|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 9:56 pm: | 
|
Glenn, you said:
Considering how signature works, that doesen't make sense at all. Furthermore, it is totally unfounded speculations, not supported by any facts or other criminal cases we know of whatsoever. A total creation of imagination, and -- as I see it -- a virtually incredible scenario that do not make sense at all.
Glenn, this is not the court of law. Many things in this case have nothing to do with facts. If we were to base everything off facts, there would be no suspects in this case.
Take Care.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 552
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 12:13 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
Since that issue is still current, the article is described on the Ripper Notes web site (link in my signature takes you there). It was also discussed some on the Casebook thread about that issue.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 12:31 am: |
|
Dan,
Thanks for the links! I just wish this would help Chapman's candidacy. Is there anyway to buy ONE issue of Ripper Notes?
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 553
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 12:53 am: |
|
Peter,
Sure, a fair number of people like to try one before they commit to a subscription, and some are just really interested in a specific article. You can find single issues listed on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, but it's usually cheaper to get one through myself or Jennifer (depending upon if you are in the US or UK). I haven't set up the option for doing that on the web site yet, so I'm going to try the Casebook mail forwarding option to send you the details instead of listing them all here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3216
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Peter,
Even when I speculate, I prefer to lean against some facts, if possible -- not fairy-tales. It just isn't really my cup of tea.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Seymour Skinner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Can anyone tell me why Inspector Abberline apparently had an interest in this suspect, seeing as which he was actually there at the time and alot closer to the action then we are today. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Seymour.
Abberline only learned of Chapman's existence when he was tried for the murders, by poison, of his female partners, in 1903, fifteen years after the Ripper murders. At this time, Abberline was retired, and his memory seems to have played tricks on him.
He claimed to have closely questioned Chapman's girl, Lucy Baderski, at the time of the murders, about his whereabouts. However, the known evidence is that Chapman & Baderski had NOT even met at that time, and Chapman was never mentioned as a Ripper suspect until fifteen years later.
Abberline's statement in 1903 contained these inaccuracies. Many contributers to these boards have, through their own research, uncovered evidence that suggests that Abberline was far from the great detective he's been made out to be in movies, and some books. But the biggest argument against Chapman's candidacy, is that he just doesn't equate with the Ripper.
JTR was a signature killer, a man who's lust was for mutilation. But his victims were swiftly killed. Chapman was a cold, calculating and cruel wife-poisoner, who enjoyed his victims' slow suffering. There is just no comparison between the two personalities.
It appears that Abberline, totally defeated by the Ripper, was grasping at straws in his later years.
Best Wishes Seymour
DAVID C. |
Seymour Skinner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Thanks alot David,
My name is really Jason Smith, But the moderator told me it is too similar to a registered guests name.So I chose a character off the Simpsons.
When you say JtR was a signature killer, did he leave any actual signatures - like sketches or writng on his victims?
I agree that a poisoner is in a different league all together than the ripper.It is strange that with some good suspects to choose, he chose a dud. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Hi Jason.(Seymour)
I should have made the connection with the Simpsons. My kids watch it all the time.
By signature, I meant his trademarks. The severing of the throat, and according to the medical evidence, partial suffocation or strangling to stifle any cries, BEFORE the use of the knife. Then of course, the mutilations after death, which took place in all cases except one, that being Elizabeth Stride.
Many here believe that Stride was not a Ripper victim, due to the absence of mutilations. I tend to believe that she WAS, and that the arrival on the scene of a Jew with his horse & barrow, forced the killer to leave the scene hastily, without completing his work.
Chapman was an evil piece of work, that's for sure. But, the idea of a blood-lusting mutilater suddenly deciding to stop, then re-commence some years later, and be just content to slowly poison his partners, just doesn't sit right at all. Why Abberline should have picked him, fifteen years after the Ripper murders, is a mystery to me and many others. As you said, there were other suspects who fitted the bill far better than Chapman.
In answer to your question about leaving actual signatures like sketches or writing, there were NONE. In fact, the only physical evidence he ever left, was a piece of bloodstained apron, cut from the fourth victim, and discarded several streets away. A message scrawled in chalk on the wall, just above the apron, has been widely believed to be the Ripper's work, but that is hotly contested by many today.
To get the true facts far better than I could give them to you, get hold of a copy of "The Complete History of Jack The Ripper" by Philip Sugden. It's in print and available at good book shops now.
Best wishes Jason (Seymour)
DAVID C. |
Jed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 1:41 am: |
|
Why don't you discuss the "from hell" letter. It's obviously the only authentic letter and must have been written by a new foreigner with poor english.
Also, who else is there with a hx of multicide? |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 197
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Hi Jed,
"Why don't you discuss the "from hell" letter. It's obviously the only authentic letter and must have been written by a new foreigner with poor english."
Well, there's a few good reasons for that, among them being that the "From Hell" letter, along with other communications such as "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" have been generally regarded as hoaxes recently. Second, the "From Hell" letter could have been written by anyone. The poor grammar in it doesn't necessarily mean it was written by a foreigner with poor English skills. This is the East End of London in 1888 we're talking about, and there was a high level of illiteracy, or very basic reading and writing skills at the time. So anyone could have written it. And even if it was written by someone smarter, they could have faked poor grammar. Finally, there's no proof at all that the letter was written by the killer. We don't know if Cathy Eddowes suffered from Bright's Disease or not, which was a factor of the kidney sent with the "From Hell" letter. I, myself, used to believe that the "From Hell" letter was really from the killer. But after reading more and more about it, I've changed my mind. Although I do think the Goulston Street Graffito was written by the killer, and in my opinion, we'd get further trying to find out what the meaning of the message was, and if that was really from the killer.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Scatman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Hello ripper world
Has anyone noticed that one George Chapman , from his photo, matches the discription of the last person seen with Mary Kelly at 3.00 am moments before her murder. The only other suspect that remotely matches this discription is R.D. Stephenson.
" If anyone can , the Scatman can!" |
Jed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 9:52 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
I see your points, especially the point that the From Hell might be fake. I don't think faking the grammar is a likely explanation.
What did you read that convinced you it was a fake letter?
One problem I see with George Chapman as a suspect is his age, why would a guy in his 20s mess with prostitutes over 40? |
Jed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
On further analysis, I think Bury might be a better suspect, Chapman would have been much too young to be pursuing such old women and the jersey prostitute murder was similar, but not identical to the Ripper murders. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3628
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Jed,
I don't know if you really can rule out a suspect on the basis of age contra the age of his victims. It is a mistake to believe that one can narrow it down by such generalisations; murderers choose their victims on grounds that may seem illogical to the rest of us. Maybe age didn't matter to him. Besides, if we should use these generalisations at all, there are indications on that some perpetrators like these usually are in their 20s or early 30s anyway.
I agree with you about Bury, though. In my mind he is a heck of a lot better candidate for Jack the Ripper than Klosowski. At least Bury committed a crime that was similar to the Ripper murders and although that was a domestic killing, his wife had once been a prostitute. As far as Klosowski is concerned, the links are way more tenious, to say the least.
