Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by Joshua Rogan 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by miss marple 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (18 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (5 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Mug Shots from 1908-1911 - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81  
Old 04-08-2015, 06:25 AM
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,497
Default MKH and red fish

The article I referenced says the opposite to what you are saying John. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20542945

Ritual and signature are fantasy-driven, repetitive crime scene behaviors that have been found to occur in serial sexual homicide. Notwithstanding numerous anecdotal case reports, ritual and signature have rarely been studied empirically. In a national sample of 38 offenders and their 162 victims, we examined behavioral and thematic consistency, as well as the evolution and uniqueness of these crime scene actions. The notion that serial sexual murderers engage in the same rituals and leave unique signatures at every scene was not supported by our data. In fact, the results suggest that the crime scene conduct of this group of offenders is fairly complex and varied. Implications of these findings for forensic assessments and criminal investigations are discussed.

I also don't feel this contradicts Keppel because Keppel isn't producing a journal article on general ideas about MO/Signature. Its a profile of JtR.

Quote:
In fact, it cannot even be argued that George Chapman was solely motivated by money, as he clearly enjoyed the power and control that being a slow poisoner gave him.
He had already been to court for debts he said where owed to him. One man was jailed (and then freed when Chapman got into trouble). So Chapman has a history of crime for financial gain. Did he get any other kick out of it. Probably. He was horrible man.

Quote:
As Abberline pointed out: "A man who could watch his wives being slowly tortured to death by poison, as he did, was capable of anything..." This differs greatly from JtR'S motivational factors: "the killers's signature is organized around the sexual violence committed against his victims...it is likely that Jack the Ripper utilized the violence of slashing and stabbing his victims with a knife as methods for exercising power and control over the victim." (Keppel et al, 2005.)
However, this is not a barrier to a change in MO or signature. Keppel is giving us a profile of JtR. I don't think this should be used as a paper that states Keppels findings on MO/Signatures in general. In fact the lack of barrier, relax in time constraints and the examples you asked for demonstrate we know more now about how the idea of clone murders is simply not acceptable. Klosowski wasn't passed it either in age.

Quote:
In fact, if you accept that hypothesis why not accept the multiple killer hypothesis? At least there's some empirical evidence for that argument. i.e. differences in anatomical knowledge/ surgical skill demonstrated.
Its in variation of MO and variation of signature that one can reject the multiple killer hypothesis (MKH) as that hypothesis discounts MO or signature can show ANY variation.
This is why one asks of those who propose the MKH if they accept or reject MO or signature can change.

Quote:
In my opinion we need to move beyond completely untenable suspects, like George Chapman, who can easily be rejected, towards far more sensible alternatives like William Bury and Frances Thompson.
I think there are questions left unanswered about Chapman, his refusal to admit he is Klosowski and reason why. Geoprofiling and George's Yard have a connection. Since Klosowski is connected to George's Yard, even if after 1890, this is going hang over him, excuse the pun.

To finish off I think the “lust killer to poisoner” rebuttal has been a red herring all along. This is because if we look at the spectrum of serial crimes where MO and signature have changed, we can ask the same thing but in different ways “wife poisoner to arsonist” (Klosowski was an attempted arsonist btw), “lust killer of women to killer of men”, “killer of homosexuals who kill a heterosexual”. We may find there is only one, two or three or no examples of some combinations, but all we need is one change to show it can happen (the article above says it does happen a lot more than we think), plus Chapman did literally try to change his life several times.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.

Last edited by Batman : 04-08-2015 at 06:28 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-08-2015, 06:49 AM
Harry D Harry D is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
In my opinion we need to move beyond completely untenable suspects, like George Chapman, who can easily be rejected, towards far more sensible alternatives like William Bury and Frances Thompson.
I don't know if I'd put Bury and Thompson in the same bracket, John. Bury was a guy who left the East End soon after the (canonical) murders ended and was executed for a similar(ish) crime. There's nothing in Thompson's make-up to suggest that he was even capable of such violent acts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-08-2015, 09:08 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Hello Batman,

