|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]:
Chapman, George (a.k.a. Severin Klosowski):
Archive through December 23, 1999
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 01 December 1999 - 06:01 pm |        | Jill: I stand corrected. If knowing 3 languages is a cultural norm, then everyone will comply. The linguistically adroit will just find it easier.
David: Thanks for the quotes. I really wonder if SK could have written Goulston. Your quotes were written some years later when he had presumably learned more English than in 1888. I think the writer of Goulston actually may have been a hair more knowlegeable. |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 04 December 1999 - 12:34 am | | Hello All !
... and thanks Robert ! You did state in one sentence what took me a page to try and convey. The Chapman/Koslowski wife murders were as different as night and day to the Ripper slayings, and change in MO just doesn't cut-it in my opinion.
I also do not agree with the other snide remarks, from those trying to assasinate your character rather than respond to the points you have made. Likewise, I do not wish to rubbish Mr. Gordon, and would not wish to comment on the book until I have read it. I will say though that anyone putting forth a theory, advocating any suspect, will be open to counter-arguments from others and that is simply the nature of this study. I am happy to read questions to Mr. Gordon's theories, and his responses, I am then able to form my own opinions on the validity of any argument, it's as simple as that.
I do not consider Koslowski a serious suspect for many reasons. I don't think the Ripper for example, would have been able to hold down a relationship of any kind for any real length of time. I agree with Mr. Gordon that the murder of poor defensless women is a cowardly deed, just as Koslowski's poisoning of his partner is a cowardly deed but there the similarities in the crimes end. I am sure that even the simple points mentioned above could be argued against and alternative scenarios put forward, but as was put so well previously, the onus is upon the author to convince his readers and prove his suspect, not the other way around.
If anything, the thing I would like to discuss on the Ripper killings specifically, (not the Whitechapel murders), is the clear underlying thread that connects all the victims of the Ripper. "Money".
I'm not so sure about Martha Tabram, personally I believe there is a connection with her and the rest of the canonical victims, not least the fact that her and Annie Chapman could have been sisters. I'm not saying that facially they look alike, but the similarities in their appearance, the type of woman they were, is a very strong link from my point of view, but anyway, back to Money.
Basic facts; Poly Nichols was searching for her doss money, as was Annie Chapman. Eddowes was also bedless for the night, though had spent money getting drunk the previous day (as did Nichols and Chapman), and was in reasonably high spirits, to be singing away to herself, and demanding her release, so that she could go to ......... Mary Kelly was financially in dire straights, owing a large amount, also to keep a roof over her head, yet she also was in high enough spirits to be enjoying a song. So, basically, there we have it, money. The one thing that links all the victims. Each was in a search for the immediate relief that a few coppers could bring. I know I am stating facts that everyone is aware of but would like to consider that the murderer would have appeared to have convinced the victims that he had the answer to their current predicament and had at least a little money for them.
Cheers
Jeff D |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 04 December 1999 - 02:46 am | | Hi, Jeff:
I agree that the victims were all in dire straits financially but I am not sure this necessarily provides a link between them. The same could be said for most of the denizens of the East End, so we are talking of thousands of people. I think this topic speaks more to the availability of the women that made them victims than to the similarity of their financial circumstances being significant. I am still intrigued though, talking about money, about a couple of aspects: 1) whether the Ripper gave the women gifts, thus lulling their suspicions, and 2) whether he robbed them after killing and mutilating them. The latter seems more certain than the former, with the rings ripped off Annie Chapman's fingers, the turned out pockets, etc. If robbery was a part of his MO I would think (though this again is not certain) that this might denote that the Ripper was not a wealthy man. A man who was financially well off would not (one would think) stoop to stealing a few coppers or a cheap ring or two.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 11:08 pm | | Howdy Chris,
I see your point about possible evidence of petty thievery in the Annie Chapman case. Although, similar evidence doesn't seem to be there in most of the other murders. The Ripper being a master of deception may have felt like adding a "finishing touch" to his Hanbury horror. Of course, it is also possible that he was broke (as you have illuminated) which would accord well with the Whitechapel locals.
By the way, do you know if they still have that Ripper-theme club/restaurant, "The Minories", in Charlottesville Virginia? Good luck on your preparations for the conference. Not sure if I'll be able to make there from the Lone Star state.
