PDA

View Full Version : Ep. #44 The Chapman-Ripper Theory: w/ R Michael Gordon


jmenges
04-07-2009, 04:45 AM
Thread for discussion of Episode 44 of Rippercast

The Chapman-Ripper Theory: with R Michael Gordon

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=87

Featuring the voices of R Michael Gordon, Steve Mateski, David Gates, Gareth Williams and Ben Holme.

Thanks to all who participated in this episode and everyone who supplied their comments and questions!

Thanks for listening!

:operator:

JM

jmenges
04-07-2009, 07:35 AM
Correct link for the show...

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=88

I forgot to add the artwork into the mp3 so had to re-up the entry...

JM

Steelysama
04-08-2009, 09:51 PM
As many point out, it seems strange for Jack The Ripper to go from the incredibly bloody murders of Whitechapel to poisonings. But perhaps more strange is the idea that he would change his *victims* from relative strangers to his wives.

While I agree that you cannot bind him to the use of the knife of the killings, the question of mutilations comes up. The Ripper mutilated his victims and removed organs. In the later poisonings, did this happen? That behavior seems like one which would be consistent.

richardnunweek
04-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Hi,
Intresting podcast very imformative, for those not aquainted with this fascinating character, however the question of age never arose, if i am not mistaken was not Chapman only twenty three years old in 1888?
Is there any reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer was that young?
Regards Richard..

c.d.
04-09-2009, 11:03 PM
As many point out, it seems strange for Jack The Ripper to go from the incredibly bloody murders of Whitechapel to poisonings. But perhaps more strange is the idea that he would change his *victims* from relative strangers to his wives.

While I agree that you cannot bind him to the use of the knife of the killings, the question of mutilations comes up. The Ripper mutilated his victims and removed organs. In the later poisonings, did this happen? That behavior seems like one which would be consistent.

Hi Steelysama,

If Chapman had killed three wives and mutilated all of them do you think that that might have aroused suspicion?

c.d.

GordonH
04-09-2009, 11:17 PM
Then there is the issue of the taking of the body parts from ripper victims which suggests a fetishistic motive not present in the Chapman poisonings. If the ripper did change his method of killing it is unlikely he would stop the fetishistic aspect of it which was probably one of his reasons for killing in the first place.

For that reason alone I would rule out Chapman, but he is clearly a very strong candidate on circumstantial evidence.

Sam Flynn
04-09-2009, 11:21 PM
Hi Gordon,For that reason alone I would rule out Chapman, but he is clearly a very strong candidate on circumstantial evidence.Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

Sam Flynn
04-09-2009, 11:24 PM
if i am not mistaken was not Chapman only twenty three years old in 1888? Is there any reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer was that young?There's no reason to suppose that he wasn't, Rich. Many, if not most, crimes are perpetrated by men in their 20s or 30s.

Glad you enjoyed the podcast.

GordonH
04-09-2009, 11:32 PM
Hi Gordon,Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

For that reason I think of him as being a little like James Kelly - sounds more possible than Druitt or Kosminsky, but not enough evidence.

c.d.
04-09-2009, 11:36 PM
Hi Gordon,Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

Hi Sam,

Since Abberline, Godley and Neil all believed that Chapman could have been the Ripper, I would assume that that is one piece of information that they would have obtained and verifed before reaching any conclusion.

c.d.

Malcolm X
04-09-2009, 11:40 PM
he was almost definitely in Whitechapel at the time, Chapman is a very strong suspect indeed, regardless of what his critics say

Sam Flynn
04-10-2009, 12:04 AM
Since Abberline, Godley and Neil all believed that Chapman could have been the Ripper, I would assume that that is one piece of information that they would have obtained and verifed before reaching any conclusion.Unfortunately, they don't seem to have done so, CD. Very little specific information about his arrival was unearthed during the trial, the records of which are minutely detailed - in fact, they're very thorough indeed. The best the Solicitor General at Kłosowski's trial could manage was that Kłosowski arrived in London "sometime in 1888". (Thanks to Wolf Vanderlinden for pointing that out.)