I am somewhat perplexed by your last post. Schlesinger's research refers to sexual homicide, which Chapman's wife murders certainly were not. And to quote Schlesinger in full: "Specifically, the notion that offenders leave unique signatures [ defined as a "unique, ritualistic act not seen at any other crime scene in the sample, i.e. eye enucleation"; or a "ritualistic act that was a unique or distinctive way to carry out a familiar act"; "or a combination of acts that, when taken together, were distinctive and unique"] at every scene is not supported by the data. Although almost all the offenders in our sample engaged in some form of ritualistic behaviour, they rarely engaged in exactly the same behaviour at each murder. Most rituals were not identical but they were behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved." Schlesinger et al, 2010)

Therefore ritualistic crime scene behaviour is not always completely identical but similar and thematically consistent. Examples of evolution or elaboration of rituals included post-mortem genital mutilation progressing to dismemberment.

However, how can a signature organized around the "sexualized violence committed against his victims" components of which are "control of the victim and progressive picquerism", with a further characteristic being the need to "completely incapacitate his victims and gain there immediate submission" (Keppel, 2005), evolve into abandoning sexualized violence, in favour of slowly poisoning the victim, whilst remaining "behaviourally similar and thematically consistent."? Of course it can't. The notion's completely absurd.

That is no doubt why there has never been a single recorded example of a sexual serial killer, targeting strangers, evolving into a slow poisoner targeting victims known to them.

Of course, the irony is that the multiple killer hypothesis has been criticized on the grounds that it is unprecedented, only for an equally unprecedented solution to be adopted or seriously considered!

If this theory were correct then signature analysis would be useless, as serial killers would be completely unpredictable. I can, therefore, only conclude that anyone who supports this argument has decided to abandon signature analysis in favour of their own curious, unsupported, theory. Good luck!

Last edited by John G : 04-08-2015 at 09:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-08-2015, 09:48 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
I don't know if I'd put Bury and Thompson in the same bracket, John. Bury was a guy who left the East End soon after the (canonical) murders ended and was executed for a similar(ish) crime. There's nothing in Thompson's make-up to suggest that he was even capable of such violent acts.
Hello Harry,

I think Richard Patterson make a reasonable case for Thompson. I am impressed by the fact that he trained as a surgeon- Trevor's experts seem to think the killer must have had high level of surgical skill, assuming the body parts were removed at the crime scene- and that he may have been living very close to Kelly when she was murdered; in fact he might even have resembled Hutchinson's suspect!

He also seems to fit the profile fairly well. According to Richard His only relationship was with a prostitute, which lasted just a year before she disappeared never to be seen again. Serial killers, predisposed to sexual homicide, often have problems forming conventional relationships. Moreover, he committed acts of arson when a child, as do 56% of serial killers. He also mutilated a doll as a child, as did Kemper.

Of course, this biggest problem is that, unlike Bury, he is not known to have committed acts of violence, let alone murder. I believe he wrote about committing acts of violence in his poetry but them so did Robert Browning, and he's obviously not a suspect! See, for example, "Porphyria's Lover."

I would therefore conclude that Thompson should be considered as a serious suspect but I'm undecided as to whether he should be regarded as serious as Bury, who for several years was my number one suspect- and that's before the new information linking him to Whitechapel! Didn't he train as butcher as well?

Last edited by John G : 04-08-2015 at 09:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-08-2015, 10:50 AM
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,497
Default The Keppel paper isn't a paper about general MO/Signatures

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello Batman,

I am somewhat perplexed by your last post. Schlesinger's research refers to sexual homicide, which Chapman's wife murders certainly were not. And to quote Schlesinger in full: "Specifically, the notion that offenders leave unique signatures [ defined as a "unique, ritualistic act not seen at any other crime scene in the sample, i.e. eye enucleation"; or a "ritualistic act that was a unique or distinctive way to carry out a familiar act"; "or a combination of acts that, when taken together, were distinctive and unique"] at every scene is not supported by the data. Although almost all the offenders in our sample engaged in some form of ritualistic behaviour, they rarely engaged in exactly the same behaviour at each murder. Most rituals were not identical but they were behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved." Schlesinger et al, 2010)
Sorry but that looks misleading. You are saying you are quoting the paper's author in full, but haven't you have altered it. http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf

This is what the DIRECT quote actually said.