Cheers.....Mike |
Author: Caryn Landis
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 11:31 am | | | Hi . . . just stumbled across this, and find it interesting. I think, reading the past messages, that I can say this. I have read Philip Sugden's book cover to cover, along with various other works, and I have to agree with Sugden. "Chapman is the least likely not to have been the Ripper." As for the character differences, I see none, or very few. Chapman was a sadist, slowly torturing three women until they died. The Ripper was also a sadist, APPARENTLY preying on women whom he did not know. Plus, remember this: the bulk of the Yard files have been lost. There could have been something pointing to Chapman, or one like him, in those files, and/or he could have stopped for reasons of safety. But as I have said, a definite lust to kill was decidedly prevalent in both men. It's not a bad fit. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 12:00 pm | | Hi all:
To Caryn Landis: I also think that George Chapman is a viable candidate for the mantle of Jack the Ripper. However, let's be clear: the Ripper was NOT a sadist in the same way Chapman clearly was when he poisoned his common-law wives.
The thought is that the Ripper strangled his victims then cut their throats, thereby lessening the arterial blood flow, and all the mutilations done thereafter were carried out post-mortem. So, he did not torture and mutilate his victims in the same way that Dahmer and the Black Dahlia killer did. Rather than a sadist, I would argue that he was a necrophiliac in the way in which he carved up the bodies and carried away souvenirs even if he did not actively have sex with the corpse.
What might though link Chapman the wife poisoner and the Ripper is the utter disregard for human life displayed by both murderers. That is where the callousness comes in, and the cold calculation in planning the murders in both series, rather than sadism in obtaining pleasure from the victims' pain in the case of the Whitechapel murders.
To R. Michael Gordon: Better not sign the book to me. Karoline Leach has offered to review the book for "Ripper Notes" so just please send the review copy of your book to me when published and I will forward it to her. Thanks!
Best regards
Chris George
Casebook Productions
Editor, "Ripper Notes"
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/conference.htm |
Author: Jill
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 03:30 am | | Hi Caryn,
I have to agree with Chris. JtR had a lust for mutilation, but since this was done post-mortem, he was no sadist in the sense he wanted to inflict pain and fear. The kill was fast and swiftly, hardly any intention to scare his victims and wiggle in their fear. He only could perform when they were dead. Which either shows he was greatly intimidated by them himself as persons. And he resolutely could not make or allow any contact while performing his fantasy. The only way to make them his play-toys was to kill them. Which makes me very doubtful if he ever could have had a relationship longer than a month.
Chapman on the other hand, had no problem at all with longer relationships until a certain point. He was in close contact with his victims and still thought of them as persons. To see them in pain shows sadism where he needed a live victim and had to keep personal contact. His toys weren't empty carving dolls.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Calogridis
Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 10:57 pm | | Howdy All!
Caryn, I agree with you about the Ripper being a sadist, and consequently disagree with Chris and Jill. Sadism- "Sexual gratification gained through causing physical pain and humiliation". I believe the Ripper was an extreme sadist, but he had to completely silence his victims to keep his own neck from the gallows.
Also, despite the onset of death, there may have been some lingering feeling in the body of the victims.
Chris, regarding my earlier question, I realize now you are probably unfamiliar with that part of Virginia since you are not native to America.
Cheers......Mike |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 December 1999 - 12:17 pm | | I think the fine line here is ..can you inflict pain and humiliation on a dead body'
Sadism is generally applied when talking about living victims.....and as all Jacks victims were dead when he 'occupied himself' then surely that moves it to a different category.
I cant imagine that Necromancy is correct, more to do with the 'spirits of the dead & magic'.
However, Necrophiliac is 'obsession & erotic interest or stimulation by the dead' which might be nearer the truth, always accepting that we know Jack's motive.
If we think he was sexually motivated then necrophiliac might be correct, personally I dont think he was sexually motivated, but thats just the opinion of an interested observer.
Not clearly a sadist, possibly a necrophiliac, but only 'possibly'.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 December 1999 - 01:27 pm | | Ok, so the Necromancy threw you all.....
That was influenced by the D'Onston theory, and possibly reasons for taking the organs.
I wonder if every strangler has a sadistic streak in them, seeing as how strangulation is not a particularly quick death.
So what do we call a strangler, who then uses a knife?
....a sadistic necrophiliac...?