As to opinions, Abberline's thoughts on Kłosowski were remarkably inaccurate, and I'm not so sure that Godley actually went into writing saying that Kłosowski was the Ripper (I'll have to check). Neil, writing in the 1930s, made the familiar blunder of assuming that the Ripper somehow "had" to have been medically qualified. That, and the fact that Neil wasn't involved in the Ripper case, ought to give us pause for thought when assessing the value of his opinions.

On a tangential point, it looks like we might have to break out into various Kłosowski-specific threads on this one! There's life in the old Pole yet ;)

Steelysama
04-10-2009, 12:36 AM
Then there is the issue of the taking of the body parts from ripper victims which suggests a fetishistic motive not present in the Chapman poisonings. If the ripper did change his method of killing it is unlikely he would stop the fetishistic aspect of it which was probably one of his reasons for killing in the first place.

Yes, that is what I am getting at.

EDIT:

It seems to me that in order to properly examine the idea of Chapman as a suspect, we need to answer to things:

1) Why did The Ripper carry out mutilations and the taking of organs in the first place?

2) What would cause him to stop?

I do not believe that fear of being caught or associated with the previous crimes would satisfy number 2.

GordonH
04-10-2009, 09:43 AM
Might be worth having a read through this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jUu-vIcaAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

It disagrees with some profilers ideas about organised vs disorganised and says there can be a mixture of both behaviours, which is what we see in the Whitechapel murders. Have a look at page 97 under "Cognitive Element" where it says that posing the victims body, retaining trophies etc suggests the murder is secondary to possessing the victims body. This sounds like JTR to me, but it does not sound like Chapman whose focus seemed to be on the murder itself.

protohistorian
04-10-2009, 05:09 PM
Might be worth having a read through this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jUu-vIcaAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

It disagrees with some profilers ideas about organised vs disorganised and says there can be a mixture of both behaviours, which is what we see in the Whitechapel murders. Have a look at page 97 under "Cognitive Element" where it says that posing the victims body, retaining trophies etc suggests the murder is secondary to possessing the victims body. This sounds like JTR to me, but it does not sound like Chapman whose focus seemed to be on the murder itself. It is not a matter of organized and disorganized being binary opposites. It is a matter of cognitive state that leads to each class of behaviors. Since behavior is not static, we should expect a mingling of features. Motivations regarding behaviors is poorly understood, with the bulk of evidence coming from post capture interviews. There are elements of both in JtR I would contend because his psychology was rapidly changing. Respectfully Dave

Natalie Severn
04-11-2009, 11:16 PM
I have been really put out lately as I still havent been able to listen to the podcast -to date- as my computer has been playing up-being in North Wales and not London at the moment is not helping either!The computer times out as it downloads after ten minutes or so at the moment.

Point of Information:
The deposition of Ethel Radin of 14 January1903, at Southwark Police Court:
In this Ethel Radin states under oath at Chapman"s trial for murder that he stayed with her at 70 West India Dock Road for "about five months".
Mrs Radin must have been living at West India Dock Road before December 2nd 1887.This is because the Post Office Directory did not accept anyone for their 1888 Directory of addresses who had not been living at that address before December 2nd 1887. We know she was no longer living at that address in 1889 so Severin Klosowski must have stayed with her for a period of five months sometime between December 1887 and December 2nd 1888 LEAVING BEFORE THE POST OFFICE DIRECTORY DEADLINE of December 2nd 1888 AT THE VERY LATEST in order for his name alongside his new address at 126 Cable Street to have been included in the Post Office Directory of 1889.
The Post Office Directory of 1889 gives his address as 126 Cable Street and traditionally, he is believed to have arrived in the UK sometime in 1887 .

Sam Flynn
04-11-2009, 11:28 PM
Welcome back, Nats - hope your computer trouble sorts itself out soon!LEAVING BEFORE THE POST OFFICE DIRECTORY DEADLINE of December 2nd 1888 AT THE VERY LATEST in order for his name alongside his new address at 126 Cable Street to have been included in the Post Office Directory of 1889.In point of fact, the Post Office Directory was still accepting and amending entries as late as December 13th 1888.traditionally, he is believed to have arrived in the UK sometime in 1887 .As I pointed out above, Nats, the best information at the disposal of the Solicitor General at his trial was that Kłosowski had arrived in England "sometime in 1888".