Scatman,
I have no idea what you're talking about. D'Onston do not fit any of the witness descriptions in any way (if we discount the man Elizabeth Long described as 40 and "shabby genteel" and only saw from behind) and he is certainly as far away as can possibly be from Hutchinson's suspect in appearance. He doesn't look like him at all.
And since we don't even know if Hutchinson's suspect really existed or had anything to do with the Ripper killings in the first place, then that is a difficult argument anyway.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 238
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Hi again all!
Jed:
"I see your points, especially the point that the From Hell might be fake. I don't think faking the grammar is a likely explanation."
Yes, I agree it's not that likely, but I listed it simply because it's another possibility.
"What did you read that convinced you it was a fake letter?"
I'm not convinced of it being a fake letter, I simply don't give it as much credence as I used to, but if any Ripper letter or letters are real, then "From Hell", IMO, is the only possible one.
There were numerous things that helped swing my opinion the other way, though. Re-thinking what I had said in posts, and reading other people's posts on here on certain issues was certainly the biggest part of it. Reading more books helped too, though, of course. I guess, over all, it was just thinking about the likelihood of the letters being real, in light of what we know them, that changed my mind.
"One problem I see with George Chapman as a suspect is his age, why would a guy in his 20s mess with prostitutes over 40?"
I don't think age of the victims has anything to do with it. Women in their 40's, IIRC, were the most common to see on the streets at the time, because their earning power was reduced by age, condition and disease, so they were forced onto the streets more and more often. And Mary Kelly was only 25 when she was murdered, by the way.
Besides that, there are a lot of other likely suspects around the same age as Chapman. Aaron Kosminski, for example.
Glenn:
"I agree with you about Bury, though. In my mind he is a heck of a lot better candidate for Jack the Ripper than Klosowski. At least Bury committed a crime that was similar to the Ripper murders and although that was a domestic killing, his wife had once been a prostitute. As far as Klosowski is concerned, the links are way more tenious, to say the least."
*Sigh*...Here we go again!...
Glenn, if you think W.H. Bury is more likely as the Ripper than George Chapman, then your thinking is even more far fetched than I thought!!
First, I don't see how Bury's crime is at all similar to those of Jack's. Perhaps most important is that Bury concealed his wife's body. Jack left his victims in the open for anyone to discover.
Also, IIRC, Bury cut the limbs off his wife's body. Jack did not.
Those are 2 important changes, especially the first one.
If you're looking for a similarity between Dr. Crippen and W.H. Bury, though, then I'd agree with you. ;)
Plus that, Bury was not a serial killer. Chapman was. So was Jack the Ripper.
Bury brought himself to the police. Chapman did not. Nor did Jack the Ripper.
So, after that, to say that Bury is more likely to be the Ripper than Chapman, and even to describe Chapman's links as "tenious", is beyond my reasoning.
Perhaps you could explain a little further, Glenn?
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 744
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
Perhaps these comparisons might help:
| Trait: | Ripper | Bury | Klosowski | | | Serial killer: | Yes | Maybe? | Yes | | | Used knife: | Yes | Yes | No | | | Mutilated: | Yes | Yes | No | | | Killed prostitute(s): | Yes | Yes | No | | | Used poison: | No | No | Yes | | | Killed strangers: | Presumably | None known | None known |
On the direct comparisons Bury has Klosowski pretty well beat. Claiming that Bury's killing method wasn't like the Ripper's is pretty strange when Klosowski's was not even in the same ballpark.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 240
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Since you've put your comparisons in a grid, I'll just go through each of your points 1 by 1, to save any confusion.
Serial killer:
You correctly named the Ripper and Klosowski both as serial killers. However, you put "Maybe?" underneath Bury. As far as we know, Bury only killed his wife. That does not make him a serial killer. Klosowski is known to have killed 3 of his wives. That makes him a serial killer.
So until something more definite is found about Bury, if it ever is, that should be "No" for him as a serial killer.
Used Knife:
Yes, the Ripper and Bury both used knives, that's correct. You said that Klosowski did not use a knife. That is partially incorrect.
I ask you to remember the incident which occurred in 1892 between Klosowski and his first partner, Lucy Baderski.
Klosowski attacked Lucy (IIRC it was on a bed), and later on, Lucy, to her horror, discovered a knife hidden underneath the pillow where she'd been attacked. When she confronted Klosowski about it, he told her that he would have killed her with it.
Klosowski may not have used a knife in putting his wives to death, but that incident goes to show that he certainly planned, and could well have carried out violence on his wives with a knife.
Mutilated:
It's true that Bury also mutilated his wife, but on the same token, Bury also concealed his wife's body afterwards. The Ripper left his victim's bodies in the open for anyone to discover. Chapman also made no attempts to conceal his wives' bodies.
So, that works both ways, Dan.
Killed prostitute(s):
That point would only be correct if you had said "Killed former prostitute(s)", as far as Bury goes. IIRC, Bury's wife was no longer working as a prostitute at the time of her death.
In any case, the Ripper killed prostitutes from the street. Bury's was his wife. Prostitute or not, there's still a difference there.
Used poison:
That's a pointless argument, really. Chapman only started using poison against his wives 7 or 8 years after the Ripper murders. More than enough time for his M.O. to change. I remind you again that he had attacked Lucy Baderski, with a knife involved, in 1892, prior to his first poisoning murder.
As for him poisoning his wives, take a look at Bury. He killed his wife, and ended up catching himself out. Chapman, by using poison, managed to commit 3 murders before being caught. I'd say it would be a little suspicious if his wives started turning up mutilated in Ripper-style, in their rooms.
Perhaps Klosowski/Chapman thought he had no other choice, but to use poison? Who knows?
Killed strangers:
Yes, you're right there.
"On the direct comparisons Bury has Klosowski pretty well beat. Claiming that Bury's killing method wasn't like the Ripper's is pretty strange when Klosowski's was not even in the same ballpark."
No, on those comparisons, Bury is made to sound more likely to be the Ripper than Klosowski, when infact, some of the points, as I mentioned above, were either partially or completely incorrect, while others are pointless.
In my opinion, Klosowski is more likely to be the Ripper than Bury, based on what we know of the 2, but Klosowski does have some problems as a candidate, I know.
But then again, which suspect doesn't have problems with them?
Well, Bury certainly does, anyway!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3629
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Adam,
I didn't say Bury was a good suspect, only much better then Klosowski. But then again, most of them are anyway... 
And I wouldn't call the fact that Klosowski used poison a pointless argument.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 672
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
"You said that Klosowski did not use a knife. That is partially incorrect."
I don't think that's incorrect, partially or not. He may have threatened to use a knife once, but he never actually did. Never. I don't even think we can say that the incident goes to show that he planned to actually use it.
"I'd say it would be a little suspicious if his wives started turning up mutilated in Ripper-style, in their rooms.
