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

[jmenges]

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!



JM

[jmenges]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

he was almost definitely in Whitechapel at the time, Chapman is a very strong suspect indeed, regardless of what his critics say

[Sam Flynn]

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]

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]

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]

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