Regards, Jon |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 19 December 1999 - 01:58 pm | | Hi, Mike:
I have been to Charlottesville, Virginia, but had not known of the Ripper-theme club/restaurant, "The Minories", in Charlottesville. I live in Baltimore, Maryland, so am quite familiar with Virginia. I will try to find out if "The Minories" is still in the land of the living and if so check it out if I am down that way. My visits to Charlottesville have been mainly confined to going to Thomas Jefferson's grand mansion of Monticello.
Again, I agree with Jon and Jill that JtR was not a sadist but there may have been a sort of necrophiliac thrill for him in carving up the bodies and taking away a gruesome trophy or two.
Chris George |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 12:28 am | | Hi, again all:
Once more into the breach! Although I contend that Jack was not a sadist, the "myth" that has grown up about the Whitechapel murderer possibly maintains that he was. Have a look at a figurine for sale on ebay, item no. 223658435. Go to http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=223658435
Actually the figurine is not as scary as they make it sound (salesmanship!!!). However, note the last bit about the bag Jack is carrying, which just appears to be, yes, a black bag. . . but the imagination supplies the rest:
"A very gruesome and intricately detailed PVC figurine of Jack the Ripper holding a bloody knife and his bag of assorted torture devices. . . ."
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 04:57 am | | I think I'd want anyone who pays good money for this item analysed......PVC? Good God, whatever next? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caryn Landis
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 11:21 am | | OK, OK, I grant the point. =) JtR might not have been an utter sadist, but I agree definitely with Mike that the utter disregard for human life displayed is a strong link between the two. The only stumbling block that I find with Chapman as a suspect is Lucy Baderski. A wife married in 1889 would have no idea, most likely, about Chapman's whereabouts in 1888. One thing also, btw: if the Carrie Brown murder is ever solved it will be a huge if not pivotal point in favour of Chapman's guilt or innocence.
I disagree with Jill on one point, however: I think that the Ripper could have at the very least carried on a sexual relationship, because he had to have the presence of mind and good appearance necessary to attract potential victims. This description fits Chapman, the occasional "charming husband" well.
Just my take on things . . . cheers from Aberdeen . . . =) Caryn |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 December 1999 - 07:25 pm | | Caryn
The old saying 'Beggars, cant be choosers' definately applies in this case.
The Whitechapel prostitutes were not in much position to choose, and their 'clients' certainly included the lowest of the low, so long as they had the 2d required.
Jack didnt need to have a good appearance to attract a victim, his victims were out looking for 'punters' all he had to do was pick who, where & when.
Charm didnt come into it, these were not West End ladies of society. As Stride was 'supposed' to have said, when refering to Jack...."better that he comes, for the likes of such as I" or, words to that effect.
These women had reached rock bottom, at least some thought the knife would be cruel relief for the life they lead.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caryn Landis
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 11:39 am | | That's true in some cases, Jon. But at the very least, Mary Kelly was a very attractive girl, who had no shortage of ready clients. The same could be said for Frances Coles, another POSSIBLE Ripper victim. I agree, they were not West End ladies of society. Your scenario is the case for most of them, especially Nichols and Eddowes. But Kelly was very attractive, and both Chapman and Stride have been said to only have been occasional prostitutes. So it doesn't follow that they were all with ABSOLUTELY no alternative.
Cheers from Aberdeen . . . Caryn |
Author: Caryn Landis
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 11:40 am | | That's true in some cases, Jon. But at the very least, Mary Kelly was a very attractive girl, who had no shortage of ready clients. The same could be said for Frances Coles, another POSSIBLE Ripper victim. I agree, they were not West End ladies of society. Your scenario is the case for most of them, especially Nichols and Eddowes. But Kelly was very attractive, and both Chapman and Stride have been said to only have been occasional prostitutes. Stride could seek assistance with the Swedish Church, and Chapman was known to knit and crochet. So it doesn't follow that they were all with ABSOLUTELY no alternative.
Cheers from Aberdeen . . . Caryn |
Author: Caryn Landis
Wednesday, 22 December 1999 - 11:41 am | | | Sorry, it posted twice. =) -C |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 04:29 am | | Hi Caryn,
Wasn't it Catharine Eddowes who was only the occasional prostitute? |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 23 December 1999 - 04:36 am | | I don't think anyone's proved that Catherine ever went on the game beyond all doubt. At least she found other ways, like hop-picking, to make some very hard-earned cash, although she seemed to blow it all again rather quickly.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