Natalie Severn
04-11-2009, 11:50 PM
Thankyou Sam.I have been fed up with it,I really have .
Anyway,yes,you are right,I think Chapman probably did arrive sometime in 1888 and stayed in West India Dock Road, as Mrs Radin testified, for five months in that year. But I doubt somehow he was moving digs on this shifting deadline of yours of December 13th 1888 just before Christmas----I understood the deadline to be December 2nd anyway.
Cheers
Nats
x

Sam Flynn
04-12-2009, 12:02 AM
Hi Nats,

Whether it was 2nd December or the 13th (you may recall that I found an ad. in the Times that said the PO was still editing the Directory on 13/12/1888), that still allows room for doubt. He could well have been rooted in WI Dock Road until September, October or November 1888, for all we know. He might even have lived there afterwards, using 126 Cable Street as a business address - not inconsistent with his living in Greenfield Street when he worked in the barber shop under the White Hart.

Natalie Severn
04-12-2009, 12:30 AM
He may well have been living in West India Dock Road in September,October and November 1888,Sam but the likelihood is he was there in Cable Street by then after his five month stint with the Radins.But even just snooping around the Pinchin Street/Cable Street railway arches area and spotting the enormous potential for another type of project in 1889-boy was he pleased to eventually be able to have himself that address . His very own barber shop at 126 Cable Street ,with sink,scissors knives ,wigs hairdyes and all the other accoutrements of the Victorian Barber shop :deal2: !

Sam Flynn
04-12-2009, 03:20 PM
We don't know that it was his "very own barber-shop" either, Nats. He might have been "managing" it on behalf of somebody else. We know that he wasn't the owner of the shop under the White Hart, nor of Mr Haddin/Radin's at Tottenham (coincidentally, not far from White Hart Lane). Both of these "managerships/assistantships" came after his association with the Cable Street shop.

Natalie Severn
04-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Hi Sam,
Am I right,though, in saying he must have been the tenant/ keyholder for number 126 Cable Street?After all it is down as "his" address for the year 1889 [ meaning he must have been there at least by December 1888 in order to have been in time for that 1889 entry into the 1889 P. O. Directory etc]. Had there been another "co-manager" surely that too would have been entered in the directory? I wasnt suggesting btw, he had done anything other than "rented" these premises.But I think it very likely it was he who had the keys-crucial to any prospect of continued hanky panky,either by way of trying out them wigs ,hair dyes and other disguises........ or indeed carrying out an even more secret or sinister "sideline".

Sam Flynn
04-12-2009, 10:08 PM
Had there been another "co-manager" surely that too would have been entered in the directory?I'm not sure, Nats, especially if Mr Haddin/Radin had more than one shop - it might even have been a tax dodge to have someone else put his name down on his behalf!

I just wish I had a copy of that Directory, that's all!

Malcolm X
04-12-2009, 10:28 PM
Hi Sam,
Am I right,though, in saying he must have been the tenant/ keyholder for number 126 Cable Street?After all it is down as "his" address for the year 1889 [ meaning he must have been there at least by December 1888 in order to have been in time for that 1889 entry into the 1889 P. O. Directory etc]. Had there been another "co-manager" surely that too would have been entered in the directory? I wasnt suggesting btw, he had done anything other than "rented" these premises.But I think it very likely it was he who had the keys-crucial to any prospect of continued hanky panky,either by way of trying out them wigs ,hair dyes and other disguises........ or indeed carrying out an even more secret or sinister "sideline".

welcome back Natalie ... it doesn't matter if he owned the shops, so much as he was living in the area at that time... i'd be surprised if they were his shops anyway, he would've been too young at that time to have that much money.

Natalie Severn
04-13-2009, 12:30 AM
welcome back Natalie ... it doesn't matter if he owned the shops, so much as he was living in the area at that time... i'd be surprised if they were his shops anyway, he would've been too young at that time to have that much money.