Perhaps Klosowski/Chapman thought he had no other choice, but to use poison? Who knows?"
There was indeed enough time for him to change his MO, but I have serious doubts that the actual need that caused him to mutilate would change, too. So, I think it's rather unlikely that the use of poison had anything to do with the forced choice you're suggesting.
Just my views, of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 745
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
Your problem here is that you make ridiculously generous allowances in your interpretations to give Klosowski the opportunity in your mind to be the Ripper while not allowing the same allowances for Bury.
You claim that Bury was not a serial killer, when you don't have enough facts to know if he really was or not, yet try to claim Klosowski used a knife based upon a spoken threat. Similarly, you claim that the Ripper didn't give himself up, which is a circular argument because you are using your belief that Bury wasn't the Ripper to say that the Ripper didn't give himself up. Not to mention that lots of other people confessed to being the Ripper, how do you know that none of them actually were the Ripper? Oh, that's right, because the Ripper was Klosowski! And around and around you go, making arguments that only work because you've convinced yourself that you are right. They don't actually advance your case at all, and, in fact, just highlight the weaknesses in your arguments.
You then claim that Klosowski could have made the jump from mutilating knife murderer to poisoner (going so far as to claim the objection is "a pointless argument") yet still try to claim that Bury couldn't have been the Ripper because it would mean that he'd have the impossible task of switching from a mutilating knife killer to a mutilating knife killer (?!?!). Yes, switching is possible, but if you assume switching, slight changes in methods are a HELL of a lot easier than major changes.
You also give Klosowski the benefit of the doubt (rightfully so, to some extent) that he might have changed his killing methods if he were the Ripper switching to killing wives, yet somehow jump all over Bury for originally trying to hide his wife's corpse, because, you know if he were the Ripper he'd leave the body where it fell so it'd be obvious that he did it. But if Klosowski were the Ripper he wouldn't. Somehow this makes sense in your head.
In short, most of the arguments you try to use to advance Klosowski actually do a much, MUCH better job of advancing Bury, if only you hadn't picked out your suspect ahead of time.
If you want to believe Klosowski could have been the Ripper, that's fine. I won't be one of those people who claim that it's impossible by using rules about behavior that aren't really rules but bad assumptions. But the thing is, if you believe Klosowski could have been the Ripper, the arguments you pick to try to support it have to make sense and be applied fairly to other suspects as well. You aren't even trying to do that. You just label a competing suspect as being "farfetched" while making conflicting arguments between the two.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 244
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Hi again all!
Glenn:
"I didn't say Bury was a good suspect, only much better then Klosowski. But then again, most of them are anyway...
And I wouldn't call the fact that Klosowski used poison a pointless argument."
Well, I can't agree with you there.
I know that, for some reason, you don't buy Klosowski as the Ripper at all, but then again, last time I checked, you didn't have your own favourite suspect anyway.
Perhaps you have one now?
Frank:
"I don't think that's incorrect, partially or not. He may have threatened to use a knife once, but he never actually did. Never. I don't even think we can say that the incident goes to show that he planned to actually use it."
I think it's clear that Klosowski had planned to use the knife. Why else would he have hidden it underneath a pillow where he attacked his wife?
Furthermore, when Lucy confronted him, he apparently told her he would have killed her with it.
If he wasn't planning to use it, then it's beyond me what he was actually doing with it.
Klosowski clearly had a strong violent streak, either way.
"There was indeed enough time for him to change his MO, but I have serious doubts that the actual need that caused him to mutilate would change, too. So, I think it's rather unlikely that the use of poison had anything to do with the forced choice you're suggesting."
Well you must remember that, presumably, the Ripper only killed strangers. That made the killer harder to trace, especially with 1800's detective technology. Klosowski killed his wives, which obviously made him #1 suspect straight away. By using poison, Klosowski managed to get away with 3 murders before being caught. If he had killed his wives Ripper-style, he would have surely been caught almost straight away.
That's why I think he used poison instead.
After all, W.H. Bury mutilated his wife, and ended up catching himself out not long after!
Dan:
"You claim that Bury was not a serial killer, when you don't have enough facts to know if he really was or not, yet try to claim Klosowski used a knife based upon a spoken threat."
Dan, I challenge you to find conclusive proof that Bury killed anyone else apart from his wife. At the moment, the murder of his wife is the only one we can be sure Bury committed. One murder does not make him a serial killer.
Klosowski, on the other hand, is known to have killed 3 of his wives. That does make him a serial killer.
So I stand by what I said. Based on what we currently know, and until/if further proof appears, it should be a "No" for Bury as a serial killer, and "Yes" for Klosowski.
As for Klosowski and the knife, it wasn't just a spoken threat to his wife, it was the knife being underneath the pillow of where Klosowski attacked Lucy in the first place.
"Similarly, you claim that the Ripper didn't give himself up, which is a circular argument because you are using your belief that Bury wasn't the Ripper to say that the Ripper didn't give himself up. Not to mention that lots of other people confessed to being the Ripper, how do you know that none of them actually were the Ripper?"
I'm aware that there were people that confessed to being the Ripper, but as far as I know, they were checked out and cleared at the time by the police.
So I for one don't think anyone who 'admitted' to being the Ripper was actually the killer.
Anyway, that's a discussion that should go on elsewhere.
"And around and around you go, making arguments that only work because you've convinced yourself that you are right. They don't actually advance your case at all, and, in fact, just highlight the weaknesses in your arguments."
Dan, I would really appreciate it if you could go back through my last posts and point out to me where I said I was "convinced" of anything, including Klosowski being the Ripper.
Can't find any? Oh, what a pity!
Please, don't exaggerate what I said.
Klosowski might be my favourite suspect, but as I said before, I'm aware there are some problems with his candidacy, and I'm not convinced he's the killer. I just feel that out of the known suspects, he is the most likely. Just my opinion.
"You then claim that Klosowski could have made the jump from mutilating knife murderer to poisoner (going so far as to claim the objection is "a pointless argument") yet still try to claim that Bury couldn't have been the Ripper because it would mean that he'd have the impossible task of switching from a mutilating knife killer to a mutilating knife killer (?!?!)."
You've taken me out of context - again.
I've already said what I meant by "a pointless argument", further up in this post.
Yes, the Ripper was a mutilating knife killer, and so was Bury. But unlike Bury, the Ripper did not cut the limbs off his victims. Nor did the Ripper conceal the bodies, nor did Klosowski. But Bury did.
Plus that, Klosowski didn't start poisoning his wives until 7-8 years after the Ripper murders ceased. Bury murdered his wife in February 1889, just 3 months after the last Ripper murder, which clearly gave Klosowski far, far more time for a change in M.O. than Bury.
Do you understand what I mean now??
"You also give Klosowski the benefit of the doubt (rightfully so, to some extent) that he might have changed his killing methods if he were the Ripper switching to killing wives, yet somehow jump all over Bury for originally trying to hide his wife's corpse, because, you know if he were the Ripper he'd leave the body where it fell so it'd be obvious that he did it. But if Klosowski were the Ripper he wouldn't. Somehow this makes sense in your head."
