change in modus operandi

[nickie]

Hi All,
I know that this was debated before, and it seemed interesting then so I figured I'd start it up again. While I know it's unusual for a killer to change his m.o. I do believe it is possible. In the case of our old friend George Chapman here, it could be a possibility that he went from the heinous crimes against the canonical five (and quite possibly some of the others), to poisoning his "wives". I'm not saying it's probable, just possible. Any thoughts?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Yes, serial killers do change their modus operandi, but they don't change personality, which is what we are expected to accept here. Nor do I agree with that he fit any criterias at all for the Ripper in other respect. And I seriously doubt - as in the cases of all serial poisoners - that Klosowski would have enjoyed getting his hands dirty by ripping up people with a knife.

But I do agree with Maria on that Klosowski appears to have gotten off on the suffering of his victims and the infliction of pain, while the Ripper evidently was into a quick kill and then the post mortem mutilations. The two killer's needs are indeed very different and the talk of change of MO really doesn't apply here since it goes beyond that. They are two completely different personalities with different needs and agendas, and both appear to have been compulsive killers, quite consistent and true to their methods in their own right.

All the best

[mariag]

Hi, Glenn--

The other thing that strikes me is that if we buy the Chapman scenario we're giving an awful lot of credence to Abberline's opinion. I just read some of his words about Chapman it seems tht,15 years after the WM, he was as eager to bend facts to theory as some of the suspect based authors are. Frustration is a terrible thing.

[mariag]

BTW, I apparently deleted my first post but it was basically what Glenn said.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi, Glenn--

The other thing that strikes me is that if we buy the Chapman scenario we're giving an awful lot of credence to Abberline's opinion. I just read some of his words about Chapman it seems tht,15 years after the WM, he was as eager to bend facts to theory as some of the suspect based authors are. Frustration is a terrible thing.

Hi Maria,

Indeed. And as you may know, I tend to take Abberline's views with a bit of salt. At least I refuse to give his views more credence than those of others officials.

All the best

[mariag]

Exactly, Glenn. That " Ah you've got Jack the Ripper at last" comment comes more from professional exhaustion and frustration than anything else, I think.

Just because a man is a serial killer of some women doesn't mean he's the serial killer of all women.

[sdreid]

Hi all,

No two serial killers are exactly alike. They are not robots or worker bees. Some kill the same way each time and some kill different ways. Some kill only a certain type of victim, others change victim types and still others murder indiscriminately. Some kill with large separations in time while others keep a more or less steady pace. Chapman can not be eliminated as a possible suspect. I wonder why we continue have these arguments about Chapman and not, say, Bury or Deeming.

[perrymason]

Hi all...Nickie,

As others have pointed out, there is no suit that serial killers all fit into, but in the scenario you are suggesting with the thread, the change from instant gratification with a dead woman, to the sadist and prolonged torture of a live person, coupled with the apparent motive being money in the latter cases,...for myself, there is no question...MR K was not also J the R

It was years after the Ripper cases were cold, and during Chapmans trial when Abberline made his remarks, and all that demonstrates really is his lingering frustration at having left those cases unsolved,...the very neighbourhood that helped him build his reputation as competent and dedicated, that enabled his promotion downtown....he was called "back home" to catch a killer...and he failed them.

I think that might also explain George Hutchinson and Fred Abberline a bit.

My very best.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I wonder why we continue have these arguments about Chapman and not, say, Bury or Deeming.

Because Deeming can be ruled out for a number of other reasons, and as far as Bury is concerned, he only killed once and in a style that was quite Ripper-like (in contrast to people like Klosowski).

And no, Klosowski isn't a possible Ripper suspect.

All the best

[Monty]

Hey Guys,

Id like to bring a point up about Abberline and Klosowiski (Chapman).

There is no supporting evidence towards the "youve caught him at last" quote. Lack of verification makes this quote suspect.