Thanks Malcolm,
We know he was living at 70 West India Dock Road for some five months of 1888 -the period when the Radins lived there and had him as their lodger and assistant.West India Dock Road was well accessible to anyone living in Whitechapel,it being within easy reach by tram or by foot via Cable Street or Whitechapel High Street.
However,how I see it is that he is recorded in the Post Office Directory as being at 126 Cable Street,where there was a barber shop,which he is understood to have been in charge of ie by those who have researched him to date.He must have been doing something to do with this address in December 1888,if not much earlier in 1888,due to the necessity of his entry into the Post Office Directory by December 1888.Presumably he had previously "checked out" the area of Cable Street? Its a spooky place even today with one side of it,the opposite side to his shop, comprised solely of looming Victorian railway arches-Pinchin Street abutts Cable Street, where the "headless torso" was found in September 1889.Chapman"s address at this time,is given in the Post Office Directory,as 126 Cable Street.Some writers have put this "murder" victim of Pinchin Street down as an "abortion gone wrong".Barber surgeon"s were known to occasionally have run a "sideline" as abortionists.An "unattached" barber surgeon such as Chapman with his own premises - almost certainly including a basement-could have got up to all sorts once the shop was shut.We need to find out all we can about this particular address.Its still there I think.

Natalie Severn
04-13-2009, 12:31 AM
I'm not sure, Nats, especially if Mr Haddin/Radin had more than one shop - it might even have been a tax dodge to have someone else put his name down on his behalf!

I just wish I had a copy of that Directory, that's all!

So do I Sam,so do I!

thewastelandr
04-19-2009, 10:11 PM
Is it just me, or is iTunes not letting us download this episode?

GordonH
04-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Is it just me, or is iTunes not letting us download this episode?

It worked for me at the time via my podcast subscription for rippercast.
You can manually download the file from the page and add it to your itunes library if you get stuck.

Natalie Severn
04-20-2009, 12:19 AM
I have had the same problem-but my computer has been playing up anyway lately.I thought I had sorted it out but its just refused to down load some photos sent to me today .So I"ll try again tomorrow -----via itunes!
Thanks for the tip.
Norma

thewastelandr
04-20-2009, 01:21 AM
Which page should I try downloading it from?

jmenges
04-20-2009, 04:52 AM
There is a right-click link on each particular episode's podcast page.

I re downloaded the show via iTunes today and it worked fine. Please keep me informed about whatever problems you may be having with the downloads so I can continue to trouble-shoot them if need be.

FYI- We're off until the first part of May since I'm moving to California.

Thanks for listening!

:operator:

JM

Cap'n Jack
04-20-2009, 09:20 AM
'I'm moving to California...'

Will it be big enough for you, JM?

halomanuk
04-20-2009, 12:18 PM
I can't even get i-tunes to recognise my i-pod all the time at the moment,neither can my daughter or her friends so i think i-tunes is playing up all round.
Anybody else had this problem ??

jmenges
04-20-2009, 03:38 PM
'I'm moving to California...'

Will it be big enough for you, JM?

It should be, AP.

Thanks for asking,

JM

thewastelandr
04-20-2009, 04:49 PM
Thank you!!! I was lost without my weekly Rippercast fix...

Natalie Severn
04-24-2009, 12:55 AM
I can't even get i-tunes to recognise my i-pod all the time at the moment,neither can my daughter or her friends so i think i-tunes is playing up all round.
Anybody else had this problem ??

Yes I am! Its infuriating as I still havent been able to down load the podcast.I am hoping to have it done for me tomorrow.:2thumbsup:

halomanuk
04-24-2009, 01:57 AM
Norma,i have found that either switching the port you plug the i-pod into or just giving it an 'even' shove into the base of the i-pod is now working,but it is definately an i-tunes problem,not the i-pod..but it is just about working..good luck !!

jmenges
04-24-2009, 02:10 AM
but it is definately an i-tunes problem,not the i-pod..but it is just about working..good luck !!

No. It's not an iTunes problem. I have just now deleted and re-downloaded the episode via iTunes Music Store. I think it may be a bandwidth problem on your end. Are you on dial up?

Honestly, I have no trouble getting the episode using an Airport Wifi via iTunes. Can you not stream it? Right Click Download?

I am having NO issues to deal with on my end. Please, if you have problems, describe your internet set-up (dial-up etc) and maybe I can help.