Well, I know that what you just wrote there doesn't make sense to me, anyway.
To put what I meant in simple terms, Bury, despite mutilating his wife's body, did attempt to conceal it. On the other hand, Klosowski, though he used poison, made no attempts at concealing the bodies.
So despite using different methods of killing, Klosowski not concealing the bodies is atleast more like the Ripper's style than Bury.
"If you want to believe Klosowski could have been the Ripper, that's fine."
Just out of curiousity, who is your favourite suspect, Dan? Do you have one?
I'll bet that, if you do have one, not everything is hunky-dory for them either. Every suspect has some problems with them.
"But the thing is, if you believe Klosowski could have been the Ripper, the arguments you pick to try to support it have to make sense and be applied fairly to other suspects as well. You aren't even trying to do that."
It might interest you to know, Dan, that in those posts, I was not trying to lay forward a complete case for why Klosowski is the Ripper. I was a addressing just a few specific points.
Some of what you said makes no sense either. As I've said above, some things you've commented on about my posts are either incorrect, exaggerated, or taken out of context.
If you want to discuss Klosowski's candidacy with me, then please, atleast make sure the arguments your putting forward were actually present to argue with in my posts in the first place.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
Aha I've found the thread I was looking for.
Hi all and hopefully Dave you find me here.
Let me just quickly recap as I've been posting on Inaki's thread about the Tabram murder and have come to the conclusion she might well have been a Ripper Victim.
Having done a little digging about Georges Yard, and working on an assumption from Eric that it was very central to the Cannalonical murders, I came across the name of Sevrin Kloswsoki in conection with living at Georges yard at the time of the Tabram murder...which while not damning I did find very interesting...especially when I discovered Kloswoski had studied as, and had been a surgeon before moving to London. So in answer to Dan Norder's chart I think we can tick the boxes....did he use a Knife...and Mutilation as a resounding YES...can we not Which does rather make him a better suspect than Bury.
But that's not why I'm here. While discussing the matter with Dave Cartwright an aligation was made that inspector Abberline had lied about interveiwing Chapmans girlfreind and I find this very hard to beleive given Abberlines record.
I'm hoping someone can help me clarrify this point...where the information came from and whether it is correct. I've personally always thought of Abberline as one of the most reliable sources of information and I'm very interested in checking out the alligation that he would lie about interveiwing Chapman's girlfreind and the story about the knife.
I realize that there are alot of problems with explaining why Chapman would stop ripping for almost ten years then start piosoning...(dosn't make sense)but there are some interesting facts surrounding Chapman and I'd like to 'fill in' the holes before crossing him off my list and saying Abberline was a liar.
What I require is information
the prisoner..
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 673
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
“ I think it's clear that Klosowski had planned to use the knife. Why else would he have hidden it underneath a pillow where he attacked his wife?
Furthermore, when Lucy confronted him, he apparently told her he would have killed her with it.
If he wasn't planning to use it, then it's beyond me what he was actually doing with it.”
Sometimes Klosowski would tell Bessie Taylor’s visiting friend, Elizabeth Painter, that her friend was dead, when in fact she wasn’t. On 14 February 1901 Mrs Painter visited again and this time the Pole said that she was ‘much about the same’ when in fact Bessie had died the previous day. So, Klososwki either had a very sick sense of humour or he was just a manipulative lying sadist and I think it’s quite possible that the whole knife incident was an example one or the other.
Anyway, my main point was that although Klosowski said he’d meant to use the knife to cut off Lucy Baderski’s head, he never actually did. Never.
“Well you must remember that, presumably, the Ripper only killed strangers. That made the killer harder to trace, especially with 1800's detective technology. Klosowski killed his wives, which obviously made him #1 suspect straight away. By using poison, Klosowski managed to get away with 3 murders before being caught. If he had killed his wives Ripper-style, he would have surely been caught almost straight away.
That's why I think he used poison instead.”
What you say here sounds very logical, don’t get me wrong, but it misses my point. Besides, it’s only a repetition of what you already wrote in your earlier post. All I can say is that you might want to look into the psychological angle of these two very specific types of serial murders.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3635
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Adam,
"I know that, for some reason, you don't buy Klosowski as the Ripper at all, but then again, last time I checked, you didn't have your own favourite suspect anyway.
Perhaps you have one now?"
No, I do not. Why are you so obssessed with that one must have a favourite suspect?
[points addressed to Dan (if I am allowed to give my views on them):]
"As for Klosowski and the knife, it wasn't just a spoken threat to his wife, it was the knife being underneath the pillow of where Klosowski attacked Lucy in the first place."
Have it never occurred to you that the knife was meant as a threat (and kept as such) and nothing else, as a part of psychological dominance and warfare? This is quite typical for sadists like Klosowski; it is also typical for the cowards that poisoners represent, since they seldom wants to get their hands dirty with direct violence.
As Frank states, he threatened her with the knife, but he never actually used it against her! If he wanted to kill her with the knife, I expect he wouldn't hesitate to do so and he probably would have several chances.To link a threat with a knife to a series of mutilation killings is way off base and quite far-fetched.
"Klosowski, on the other hand, is known to have killed 3 of his wives. That does make him a serial killer."
So you mean that just because he was a serial killer, he -- regardless of his methods -- also must be the Ripper?
"On the other hand, Klosowski, though he used poison, made no attempts at concealing the bodies."
Well, poisoners seldom do, because they are stupid enough to believe that the poison would not be detected, and they always under-estimate the doctors on this. It belongs to their strategy to leave it all in the open and claim that the person has died of illness or natural causes.
"I'll bet that, if you do have one, not everything is hunky-dory for them either. Every suspect has some problems with them."
Well, I would imagine that is probably exactly why many don't have a pet suspect in the first place.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 248
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Hi again all!
Jeff:
" I came across the name of Sevrin Kloswsoki in conection with living at Georges yard at the time of the Tabram murder...which while not damning I did find very interesting...especially when I discovered Kloswoski had studied as, and had been a surgeon before moving to London. So in answer to Dan Norder's chart I think we can tick the boxes....did he use a Knife...and Mutilation as a resounding YES...can we not Which does rather make him a better suspect than Bury."
Some great points there, Jeff.
It's true that Klosowski was studying medicine back in Poland, before he moved to London 1887. But the scope of what he did during his studying, we can't be sure on, though it's safe to say he had a decent knowledge of human anatomy, which, if one believes he was the Ripper, could account for the types of mutilations which were carried out.
As for Dan's chart, well, as I've pointed out before, several things were partially or completely incorrect in it anyway, and personally I think Klosowski is far more likely to have been the Ripper than Bury.
But, that's just me.
"But that's not why I'm here. While discussing the matter with Dave Cartwright an aligation was made that inspector Abberline had lied about interveiwing Chapmans girlfreind and I find this very hard to beleive given Abberlines record."
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here.
