thank you

[protohistorian]

Again my thanks to all who have posted on thought experiment, additionally, I have shared thoughts on other threads regarding this suspect and some concerns of others regarding his suspecthood. I may be new to Ripperology, but I am not shy and timid so dont pull any punches. Live strong Dave

[jmenges]

Hi Dave,

Going somewhere?

I'll let slip that we'll be podcasting on George Chapman on 22 Feb. Hopefully with a very special guest. So stay tuned for that.

It's about time some of these Chapman threads are resurrected, so I thank you for putting some life back into the topic. He's been on my mind lately.

JM

[protohistorian]

Hi Dave,

Going somewhere?

I'll let slip that we'll be podcasting on George Chapman on 22 Feb. Hopefully with a very special guest. So stay tuned for that.

It's about time some of these Chapman threads are resurrected, so I thank you for putting some life back into the topic. He's been on my mind lately.

JM

Not a problem. His pathology is right for it anyhow.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, it definitely is not.

It's all monsense. Chapman is probably one of the least fitting suspects fiorn the Ripper crimes.
It's all based on the notion that in Chapman we already have a serial killer so therefore some people insists on tying them togheter. In fact, the existense of other killers and also other serial killers in the same area suggests that this whole approach is wrong to begin with - there were other serial killers like Neil Cream, and who actually chose prostitutes as victims and therefore would be more fitting than Klosowski - but since he possibly was incarcerated in the US at the time of the Ripper murders, he has to be exonerated. But he proves that other killers were operating. So choosing Klosowski on mere grounds that he was a serial killer is not a valid argument, especially since his mindset, approach, and choice of victims are totally in another ball park.

Judging from their crimes, the Ripper and Klosowski don't even seem to share the same psyhological traits. And as usual, the arguments and psycho babble that people use to justify Kloswski's candidacy are far-fetched to the extreme.

Even Lewis Carroll or marilyn Monore are more likely Ripper suspects than Klosowski.

All the best

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello proto

As I posted in the Carrie Brown thread the case against Chapman (Klosowski) is based on misinformation obtained from Abberline, by 1903 long retired, reiterated by Hargrave Adam in The Trial of George Chapman (1930), outright fabrication by Donald McCormick in The Identity of Jack the Ripper, inventing a supposed investigation into Chapman by Abberline in 1888 that did not exist, and the unfortunate acceptance of all this misinformation and fabrication by recent writer R. Michael Gordon. There really is no case against Chapman except an invented one and a candidacy that is of the "wish it were true" variety. He's a non-starter as a viable suspect.

All the best

Chris

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

I really wish that you would preface your posts with "In my opinion." As they read now, it is though you have the final word and there can be no disagreement.

The case against Chapman is weak I agree but the same can be said for all the suspects. It is not simply the fact that Chapman was a serial killer that makes him a viable suspect. You left out the fact that he (apparently) lived in the area, he had some medical training and it appears as though he was suspected by Abberline, Godley and Neil. Does that make him the Ripper? No, of course not but it is a far cry from pulling his name out of a hat as you would have us believe.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello proto

As I posted in the Carrie Brown thread the case against Chapman (Klosowski) is based on misinformation obtained from Abberline, by 1903 long retired, reiterated by Hargrave Adam in The Trial of George Chapman (1930), outright fabrication by Donald McCormick in The Identity of Jack the Ripper, inventing a supposed investigation into Chapman by Abberline in 1888 that did not exist, and the unfortunate acceptance of all this misinformation and fabrication by recent writer R. Michael Gordon. There really is no case against Chapman except an invented one and a candidacy that is of the "wish it were true" variety. He's a non-starter as a viable suspect.

All the best

Chris

You're absolutely right, Chris.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,

I really wish that you would preface your posts with "In my opinion." As they read now, it is though you have the final word and there can be no disagreement.

The case against Chapman is weak I agree but the same can be said for all the suspects. It is not simply the fact that Chapman was a serial killer that makes him a viable suspect. You left out the fact that he (apparently) lived in the area, he had some medical training and it appears as though he was suspected by Abberline, Godley and Neil. Does that make him the Ripper? No, of course not but it is a far cry from pulling his name out of a hat as you would have us believe.

c.d.

Indeed: The fact that Klosowski was a serial killer is probably among the WEAKEST arguments for his candidacy.
As In tried to explain the area had other serial killers like Neil Cream. In fact, in Neil Cream we have a second poisoner! So not only do we have another serial killer but we also have another serial poisoner!
Of course Cream wasn't the Ripper, but it clearly illustrates that it is not viable to use the the fact that Klosowski was a serial killer as an argument. Unless oneu believe Klosowski and Cream was one and the same.

That is for the serial killer argument.
I think Chris George covered the rest.
Klosowski is pulled out of a hat, because there is absolutely nothing that ties him to the Ripper murders: wrong psychological profile, wrong modus opernadi, wrong type of victims etc. The only thing that ties him to the Ripper crimes is a rather incompetent statement Abberline made in a paper interview fifteen years after the murders.

All the best

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

Well please read my post again. You keep harping on the serial killer issue and leaving out the other factors.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

c.d.,

There are no other factors.

Alol the best

[c.d.]

Glenn,

You might want to go back and read Sugden again.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

C.d.,

I don't care about Sugden. There are other authors that are just as influental and knowledgable as Sugden but who discounts Klosowski. Sugden is no God. Nor was Abberline.
besides, there is absolutely nothing in the chapter of Sugden's book that in any way makes Klosowski a viable suspect for the Ripper. It is, however, a very interesting presentation of a Victorian criminal and a character in his own right.

All the best

[protohistorian]

Indeed: The fact that Klosowski was a serial killer is probably among the WEAKEST arguments for his candidacy.
As In tried to explain the area had other serial killers like Neil Cream. In fact, in Neil Cream we have a second poisoner! So not only do we have another serial killer but we also have another serial poisoner!
Of course Cream wasn't the Ripper, but it clearly illustrates that it is not viable to use the the fact that Klosowski was a serial killer as an argument. Unless oneu believe Klosowski and Cream was one and the same.

That is for the serial killer argument.
I think Chris George covered the rest.
Klosowski is pulled out of a hat, because there is absolutely nothing that ties him to the Ripper murders: wrong psychological profile, wrong modus opernadi, wrong type of victims etc. The only thing that ties him to the Ripper crimes is a rather incompetent statement Abberline made in a paper interview fifteen years after the murders.

All the best

Actually, his profile is dead on, In My opinion

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Only in your own mind, Dave. In my opinion.

All the best

[truebluedub]

Sugden and Chapman

Hi,
Reading these recent Chapman posts reminded me of previous posts placed on earlier versions of these boards, this one in particular:

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan

Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2003

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:08 pm: Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)
Then I'd turn away Phil, cause some people might care to hear it.

Sugden was forced into including the chapter on a suspect he was to push by the publisher. He really doesn't, or didn't believe 'JTR' was Severin Klosowski, but rather when forced to include a suspect he chose the suspect he believed was mistakenly endorsed by Abberline. It was more of a backing of Abberline, than a backing of Klosowski, who wasn't endorsed by Abberline until March of 1903.

And it's nice to see you're still as disrespectful as ever Phil, even after an apology, praise for an earlier post to AAR and an attempt to move forward. Good to see your short sightedness extends past the case.

And keep thinking that because one conspiracy is wrong with regards to the case that that means every and all conspiracies have to be wrong. By that logic, you disrespectful uppity waste of space, since one suspect is innocent all suspects are innocent. But I don't suppose you'd understand the implications of your own bullshit Phil.

Now I'm through with you. You may go.

SJR

Chris Lowe