JM

Simon Wood
04-24-2009, 02:19 AM
Hi All,

I have the crankiest old Mac in the universe [the serial number is in Roman numerals], but it has no problems playing/downloading the podcasts.

Regards,

Simon

jmenges
04-24-2009, 02:22 AM
Thanks, Simon.

I'll see you in Vegas.

:)

JM

halomanuk
04-24-2009, 02:22 AM
The old'uns are the best'uns Simon !!

Simon Wood
04-24-2009, 02:34 AM
You betcha!

halomanuk
04-24-2009, 01:03 PM
No. It's not an iTunes problem. I have just now deleted and re-downloaded the episode via iTunes Music Store. I think it may be a bandwidth problem on your end. Are you on dial up?

Honestly, I have no trouble getting the episode using an Airport Wifi via iTunes. Can you not stream it? Right Click Download?

I am having NO issues to deal with on my end. Please, if you have problems, describe your internet set-up (dial-up etc) and maybe I can help.

JM
Hi Jonathan,
No i mean i have had a problem,as has my daughter and her friends,getting i-tunes to recognise the i-pods,only over a few days period though.
When it did work all the podcasts including yours came on to it straight away so there is nothing wrong with that.

However it is working now with our i-pods so i think everything is back to normal.

Natalie Severn
04-24-2009, 10:59 PM
Norma,i have found that either switching the port you plug the i-pod into or just giving it an 'even' shove into the base of the i-pod is now working,but it is definately an i-tunes problem,not the i-pod..but it is just about working..good luck !!



Thanks for that halomanuk!I will remember in future.Right now Andy,my spouse,has downloaded it on his laptop and we are about to listen to it-----cant wait!
:2thumbsup:

Natalie Severn
04-25-2009, 12:41 AM
Havent quite finished listening to the podcast-have had one hour only so will finish it tomorrow.Thought it was really really good with important points made by everyone and a very synthesised and impressive presentation/synopsis made by the author R.Michael Gordon.

thewastelandr
04-25-2009, 02:06 AM
It still isn't downloading for me on iTunes. So weird, never had a problem before. But I can download it by right clicking on the link on which page?

jmenges
04-25-2009, 04:14 AM
Please try deleting/removing the show from your iTunes podcast library (it will give you the option of keeping the files you can say "yes"), go back into the iTunes music store and re-subscribe. There should now be a "Get" button next to each episode back in your library listing. You should be able to download each episode.

I am showing no broken feeds when I do this myself.

Please let me know if it works.

Thanks,

JM

protohistorian
04-25-2009, 09:37 PM
Thread for discussion of Episode 44 of Rippercast

The Chapman-Ripper Theory: with R Michael Gordon

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=87

Featuring the voices of R Michael Gordon, Steve Mateski, David Gates, Gareth Williams and Ben Holme.

Thanks to all who participated in this episode and everyone who supplied their comments and questions!

Thanks for listening!

:operator:

JM I just listened and that Dave Gates fellow shoul never be allowed on again! What a moron.

Sam Flynn
04-25-2009, 11:41 PM
I just listened and that Dave Gates fellow shoul never be allowed on again! What a moron.
I thought he was splendid :)

Cap'n Jack
04-26-2009, 12:01 AM
But you weren't listening, were you Sam?
I reckon you boys have all got an attack of the luvvies.

Natalie Severn
04-26-2009, 12:02 AM
We enjoyed that podcast very much. It was very good humoured as well as interesting so congratulations to the author Michael and Sam,Ben,Dave and Steve----and ofcourse JM for presenting such an impressive discussion.
I thought it may be of interest that I have written quite a long article for this months "Ripperologist" on Chapman.It was written before I knew of R.Michael Gordon"s book ,"The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London" which I had to order through the local library and took a while to arrive- it did so this week.I am hoping to write a follow up article which will focus on the Torso murders .

Best Wishes

Norma

Sam Flynn
04-26-2009, 12:24 AM
But you weren't listening, were you Sam?
I reckon you boys have all got an attack of the luvvies.... all I have to say to that, AP darling, is "Mwah!"

Sam Flynn
04-26-2009, 12:25 AM
Nats - I look forward eagerly to your article, and thanks for the kind words.