Are you talking about the 1892 incident between Klosowski and his partner at the time, Lucy Baderski?
Because in 1888, Chapman was single. He didn't meet Lucy until 1889, that much we do know.
Hope you can clarify!
Frank:
"Sometimes Klosowski would tell Bessie Taylor's visiting friend, Elizabeth Painter, that her friend was dead, when in fact she wasn't. On 14 February 1901 Mrs Painter visited again and this time the Pole said that she was 'much about the same'; when in fact Bessie had died the previous day. So, Klososwki either had a very sick sense of humour or he was just a manipulative lying sadist and I think it's quite possible that the whole knife incident was an example one or the other."
Yes, what you say here is true, but I think it is just an example of a sick, twisted kind of sense of humour that Klosowski had.
That or he wasn't even aware of what was going on with his wives anyway. It's known that for the most part, he seemed disinterested in his wives' illnesses. After one of his wives had died, he appeared emotional for a short time, and then went straight back downstairs and re-opened his pub.
That shows the kind of person he was.
Either way, my personal opinion is that he had a sick, twisted sense of humour, which he just brought onto others, like Elizabeth Painter.
"Anyway, my main point was that although Klosowski said he'd meant to use the knife to cut off Lucy Baderski's head, he never actually did. Never."
That's true, but you have to admit that the spoken threat, and such a threat as it was, as well as the knife being under the pillow where Lucy was attacked in the first place, is pretty strange, to say the least.
"What you say here sounds very logical, don't get me wrong, but it misses my point. Besides, it's only a repetition of what you already wrote in your earlier post. All I can say is that you might want to look into the psychological angle of these two very specific types of serial murders."
Yes, I know I repeated myself, but to be honest, I wasn't sure what exactly you were getting it, so I just tried to re-iterate what I had said earlier on. Sorry for any confusion!
Glenn:
"No, I do not. Why are you so obssessed with that one must have a favourite suspect?"
I never said you 'must' have a favourite suspect, Glenn. Nor am I obsessed.
However, what is kind of annoying is that I have a favourite suspect, so that opens me up to criticisms of my suspect, which, as you know, has happened numerous times. You, on the other hand, don't offer up a favourite suspect so they can also be scrutinised, yet you're willing to scrutinise someone else's suspect, despite supposedly having an 'objective' view.
"Have it never occurred to you that the knife was meant as a threat (and kept as such) and nothing else, as a part of psychological dominance and warfare? This is quite typical for sadists like Klosowski; it is also typical for the cowards that poisoners represent, since they seldom wants to get their hands dirty with direct violence."
Glenn, it may have been no more than a threat, and Klosowski attempting to be more dominant, I know that. I just mean that it seems strange that Klosowski attacked his wife where there was a knife underneath a pillow, and then later on told her he would have killed her with it.
It's not normal behaviour, by any stretch of the imagination, and to me, it shows that Klosowski did have quite a violent streak inside him.
There are other possibilities, though, of course, I agree.
"If he wanted to kill her with the knife, I expect he wouldn't hesitate to do so and he probably would have several chances.To link a threat with a knife to a series of mutilation killings is way off base and quite far-fetched."
Glenn, IIRC, someone interrupted Klosowski when he was in the process of attacking Lucy. Not sure about the details of that, but yes, IIRC, there was an interruption.
And Glenn, if you read my post correctly, you would see that Klosowski's threat is far from all I'm arguing links him to the Ripper murders. If that was all, then there'd be about 250,000 suspects.
I ask you to do the same as I did Dan. If you're going to debate with me, atleast read all of my posts first instead of exaggerating and assuming.
"So you mean that just because he was a serial killer, he -- regardless of his methods -- also must be the Ripper?"
Again, you're exaggerating, and I think you know it, too.
No, him being a serial killer doesn't make him the Ripper, Glenn. My point was simply that Bury was not a serial killer, and Klosowski was, and that does work in favour of the case for him being the Ripper. It doesn't make him the Ripper, no, and I can't see how that would make you think I was saying that makes Klosowski the Ripper.
THAT is what I would call far-fetched!!
"Well, poisoners seldom do, because they are stupid enough to believe that the poison would not be detected, and they always under-estimate the doctors on this. It belongs to their strategy to leave it all in the open and claim that the person has died of illness or natural causes."
Well I don't know much about that, but fair point.
I can't add much more than that!
Regards,
Adam.
(Message edited by Adamw on June 28, 2005)
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Hi Adam
Thanks for your comments. I'm also not claiming that Kloswoski was the Ripper, I just dont know who the Ripper was. However I am interested in considering all the suspects seriously.
Firstly A to Z clearly sujests Kloswoski had considerable training and had worked as a jr surgeon before moving to london. I just find it odd that he's living in Georges Yard (Cable Street...same thing Geores Yard is on the corner of Cable Street and Whitchappel high road I know the area well) at the time of the Ripper killings.
The way some people talk you'd think serial killers were on every block in every city. Actually they are very rare, all very differant, and we actually know very little about their various psychi's and how they think and opperate.
The Jack the Ripper crimes are still almost unique in there time scale and saverity. Thats why I wonder how much we can assume about the killer. Profiling is interesting but its not sceince.
However its not Kloswoski killing his wives by poison that worries me, I can see a sinario where Jack the Ripper may choose to use pioson.
No the big problem is the one that still phazes most Ripperologists, WHY DOES THE RIPPER STOP AFTER KELLY?
He's evolved through Wilson and Millwood, made a mess of Tabram, interpupted during Nichols and Stride, and then makes one final statement with Kelly and Stops WHY?
Just when he was getting good at it.
Why would Chapman just stop, thats what I don't get, and thats why Druit is such a neet suspect even though there is far less to pin the ripper crimes on him than Chapman.
I've started reading the front of this thread and have followed the Zodiac arguements with interest. Apparently he also stopped for some time.
Please give me time to catch up with the thread. AP Wolf has also left a post claiming that Abberline was a liar. I just dont get it, have I missed something important?
For me Jack was an evolving killer learning as he went much like 'Suzy Lampoons' killer. Now if Chapman had been locked up after the Ripper crimes that would have been interesting. Do you think meeting Lucy would have been enough to satisfy the ripper.....? 'I think NOT'...as Lenny Henry would say.
I'll post when I figure something out.
Jeff
|
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Chapman was not familiar with a knife and unlikely to use one?
oh yes he was, he was trained as a Surgeon's assistant and like Bury, he kept a knife under his pillow, the trouble with Bury as the Ripper is; he seems too careless, plus he was caught, the Ripper appears more allusive and careful than this.
if Chapman was indeed the ripper, then like the ripper; his main goal was to avoid detection and the only way to do this later on, was to turn to poison.....but to mutilate....NO WAY!
But was Chapman the Kelly suspect?....not sure, this seems to me a fabrication by Hutchinson. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Hi again Jeff.
If you think that Abberline was the model of honesty, go back to the Tabram thread that we just left, and see what A.P.Wolf thinks. With the support of such an eminent figure on these boards, I feel vindicated in my beliefs, that at the very least, Abberline's word was unreliable.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hi Jeff.