Our research suggests that the crime scene actions
of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and var-
ied. Specifically, the notion that offenders leave
unique signatures at every scene is not supported by
the data


How more clear can it be than that? Also if you read the paper you can see they are highly critical of views that signatures don't change. The whole paper is about that. It is also critical of saying the same thing about ritual. It explains the problems of saying X is ritual and Y is signature. There is an amount of subjectivity in that, not objectivity. Hence its a psychology, not a science (important).

This is easy to demonstrate. For example, what is your grounds to say my view has Chapman 'changing' signature? I don't have to present that case at all. Again, there is nothing stopping a lust killer pausing and making a profit through poisoning people. In fact what's absurd is the idea that the mentality of someone as messed up as a lust killer, couldn't pull off another crime! There is no barrier here, sir. None. Plus, as I mentioned, Chapman had already been involved in other financial crimes. If a thief evolves into a serial killer, does that mean they can't steal anymore? How do we know poisoning wasn't something JtR experimented before turning to something else? The idea of constant escalation is only as good as the mental state of the person and the environment they are in. Different pressures change things.


Quote:
However, how can a signature organized around the "sexualized violence committed against his victims" components of which are "control of the victim and progressive picquerism", with a further characteristic being the need to "completely incapacitate his victims and gain there immediate submission" (Keppel, 2005), evolve into abandoning sexualized violence, in favour of slowly poisoning the victim, whilst remaining "behaviourally similar and thematically consistent."? Of course it can't. The notion's completely absurd.
What you have to demonstrate is that Keppel today believes signatures don't change. What you can't do is use a paper that is about a case specific profile from 2005 to say that's his view on MOs/signature in general.

Quote:
That is no doubt why there has never been a single recorded example of a sexual serial killer, targeting strangers, evolving into a slow poisoner targeting victims known to them.
We have serial killers who have killed both strangers and people they knew, including immediate family members, after they killed strangers. Edmund Kemper shot, stabbed and smothered strangers. Then after that he decided to turn a hammer on his mum. Stranger homicides followed by a matricide. Countless cases of stuff like this.

There is also the additional problem that since the early 20th century it was looking less likely anyone would get away with poisoning a loved one and certainly not today. Back in 1890s it was obviously even a problem then! We do however have plenty of lust killers who changed MOs and signatures.


Quote:
Of course, the irony is that the multiple killer hypothesis has been criticized on the grounds that it is unprecedented, only for an equally unprecedented solution to be adopted or seriously considered!
Changing in MO and signature is exampled with the peer-review above given. The MKH is unexampled.

Quote:
If this theory were correct then signature analysis would be useless, as serial killers would be completely unpredictable. I can, therefore, only conclude that anyone who supports this argument has decided to abandon signature analysis in favour of their own curious, unsupported, theory. Good luck!
Your view is why serial killers often don't get connected because you don't think signature can vary as much as being demonstrated. I think you are proposing an odd barrier to other criminal behaviour, which doesn't exist. What is this block exactly?
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.

Last edited by Batman : 04-08-2015 at 10:53 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 04-08-2015, 11:15 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Sorry but that looks misleading. You are saying you are quoting the paper's author in full, but haven't you have altered it. http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf

This is what the DIRECT quote actually said.

Our research suggests that the crime scene actions
of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and var-
ied. Specifically, the notion that offenders leave
unique signatures at every scene is not supported by
the data


How more clear can it be than that? Also if you read the paper you can see they are highly critical of views that signatures don't change. The whole paper is about that. It is also critical of saying the same thing about ritual. It explains the problems of saying X is ritual and Y is signature. There is an amount of subjectivity in that, not objectivity. Hence its a psychology, not a science (important).

This is easy to demonstrate. For example, what is your grounds to say my view has Chapman 'changing' signature? I don't have to present that case at all. Again, there is nothing stopping a lust killer pausing and making a profit through poisoning people. In fact what's absurd is the idea that the mentality of someone as messed up as a lust killer, couldn't pull off another crime! There is no barrier here, sir. None. Plus, as I mentioned, Chapman had already been involved in other financial crimes. If a thief evolves into a serial killer, does that mean they can't steal anymore? How do we know poisoning wasn't something JtR experimented before turning to something else? The idea of constant escalation is only as good as the mental state of the person and the environment they are in. Different pressures change things.