"Mwah!" to you, also :)

Natalie Severn
04-26-2009, 12:38 AM
.... mwah! mwah! Sam. And Meow! Meow! to AP.....[only kidding AP]:duck:

Natalie Severn
04-29-2009, 12:41 AM
Sam,
I noticed during the podcast that you questioned whether or not Klosowski had lived with both "wives" .According to HL Adam,in The Trial of George Chapman, which I have only just been able to obtain from the library,he says that it is likely he had been married in Poland before he came to London : "It is probable that he was already married before he came to this country.At any rate , a woman came to England from either Russia or Poland, and claimed him as her husband.Her arrival,however,was at a most inopportune time, for Klosowski,who had been without female companionship for as long as he could possibly endure,had already gone through a marriage ceremony with another woman.The two women met at his house some time soon after his marriage to Lucy Baderski *........both women claimed the distinction of being the real wife and neither would give way to the other.For some time the two women lived in the same building ........"page 3.
He goes on to say that Severin and Lucy were living at Cable Street -----and removed to Greenfield Street later.
Adam states ,"At length one of the women went away,disappeared."

* date of the marriage was 29 October 1889-not August Bank Holiday 1889 as wrongly recalled by Stanislaus Baderski, Lucy"s brother,at Chapman"s trial.

Sam Flynn
04-29-2009, 01:52 AM
Hello Nats,Sam,
I noticed during the podcast that you questioned whether or not Klosowski had lived with both "wives" . According to HL Adam,in The Trial of George Chapman, which I have only just been able to obtain from the library,he says that it is likely he had been married in Poland before he came to LondonR Michael Gordon referred to the incident where Klosowski's two "wives" met, and - as HL Adam puts it - one of them "disappeared". As I pointed out, HL Adam gets this bit wrong, and that Lucy Baderski was this mysterious "Polish wife", as the following proves.

HL Adam says this in the Introduction to his book (I'll quote a bit more of he same passage you posted, as it's relevant):
"It is indeed probable that he was already married before he came to this country. At any rate, a woman came to England from either Russia or Poland, and claimed him as her husband Klosowski [...] had already gone through a marriage ceremony with another woman. [B]The two women met at his house. Both claimed [to be] the real wife, and neither would give way to the other. For some time the two women actually lived in the same building as this enterprising barber. [...] At length, one of the women went away - disappeared - leaving the other mistress [because] of the situation. The one woman who remained was the Polish woman, Lucy Baderski." (Adam, The Trial of George Chapman, p3)

However, this is a clear misreading of an episode that occurred between Annie Chapman and Lucy Baderski as the following excerpt from Annie Chapman's testimony describes:
- "Do you recognise that woman, Mrs Klosowski [née Lucy Baderski]?"

- "Yes, he brought her to the shop where I was living with him. He said she was his wife".

- "Did you all three live in the house for some weeks after that?"

- "Yes, and I then left. That was the reason why I left ." ([I]Ibid., pp 101-102. Also in the trial transcripts of the Old Bailey.)
Annie tells us that this happened in Jan/Feb 1895, and given that Annie herself was evidently the "disappearing wife", she clearly couldn't have been the Pinchin Street Torso, as Gordon suggests.

This also tells me that HL Adam's "Introduction" to the book should be read with extreme caution, given that he made this elementary error. Far better to stick to the Court transcripts.

babybird67
04-29-2009, 07:42 PM
firstly, the podcast was great...everyone was very informative and i learned a lot. It's a great way also to take in the information and to put a voice to a boardname (Sam...when i am reading your posts now i "hear" them in your lovely Welsh lilt!)

Thanks for those bits about the Polish wife thing...it's so easy to read something/hear something and think it correct isnt it...this whole subject is a minefield!

and Dave...hahaha...you were excellent, and not in the slightest moronic!

I still think it would be interesting as Michael said to go and have a dig at a couple of addresses where Chapman was known to have lived...would be fab if something turned up.