Also, in the PMG article, Abberline states his opinion that a killer of Chapmans type could have been a killer of Jacks type, NOT that he was Jack.

I personally blame HL Adams.

Monty

[Monty]

Hey Glenn,

I agree with much of what you said but cant help question the alledged barber surgeon aspect of Chapman.

There we have medical knowledge and he knew how to use a knife. Maybe this is why Chapman stands apart from the others with extremely alternate MO.

Cheers
Monty

[Pilgrim]

"All Agree, Too, That He Was A Foreign-looking Man."

Hi Monty, I remember you were posting about Abberline a few weeks ago. Thanks for the reminder.

~~~

Pall Mall Gazette, 24 March 1903

"It is a remarkable thing," Mr. Abberline pointed out, "that after the Whitechapel horrors America should have been the place where a similar kind of murder began, as though the miscreant had not fully supplied the demand of the American agent.

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign-looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."

~~~

Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March 1903

"As to the question of the dissimilarity of character in the crimes which one hears so much about," continued the expert, "I cannot see why one man should not have done both, provided he had the professional knowledge, and this is admitted in Chapman's case. A man who could watch his wives being slowly tortured to death by poison, as he did, was capable of anything; and the fact that he should have attempted, in such a cold-blooded manner to murder his first wife with a knife in New Jersey, makes one more inclined to believe in the theory that he was mixed up in the two series of crimes. What, indeed, is more likely than that a man to some extent skilled in medicine and surgery should discontinue the use of a knife when his commission--and I still believe Chapman had a commission from America--came to an end, and then for the remainder of his ghastly deeds put into practice his knowledge of poisons? Indeed, if the theory be accepted that a man who takes life on a whole-sale scale never ceases his accursed habit until he is either arrested or dies, there is much to be said for Chapman's consistency. You see, incentive changes; but the fiendishness is not eradicated. The victims, too, you will notice, continue to be women ; but they are of different classes, and obviously call for different methods of despatch."

~~~

It does not seem that Abberline expressed a definite view on Chapman, as being the Ripper. And to the extent that he may have believed that Chapman could have been the Ripper it might seem, from his last statement on the 31st, that this view had to some extent been mistakenly conditioned by the belief that Chapman had made a "cold-blooded" attempt to murder his wife in Jersey.

And Abberline also made that other conditional statement - the one about the theory that "a man who takes life on a whole-sale scale never ceases his accursed habit". It's my general impression that his statements on the 31st were somewhat more cautious than his initial comments a week earlier.

My Regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hey Glenn,

I agree with much of what you said but cant help question the alledged barber surgeon aspect of Chapman.

There we have medical knowledge and he knew how to use a knife. Maybe this is why Chapman stands apart from the others with extremely alternate MO.

Cheers
Monty

Hey Monty,

Not really, because the whole point about medical knowledge in connection with the ripper is without foundation and has no bearing at all. There were most likely no real signs of any skills with a knife or anatomical knowledge beyond what was required by a butcher - and as we know, there were many of them in the East End. The point about 'medical/surgical' knowledge is just as irrelevant as everything else regarding Klosowski.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hey Guys,

Id like to bring a point up about Abberline and Klosowiski (Chapman).

There is no supporting evidence towards the "youve caught him at last" quote. Lack of verification makes this quote suspect.

Also, in the PMG article, Abberline states his opinion that a killer of Chapmans type could have been a killer of Jacks type, NOT that he was Jack.

I personally blame HL Adams.

Monty

In my judgement you are absolute correct on all counts here, Monty. Agreed.

All the best

[Monty]

Glenn,

So the fact that Brown and Sequeira for example, state medical knowledge, albeit limited, is irrelevant to barber-surgeon Chapman?

I cant see that myself. Doesnt make him Jack, not by a long way. Also doesnt make the two Doctors correct but he is too oft dismissed out of hand in my most humble and irrelevant opinion.

cheers
Monty