What you have to demonstrate is that Keppel today believes signatures don't change. What you can't do is use a paper that is about a case specific profile from 2005 to say that's his view on MOs/signature in general.



We have serial killers who have killed both strangers and people they knew, including immediate family members, after they killed strangers. Edmund Kemper shot, stabbed and smothered strangers. Then after that he decided to turn a hammer on his mum. Stranger homicides followed by a matricide. Countless cases of stuff like this.

There is also the additional problem that since the early 20th century it was looking less likely anyone would get away with poisoning a loved one and certainly not today. Back in 1890s it was obviously even a problem then! We do however have plenty of lust killers who changed MOs and signatures.




Changing in MO and signature is exampled with the peer-review above given. The MKH is unexampled.



Your view is why serial killers often don't get connected because you don't think signature can vary as much as being demonstrated. I think you are proposing an odd barrier to other criminal behaviour, which doesn't exist. What is this block exactly?
Hello,

I can only reiterate what I've stated before: sex murderers don't become slow poisoners and you cannot cite a single example to the contrary, and neither did Schlesinger: Schlesinger et al, 2010, Table 4. You therefore have zero precedent for such an hypothesis.

Moreover, I did cite it full. As I've tried to explain to you "unique signature" is defined as "a unique ritualistic act not seen at seen at any other crime scene in the sample" etc. Now, of course, that can change. However, as I've also pointed out to you when it does change it remains "behaviourally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed and evolved.", ie to something "behaviourally similar and thematically constant": see Table 4. An example of evolution of signature that is given is that of a post-mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment. In fact, a simple way of proving this is to refer you to Table 4 again, where all the examples of evolution of signature are given. As you will note the changes are all consistent with sexual homicide, and this is clearly what Schelsinger based his conclusions on.

What doesn't happen is a signature, consistent with sexual homicide, evolving into a signature consistent with a slow poisoner (see Table 4). If it did signature analysis would become completely useless as you would be unable to link such diametrically opposed behaviours.

Last edited by John G : 04-08-2015 at 11:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 04-08-2015, 12:34 PM
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,497
Default

What you are saying is that Chapman can be dismissed because there are no examples of a signature change like it.

I say prove Chapman didn't kill for financial gain and was too old to continue lust murders and prove he couldn't pause for long. Also demonstrate no whitechapel murders occurred during the poisoning of his wives.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 04-08-2015, 12:52 PM
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,497
Default

In terms of financial gain, anything can happen. We don't even know how many ways in total Richard Leonard "The Iceman" Kuklinski killed his victims but poison, knife, gun, where all used. While not a lust killer it shows money as a motivating factor can influence things like this.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 04-08-2015, 04:49 PM
Tecs Tecs is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 253
Default

Dear all,

We're getting really deep here but to take it back a step and take a looser look at it, I've always thought that Chapman/Klosowski is a viable suspect for several reasons but mainly the obvious one that is so often overlooked or underestimated, namely that thankfully, very few people have it within them to commit cold blooded murder. If we take out the vast majority of murders which are heat of the moment, rush of blood to the head killings, percentage wise the number of people actually capable of carrying out a cold blooded murder once let alone over and over, is thankfully, negligible. We see people's names thrown into the mix for Jack the Ripper so casually that we forget the bar is set very, very high in terms of actually being pyschologically capable of doing it. To put it simply, very, very few people would have been capable of carrying out multiple killings. Chapman we know was one, what are the statistical chances that by coincidence there just happened to be another one living in almost exactly the same place at the same time?

Also, I've always thought that although on the surface they look like sexual killings, there may be another motive. If, and I say if! the motive was obtaining organs for financial gain, then the type of person who would do that would be somebody completely cold, completely ruthless and so focussed on simply getting what they want that they are completely oblivious to any pain and suffering they are imposing. Exactly the thing Chapman did later on when he was getting rid of his unwanted attachments.

regards,
__________________
If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.