that he stole inexpensive items as trophies - to aid in his post-crime fantasies. See page 135 of WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS by Robert H. Ressler & Tom Shachtman, c. 1992.
I was mainly thinking of Annie Chapman - but a source hunt turned up interesting inconsistencies.
Casebook> Interviews:
"The only known material 'trophies' taken from a victim by the killer were the two imitation gold rings (brass) taken from Chapman." [Annie]
"Amongst Tumblety's possessions at his death, with valuable gold and diamond rings, and a gold pocket watch, were two cheap imitation rings."
Casebook> Victims> Annie Chapman - Clothes & Possessions:
"Had three recently acquired brass rings on her middle finger (missing after the murder)"...
Dr. George B. Phillips' inquest testimony:
"There was an abrasion over the ring finger with distinct markings of a ring or rings."
Manchester Guardian 9/10/1888 - Quoting Amelia Farmer, friend of A. Chapman:
"Farmer was perfectly certain that on Friday night the murdered woman had worn three rings, which were not genuine, but were imitations, otherwise she would not have troubled to go out and find money for her lodgings, as a lodging-house keeper said she did on Friday night."
Grimsby Observer & Humber News - No date
Reporting on Bucks Row murder:
"There was the impression of a ring having been worn on one of the woman's fingers, but nothing to show it had been wrenched from her in a struggle." ... "Mary Ann Monk ... identified the body as that of Mary Ann Nichols."
Impossible to tell without a date - If this was written after Annie Chapman's murder, the reporter could have mistakenly intermingled evidence from both deaths.
THE NIGHT OF THE RIPPER by Robert Bloch, c. 1984 - page 77:
"It lay beside her feet; the two brass rings torn from her fingers, a few pennies and a couple of new farthings placed there as though in mocking payment for services rendered."
Fiction must of course be taken with a large grain of salt, but I'm sure I've read or heard a similar description elsewhere -- perhaps only a case of MISinformation repeated & repeated.
The newspapers show confusion as to 2 or 3 rings, middle or ring finger, brass or gold. The one witness Farmer is merely assuming the rings are cheap, apparently thinking Annie would have pawned them to get her room for the night. There's a thought, maybe Annie did pawn them & JtR took the ticket. Pleeze, there's enough dangling threads as is, without me conjuring more out of thin air.
Well, in a few weeks I hope to have a wider range of sources to draw on. I'm trying the local second-hand bookstore & flea market route first. Prowling through dusty tomes seeking treasure is my weird idea of fun.
Happy writing all! Nite.
Ashling |
Author: R.M. Gordon
Wednesday, 10 February 1999 - 03:02 pm | | Good afternoon one and all.
R.M.Gordon here.
Jeff D. - I have greatly enjoyed your input. Poisoning may have been concidered a feminine tool for murder but Chapman killed by poison so I see no logical discourse on the issue. On the MO factor, in California they have a serial killer known as Zodiac. He killed by knife, gun, club, strangulation, drownding, possibly by bow and arrow , and in at least two suspected cases poison! I don't feel that Chapman can be discounted because he changed his method of killing. That would be far too simple an explaination. Remember, he tried to aquire poison in 1888 but was not successful. A few months later the Ripper murders began! I do fully agree that Jack was intimidated by women, perhaps begun by his mother but we must remember that Chapman was a misogynist who hated AND feared women and so was Jack. Both (if we are speaking about two men) attacked that basic fear by controlling them and killing them. They also hated themselves. Both of these men thrilled to the hunt and by doing so faced those fears for at least the time they were murdering the victims. If you increase the time period of the killing you increase the time period of the control. Again - were Jack and Chapman two sides of the same twisted mind held together by hate? I would like to see work on that issue.
Christopher - Good points on the poisonings list. Indeed poisoning for pleasure is a good discription of Cream. A close look at the Maud Marsh slow death and Chapman's almost clinical pleasure in the experience fits very well with that area of pleasure catagory. He REALLY enjoyed it. As for Jack we don't really know what kind of pleasure he received, when, or at what level. Coward, surely and perhaps so much so that he changed his MO to a safer method of poison when he could.
Ashling - Documentation on Chapman's wife gone missing is in "The Trial of George Chapman." Proof of cohabitation - Yes at least one witness on her and others for other situations! Records of his Polish wife after she disappeared - None that I know of, and that is the most interesting point of all!
Internet map address? Are you going to share this gold mine with us? And can you look up 126 CABLE Street for me?
Enjoyed the discourse all.
R. Michael Gordon |
|
|
|
|