Sorry, I've only just realised that you'd moved here. I've answered you as best I can, back on the Tabram thread. I'll just say here, that I never said Abberline was lying, just unreliable of memory, 15 years after the events.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
you see, this chart from Dan Norder is quite interesting, because you say ``killed strangers`` answer from Chapman ``none known`` but it could quite easily be ``yes`` and he used a ``knife``, better you have no chart, because all of Chapman's could end up being ``yes``, if indeed he was the Ripper.
this chart assumes too much and is way too bias, because the ripper was never caught and this chart therefore applies to Barnett, D'Onston etc.
now then, Bury did not kill prostitutes, so this on your chart is highly misleading; he only killed his wife. Chapman used poison, but was trained to use a knife; so he would've known how to commit murder efficiently and silently, plus how to avoid getting blood on his clothing etc.
Chapman's evil personality, does in fact make him quite capable as the Ripper; as does his above average intelligence......in fact, as the Ripper he may actually be too smart......but i'm not sure here!......whatever the case, definitely evil enough.
now then, we dont know that Chapman wasn't the ripper do we......because the Ripper was never caught and you can bet your last dollar that he wasn't the village idiot.....remember please, all murders started soon after his arrival and they all ended soon after he left.....but i think Carrie Brown is a bit too tight with regards to the timing of his arrival in U.S.A.....even so, it's a bit odd!
therefore Chapman(in theory)was smart enough not to mutilate his later wives/girlfriends, because this is the most stupid thing he could ever do.(think about it) ..But Bury wasn't quite as smart was he, he was a total bloody idiot; of course only he could've killed his wife, because he left her in the cellar...now the Ripper would never have done that!
Chapman got it wrong too, because he returned to the serial killer that he left behing ten years earlier, but these weren't whores out on the street that anybody could've killed, NO THESE WERE HIS WIVES...he simply murdered one too many!
why did Chapman want to kill them all....no need to, he could've simply kicked them out...but OH NO, HE HAD TO KILL THEM, because old habits die hard dont they, he was a serial killer and probably the same ten years earlier; but out on the streets of Whitechapel it was ``VERY SAFE INDEED`` to use a knife and avoid detection!
the proof of this is we dont know who the ripper is and we never will, plus all those torsos, strangulations, cut throats etc etc....yes for a smart person, killing out on the streets was dead easy back then!
of these two, considering the Ripper's allusive tactics; Chapman is the most likely to be the ripper.
now this is an interesting question? what would the ripper have done to his wife back in 1888 to 1890, well he wouldn't have mutilated her would he....NEVER, because a mutilation is still a recognisable person..i.e Kelly, instead he would've hid her inentity by cutting off her head, her arms and her legs and dumped her all over the place and far away from home.
but not Bury...too bloody stupid and lazy!
but of course, you're now talking about ten years later and a far wiser more mature person, he's no longer a blood crazed youth, he's been there, worn the tee shirt etc, he's therefore switched his M.O, instead he pretends to be the concerned husband; but you'll notice he's still a serial killer........at heart!
i'm not a Chapman fan, my favourite is G.Hutchinson, but i would say that Chapman is definitely my no 2
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
OK, so if Chapman was the Ripper he went from cutting throats to poisoning his victims. Well, so what? Those two things ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Is it unusual and contrary to what we know from profiling? Yes, but we have a very simple and very plausible explanation staring us right in the face...he wanted to do away with his wives without casting suspicion on himself. Hardly something he could have done by slashing their throats. Why is that so hard to accept? If we accept that, then the whole change of M.O. is a moot point and we are left with these facts: Chapman was a cold blooded murderer...he lived in Whitechapel within walking distance of all the murder sites...he had training as a surgeon's apprentice...the murders started not long after he arrived in the country and ended after he left. There is also that whole business of the murder of Carrie Brown in America while he was there. I think that he is as good a suspect as any and better than most. While there may be problems with other aspects of his canidacy for the Ripper's mantle, I think it is completely illogical to dismiss him outright because of the change in M.O. as though this somehow violates the laws of physics. It just ain't so.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Mark Twain |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
"To put what I meant in simple terms, Bury, despite mutilating his wife's body, did attempt to conceal it. On the other hand, Klosowski, though he used poison, made no attempts at concealing the bodies.
So despite using different methods of killing, Klosowski not concealing the bodies is atleast more like the Ripper's style than Bury. "
Hi Adam !
I think Klosowski certainly deserves to be on the list of suspects. Personally, he's Top Ten material if not Top Five on our hit parade.
But with respect to concealing bodies versus displaying them, I'm not sure I'd draw conclusions as to a poisoner's preference or what use of poison tells us about how they might act in different circumstances . It seems to me that circa the 1880's, the whole idea of poisoning was to make it appear that your victim was simply taken ill; hiding the body would only serve to make folks more suspicious, no ? So almost by definition, a poisoner wouldn't be a concealer...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
"I realize that there are alot of problems with explaining why Chapman would stop ripping for almost ten years then start piosoning...(dosn't make sense)"
Personally, I think the idea of a killer changing M.O.s AFTER a long lay off makes some degree of sense. Or more accurately, it requires less of a stretch of the imagination. I can picture an older, "wiser" Jack tiring of the old ultra violence and killing in a more hands off way.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
"I realize that there are alot of problems with explaining why Chapman would stop ripping for almost ten years then start piosoning...(dosn't make sense)"
Personally, I think the idea of a killer changing M.O.s AFTER a long lay off makes some degree of sense. Or more accurately, it requires less of a stretch of the imagination. I can picture an older, "wiser" Jack tiring of the old ultra violence and killing in a more hands off way
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert.
I think you're missing the key point here. The Ripper's thing was not in the killing. His gruesome fantasies were about cutting open the abdomen of his victim, and extracting organs.
He clearly got no pleasure from a victim's suffering, as he dispatched these women almost instantly.
Chapman, on the other hand, was a cruel & sadistic man who wallowed in the pleasure of watching his victims die slowly. We're not just talking about a different M.O. here. We're talking about two personalities who were as different as chalk & cheese. You simply can't marry the two.
The best I can say for Chapman, is that he was probably a marginally better Ripper suspect than Queen Victoria.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
"I think you're missing the key point here. The Ripper's thing was not in the killing. His gruesome fantasies were about cutting open the abdomen of his victim, and extracting organs.
He clearly got no pleasure from a victim's suffering, as he dispatched these women almost instantly. "
I do not pretend to know what the Ripper's "thing" was. As he was killing in the relative open, he had to dispatch his victims quickly. I also don't pretend to know what he did, or did not do, to Kelly, given the luxury of time. It's not hard to imagine some lurid stuff, from what little the crime scene tells us. Jack could well have had some far more disgusting fantasies that he simply could not act out. It's dangerous to assume these guys are all cut from the same cloth, but I note that the BTK killer said he fled instead of acting out more elaborate scenes if he did not feel secure.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3646
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
David C,
That post of yours could just as well have been written by myself.