Natalie Severn
04-29-2009, 10:05 PM
Thanks Sam,
Yes,I have had a chance today to read through more of the book that I have only had for a couple of days, and I had actually worked this one out for myself Sam, earlier on!
It would seem to me that the Polish wife is non other than Lucy Baderski.Neither Lucy"s brother, brother in law , sister or Wolff Levisohn---who seems to have been everywhere in Whitechapel like a rash between 1888 and 1890---make even a passing reference to any "Polish wife " having come over from Poland and I think they would have, had it actually happened!
In any case there were apparently indications of prostitution on the Pinchin Street torso and none of Chapman"s "wives" appear to have been prostitutes.

baby bird,
Yes you are quite right about the need for a "dig" at those known Chapman addresses .Astonishing it wasnt done at the time really.I mean Fred West"s houses ,gardens, cellars were combed throughout as was Christie"s only 50 years later!
Cheers
Norma

thewastelandr
05-03-2009, 06:13 PM
Please try deleting/removing the show from your iTunes podcast library (it will give you the option of keeping the files you can say "yes"), go back into the iTunes music store and re-subscribe. There should now be a "Get" button next to each episode back in your library listing. You should be able to download each episode.

I am showing no broken feeds when I do this myself.

Please let me know if it works.

Thanks,

JM
It's still not working after I did what you said. Arrgh! Oh well, must be my computer. Thanks for the tip!

jmenges
05-03-2009, 06:23 PM
What exactly is happening when you try to download it via iTunes? Are you getting an error message of any kind? And, can you not right-click download to get the episode from the streaming episode page?

Are you on dial-up?

Let me know exactly what is occurring (stalled download, exclamation point in iTunes etc) and hopefully we can figure out how to fix it.

We can take this to PM if you wish...

JM

thewastelandr
05-03-2009, 06:27 PM
When I click on "get" on the subscriptions page, this episode won't download. I'm not on dial-up, so that is strange. When I right-click on the episode, there is no option to download that way.

I feel like a major idiot if I'm doing something stupid here. What's PM?

jmenges
05-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Just to make sure you are right clicking in the correct place...

on this page: http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=88

Embedded in this sentence

If you'd like to download the full mp3 you may do so by clicking here. You may wish to right-click on this link and select "Save as" in order to save the .mp3 file directly to your computer.

is the linked mp3.

As far as it not allowing you to "Get" it on iTunes, is that just with this episode? If so, I'd double check to see if you don't already have it. Look in your music folder- iTunes- iTunes Music- Podcasts. The mp3 is titled The_Chapman_Ripper_Theory.mp3 When you download podcasts from iTunes it places them in this Podcast folder it creates inside your iTunes Music Folder.

As another option, I've uploaded the show to RapidShare. Please try to download it from this location:

http://rapidshare.com/files/228719391/The_Chapman-Ripper_Theory.mp3.html

Click Free User, wait 30 seconds and you should be able to download it.

PM is Private Message. On the upper right corner of this site is your Private Message mailbox.

Hope this helps!

JM

thewastelandr
05-04-2009, 07:29 PM
Thanks, Jonathan! I got it from the first link, can't wait to listen! Good luck with your move! :)

HelenaWojtczak
06-27-2011, 06:49 PM
Hello Nats,R Michael Gordon referred to the incident where Klosowski's two "wives" met, and - as HL Adam puts it - one of them "disappeared". As I pointed out, HL Adam gets this bit wrong, and that Lucy Baderski was this mysterious "Polish wife", as the following proves..

I have an idea!

Lucy is unhappy in the marriage, and takes a trip home to Poland, with her daughter, partly to let her family see the child and partly to consult with her mother about the state of her marriage (Klosowski's violence, or womanising?

Maybe she doesn't even tell Klosowski when (or if) she will be back in London.

So, Klosowski sets up home with Annie Chapman. Either because he wants his marriage to be over and has moved on, or because he believes Lucy won't be coming back to him.

Then, when he's settled with Annie, Lucy turns up.

Helena

HelenaWojtczak
07-04-2011, 12:45 PM
I am rather staggered that R. Michael Gordon, having written so many books on Klosowski, thinks that Klosowski's passport was issued to allow him to travel to London/the USA.

The actual list of the documents of his found in 1902 makes it clear that the passport was for use "within the limits of the Kingdom of Poland" (as David pointed out).

Helena

PS Passports were not needed for travel within Europe until the First World War.