We do not have to pretend to know what the Ripper's "thing" was. It is quite evident from his approach -- studying the victim's wounds and the crime scene evidence -- that he wanted to kill them as fast as possible. A mutilator like Jack the Ripper must be seen as a compulsive killer.
Sure, he managed to sneak away practically unseen and uncaught, but not with any stretch of the imagination can he be seen as smart or particular with the context in which the crimes were committed and also left the bodies on display. The murders are all quite clearly risky to the point of stupidity, and it is suggestive, that he did them because he had to or was driven to them, regardless of the conditions or the consequences.
Clearly this is not the same person and personality as the shrewd, patient and sadistic Klosowski, who tried to hide his crimes (as all poisoners try to do). Poisoners uses their heads (or think they do) and enjoys to see their victims suffer (or simply don't care about it), which we can assume was not the Ripper's cup of tea, judging from his approach. Klosowski can not be regarded as a compulsive killer, and there is no indication of him having such personality traits, but instead had very rational reasons behind his crimes.
This is of course only my own opinion and my own brand of common sense, but if you're a compulsive killer, you rarely stop and turn into a rational cunning poisoner. We are not talking about switching MO, but switching personality as easy as I change my underpants.
I don't even give Klosowski the benefit of a doubt and Abberline's retrospective drivel doesn't make him any more credible, on the contrary; Klosowski is one of the worst Ripper suspects ever produced, next to the Royal Conspiracy, Lewis Carroll and Jill the Ripper. I admit nothing is impossible and every killer is a mystery, but Klosowski is certainly not top ten material.
Of course there can be more serial killers than one in the same area in a close period of time; serial killers can not be found around each corner, but they are not as uncommon as people think. And London seems to have had their share of serial or brutal killers in just a short time period from the Ripper murders; just look at Cream and Crippen.
Or maybe we should add Cream's crimes to Klosowski as well, since there obviously only could have been one serial killer in East End?
That being said, Klosowski is indeed an interesting local criminal and charismatic character in his own right and I can certainly understand why Sugden wanted to investigate him. But he was most certainly not Jack the Ripper.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 28, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
" It is quite evident from his approach -- studying the victim's wounds and the crime scene evidence -- that he wanted to kill them as fast as possible."
Of course -- he was killing women out in the open. If he didn't dispatch them quickly, he'd have been caught.
"Klosowski is one of the worst Ripper suspects ever produced"
That is a ridiculous statement, written simply to produce a flame war. I don't think he was the Ripper, but there are plenty of reasons to keep him a "person of interest" in the Case.
"Abberline's retrospective drivel "
Oh, c'mon. Abberline may very well have been wrong, but his comments were undoubtedly sincere. He also appears to have been an intelligent man from what we know of him.
"But he was most certainly not Jack the Ripper."
His innocence is far from proven.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3650
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
I am not saying Abberline wasn't sincere.
I am just saying he didn't know what he was talking about. He also stated himself in 1903 that he didn't really had a clue of who the Ripper was, and he probably didn't -- like the rest of the officials.
So why he throws up Klosowski is a mystery.
As far as I am concerned, Abberline was rambling and was badly influenced by the speculations in the papers.
Abberline said a lot of things, some of it does not makes sense and many of his reports from witness interrogations leaves more questions than answers. I don't doubt that he was a hard working detective, but I have very little positive to say about his judge of character and some of his conclusions.
Abberline is certainly not the officer on the case that I trust the most -- on the contrary.
Klosowski is a most unlikely suspect and an incredibly poor one. And certainly not top ten material. All we know about him from this point of view is that he killed his wives in a way that does not in any way corroborate with the Ripper's. Not the same method, not the same driving forces or motives, not the same victims, his whereabouts and actions during the Ripper murders are uncertain etc.
The only things that keeps Klososki in this context is the location (East End) and that he used to be a surgeon (which we don't even know if the Ripper had to be anyway). And that he was a serial killer, although a very sadistic, shrewd and also a domestic one,
Besides that, there is no link between him and the Ripper murders whatsoever. It is all hot air.
Still, just my opinion.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 29, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
So why he throws up Klosowski is a mystery.
Perhaps because in Abberline's humble opinion he was a more likely suspect than Cutbush? Oh and Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog too? And Tumblety? 
At least he was a known murderer of women. We don't know that any of the others ever destroyed so much as a cat, for all the sexual or gender issues they may have had between them.
IMHO none of the named contemporary suspects are likely to have been Jack, or everyone would have known which one. My top ten would be dominated by the nameless and faceless who never came to police attention.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3656
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
To tell you the truth, I don't think he -- pretty much like the others -- really had a clue.
He also showed a temporary interest in Bury.
And then he also said he didn't know who the Ripper was.
Abberline said a lot things.
He didn't show any interest in Klosowski until the time of his trial and execution(and might have been mislead by the papers, who speculated a lot on this area), and we don't know if Klosowski was a suspect he held on to much longer after that (although Godley, who was close to Abberline, also favoured Klosowski).
And at the same time he proposes Klosowski with a large amount of certainty he also admits that he and the others didn't have a clue about the Ripper's identity more than they had in 1888.
I don't doubt for a minute that he at that particular time (although we don't know for how long he did this or it was just a temporary whim)really believed Klosowski might be the Ripper. True, Klosowski had killed women, but implying that just because you are evil enough to poison your wives, you also have to be the Ripper, is not reasoning and deduction of tip top quality from a police officer, as I see it.
At least Kosminski, Druitt and Ostrog (although the latter of them totally unlikely) were contemporary police suspect.
But I agree, I doubt if any of the known suspects were the real one and it is also my belief that the Ripper might have been totally unknown to the police and not among the named ones.
Maybe he wanted to show off to the newspaper that interviewed him by dropping a name like the other officials; I don't know.
At least he didn't publish any memoirs with personal theories, as most of the others did.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 30, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Hi Caz and Glenn
excellent pionts. As I've said I'm uncertain who the Ripper might be, I dont have a pet suspect.
However I'd like to know more about Kloswoski given the facts that I do know. Also we have no papers or records surviving from Abberline (although it isn't impossible they exist in some unexplored atic) Perhaps he had other information we are not aware of...its possible.
Do either of you know for sure when Kloswoski was meant to have left London after the Ripper crimes?
I except that serial killers are unlikely to change MO's Glenn, however what if the poisonings were the Odd crimes out, because of the close relationship to the killer. When you look at Shipman, he'd been getting away with crimes for years...its not infeesable that Kloswoski commited other murders that he was never tried or accused of...serial killers often opperate from an early age and go undetected for years.
I'd just like to know more about this suspect, to be honest he's in my top ten because of the lack of other serious contenders and I agree with Glenn that we could be looking for an unknown Mr X. Just dont wish to through out any babes with the bath water.
ANyway I'm off for a weekend of rock n Roll with me daughter...she can moan about Pink Floyd and Cold Play while I put up with Robbie Williams and Madona.
Big up Sir Bob.
Jeff
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I was about to compliment you on the brilliant and SENSIBLE summing up Chapman in a previous post. I now feel the need to say that I also think your judgment on the unreliability of Abberline was spot-on too.
You always keep things sensible, plausible, and with your feet firmly on the ground. I much prefer THAT approach, instead of trying to make things ever more complicated.
Keep up the good work Glenn.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I was about to compliment you on the brilliant and SENSIBLE summing up Chapman in a previous post. I now feel the need to say that I also think your judgment on the unreliability of Abberline was spot-on too.
You always keep things sensible, plausible, and with your feet firmly on the ground. I much prefer THAT approach, instead of trying to make things ever more complicated.
Keep up the good work Glenn.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Glenn strikes again...haha
Dont worry we're used to his outbursts and this one is a Glenn classic, "Klosowski is one of the worst Ripper suspects ever produced" ha ha
no Glenn he's not, he's one of the best; unfortunately you can't vision him or the strange circumstances surrounding his arrival/ departure/ return to Whitechapel etc....
basically Chapman looks highly suspicious...very much so, but of course we dont have enough evidence......about anybody else either, and that's why the ripper was never caught.
i think you'd be quite surprised if the Ripper was ever revealed.....but it wont be Maybrick, Sickert, Lewis Caroll etc, now they are rediculous; but definitely not Chapman.
Chapman was a serial killer and as such, probably was ten years earlier too; in fact, soon after he was training as a surgeon and as a surgeon, he was a friend of the knife! |
Mal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
you see, Chapman didn't need to conceal the bodies of his dead wives; because that why he poisoned them...to make it appear that they were dieing of something else and not being murdered by him...
as for the Ripper's pleasure...he could not afford to take pleasure in killing them slowly; because this would make too much noise; plus take too long, so the mind control/ sadistic pleasure is not present in the Whitechapel murders.
but maybe this, ten years later on; was what was missing, true sadism.....so the Ripper actually became far more sadistic but more sophisticated too, now why did he stop after Kelly, consider for one minute the possibility that he became actually bored with the mutilations...he'd seen it all with Kelly, what worst horror than this!
yes the ripper was obsessed with mutilations/ internal organs etc........but maybe this was why Chapman studied surgery in the first place! but later on in life, these same areas he ripped apart yet again didn't he; but this time he used poison and far more sadistically.....
now i'm not saying i'm right here; at all, but did the Ripper become more sadistic, plus wanted to observe the true horror, discomfort, humiliation etc......if so, there's no better than to slow poison his wives; how bloody evil is this!
it's the samed damned area too......the guts, stomach, abdoman etc.........just a different weapon and it's way worst too!
a knife (as already discussed) was of course no good for murdering his wives, but had he outgrown it ten years later and like after Kelly, had he already started; by downgrading back to normal street murders.
Chapman studied surgery and was very good at it too, so he was a friend of the knife, plus a barber too, now Kelly and i must say this; doesn't look well enough carved up for a trainee ``sane`` surgeon, as do all the other murders....a semi qualified sugeon would've done a far better job; on all of the victims...kelly looks like a semi-novice/imbecile, that's exploring the human body for THE FIRST TIME, but Chapman would've been way in advance of all of this; he would've carved up loads of bodies.........this i have to say, weighs heavy against him.
unless of course, Chapman wasn't sane while carving her up; but on an opium induced/ drink induced...........brain numbing blur, but if so he would've woken up her neighbours/ been arrested etc, yes there's too many twists and turns; just like the Ripper's knife!
i dont know, but it's very interesting isn't it. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3658
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
As far as I know, Klosowski was listed in 1889 as running a barber shop in St George's-in the-East (it is supposed that he might have been living there in 1888, but it can not be ascertained since no census records exist from that year -- Klosowski moved a lot), and in 1890 worked in the barber shop in the cellar of the pub White Hart on the corner of Whitechapel High Street and George Yard.
He then married Lucy Baderski and after living on at least four addresses (amongst them Cable Street), they both emigrated to New Jersey somewhere after April 1891.
It was supposedly later in 1891 that he threatened Lucy with a knife, which made her move back to England on her own early in 1892. Later that same year Klosowski himself moved back to London as well.
Klosowski's biggest problem, except for being his own worst enemy, was his constant infidelities (whch probably were the reasons for why he killed his wives).
What closest connects him to the Ripper murders is the locations of where he worked and lived, although that was for the most part after the Ripper murders.
"I except that serial killers are unlikely to change MO's Glenn, however what if the poisonings were the Odd crimes out, because of the close relationship to the killer. When you look at Shipman, he'd been getting away with crimes for years...its not infeesable that Kloswoski commited other murders that he was never tried or accused of...serial killers often opperate from an early age and go undetected for years."
Forget the talk of 'change of MO!'
As I've said many times, Jeff, this is not a matter of change of MO -- of course serial killers often changes their MO; but most facts indicates that Jack the Ripper was a compulsive killer with no real motive, and who had to kill and mutilate, while poisoners possess other personality traits and have clear reasons for what they do; they are generally not compulsive killers at all, but very patient sadists with thought out motives.
We are not dealing with change of MO (a compulsive killer can change from knife to shotgun to strangulation and vice versa, but he is still a compulsive killer, acting out obsessive needs and driving forces), but a change of personality. Poisoning is usually a crime committed by women anyway and has been used by numerous female serial killers throught history.
But as I said, just my opinion.
Jeff,
I'd choose Pink Floyd any day.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 30, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3659
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
David Cartwright,
Thanks for the fine compliments and for being a man of common sense.
----------------------------------
Mal,
Great speculations there. Unfortunately -- although nothing about the human mind is carved in stone -- they do not make any sense to me psychologically whatsoever. Naturally I can't agree with you.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jed
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 9:11 pm: |
|
On reading through the posts, I see the reason why there is so much disagreement is because you all disagree on what are the most important clues.
Being a serial killer is very important clue of course, and that is why I noticed Chapman before the others.
The change of m.o. from strangling to poison or the lack of the signature mutilations can be explained that 1) the risk of getting caught ripping wives is much greater than ripping street women and 2) he didn't actually give up his m.o. and signature - there was a ripperlike murder of a prostitute in NJ when he was there, it could have been him!!
One might ask, why was there only 1 ripperlike murder in NJ? Answer: he was now married so he couldn't easily disappear in the middle of the night without arousing suspicion.
The clue that the Ripper was educated is very important. He had to have some anatomical knowledge to dissect the uterii. This is a serious strike against Bury.
Abberline might have been mediocre, but unless he was a complete idiot, it is doubtful he would have dismissed Bury without some reason. There must be something we don't know about.
I tried very hard to dimiss Chapman as a suspect, but I can't. He was educated enough to be the ripper and smart enough to take steps to avoid being caught once he was married.
The prostitute ripperstyle murder in NJ is an important clue and I wonder why that wasn't investigated more thoroughly.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
