Mile End Vigilance Committee

[tji]

Absolutely. And it's inexcusable to see a name and to uncritically assume it's the same person, without cross-referencing with other details such as age, physical description, newspaper reports.

One thing I can NEVER be accused of is not checking my sources Maria. Not once did we ever state unequivocally that the Jacob Levy accused of sexual assault was 'our' Jacob Levy.
The sexual assault case was never a factor in the fact of Jacob being a Jtr suspect, it was just a bonus find. The fact that he was a different Jacob Levy does not detract anything away from him as a suspect.


As to him getting incarcerated because he had syphilis, that isn't how it worked, no one would be put in an asylum just because they had syphilis.

Tj

[Wickerman]

"A coterie of top detectives -Abberline, Godley and Neil-thus developed the strong conviction that Severin Klosowski, the man hanged at Wandsworth as George Chapman, was also Jack the Ripper."

The Complete History of Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden (page 455).

c.d.

As the above noted police officials were on duty during the Whitechapel Murders', any suggestion as to their opinions tends to leave the reader with the impression that these officials thought Klosowski was the Ripper at the time, which is clearly not the case.

Even Abberline's opinion on the connection is at best third-hand. From what I recall it was H. L. Adam who wrote in 1930, giving the impression his source was Godley, who is suggested to have heard Abberline make the connection back in 1903.

Old men romancing about how near they were to catching him, if only......

[Chris]

As the above noted police officials were on duty during the Whitechapel Murders', any suggestion as to their opinions tends to leave the reader with the impression that these officials thought Klosowski was the Ripper at the time, which is clearly not the case.

It doesn't in its original context, where Sugden had just laid out the evidence in full. Nor does it here, as Adam specified "in later years."

Even Abberline's opinion on the connection is at best third-hand.

Of course it isn't. He was interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette about it in 1903.

[Wickerman]

It doesn't in its original context, where Sugden had just laid out the evidence in full. Nor does it here, as Adam specified "in later years."

On my assertion that Abberline 'did not' suspect Klosowski was the Ripper "at the time", we read:

"...Abberline himself implied in his Pall Mall Gazette interview that he did not suspect Chapman of the Ripper crimes until the Solicitor-General's opening address at the Central Criminal Court on 16 March 1903"

1903 is not "at the time", not contemporary opinion, which is and was my point.

Of course it isn't. He was interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette about it in 1903.

H. L. Adam's source was 'at best' third-hand, he did not speak with Abberline, Adam's did not hear, "You've got Jack the Ripper at last', from Abberline (first-hand), but from Godley, who's opinion is second hand, therefore Adam's opinion to us is third-hand.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Wickerman

As far as I know, no one is suggesting that Abberline suspected Klosowski at the time of the Ripper murders. What I was disputing was your assertion that "any suggestion as to their opinions tends to leave the reader with the impression that these officials thought Klosowski was the Ripper at the time." The reader would get that impression only if he hadn't been paying attention to what was said immediately beforehand.

And regarding Abberline, what I was disputing was your assertion that his "opinion on the connection is at best third-hand." My point is that Abberline was interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette in 1903, and his opinion was published then. Nothing to do with Hargrave Adam, and nothing "third-hand" about it.

[mariab]

Maria:
Who says that the supposed American ripper-like murders were actually committed by Jack himself? That in itself is pretty unlikely.

NOt attempting to pour gas on that fire but even the police get it wrong and while they were closer to the case I just don't see him (Chapman) ripping up whores with a knife and then going to poison.

Precisely, Yankee Seargant. Like I said yesterday, the only reason for Klosowski/Chapman to subtly change his MO from knife to poison is if he felt the London police too close for comfort. That's why I said that it would help Klosowski's candidancy if there was evidence of Ripper-like murders at the locations where Klosowski resided in the US. Get it now, Adam?

As for Levy, regardless of what the truth is behind the sexual assault, why does that make him a better or worse Ripper suspect?

The fact that he was a different Jacob Levy does not detract anything away from him as a suspect.
As to him getting incarcerated because he had syphilis, that isn't how it worked, no one would be put in an asylum just because they had syphilis.

Are you guys even serious? Apart from the mixup with the wrong Levy (of sexual assault fame and missing an arm and a leg), there is NO evidence whatsoever of any assaults or violent behaviour committed by Jacob Levy, who, by the way, was just 5.3´´(which is shorter than I and, no doubt whatsoever, much weaker). The ONLY single suspicious hint pertaining to Jacob Levy is Lyam Levy's alleged obstinate refusal to testify pertaining to his witness sighting of Eddowes (for which it should be noted that the physical description of the man seen with Eddowes does NOT match Jacob Levy AT ALL). I'd be willing to go so far as to consider that Jacob Levy's incarceration for a manic illness associated with syphilis might have led the police pen pushers/officials into mixing up Jacob Levy with Aaron Kozminski. Perhaps.

When you read my response to Tom's letter, you'll note the sheer amount of sources I have listed to back up my claims. Tom hasn't named one. And still hasn't. I rest my case...for now.

I recall you article in Rip 113 and Tom's Letter to the editor in Rip 114, but I haven't yet managed to read your response to Tom in Rip 115, Adam. I'll try re-reading the entire “series“ late tonight, but can't promise, as I'm very busy with completing a long article on deadline. By the way, there was one detail or two in Tom's LTD in Rip 114 which I found pretty trite, but I'd like to re-read all of this again, as it's been a while and I don't recall the exact details.

To Chris and Wickerman:
Since the concept of understanding and investigating serial killers was not yet existing in Victorian England, it's an understandable and very honest mistake that Inspector Abbeline (late in life) suspected Klosowski/Chapman for the Ripper, despite a prominently different MO. At any rate, much more logical and honest a mistake than naming Druitt and Kozminski as a suspect.

[c.d.]

Hi Maria,

Why are you assuming that Abberline made a mistake? Certainly he was aware that Chapman was a poisoner. Killers can change their M.O.

c.d.

[mariab]

Oh, come on, C.D.! Name me 5 serial killers who changed their MO so significantly (apart from Zodiac and the Boston strangler, who didn't go as far as to change from slaying and collecting organs to poisoning). Also, this discussion would take us pretty far away from this thread's subject.

[tji]

Hi all

Maria I have replied to your comments on the Jacob Levy thread, where I think it is more appropriate than this thread which doesn't have a lot to do with him.

Tj

[c.d.]

Oh, come on, C.D.! Name me 5 serial killers who changed their MO so significantly (apart from Zodiac and the Boston strangler, who didn't go as far as to change from slaying and collecting organs to poisoning). Also, this discussion would take us pretty far away from this thread's subject.

Hi Maria,

I can't do so off the top of my head but if you go back and read through other Chapman threads you will see that there have been quite a few. Really all you need is one to show that it can be done. And is there any reason why it can't be done?

c.d.

[mariab]

Hi C.D.,
that's why I'm still keeping Klosowski at the very bottom of my very short list of suspects for the Ripper. And yes, it can be related to his changed MO that he poisoned his wives, yet might have slayed strange women. Still, his attack on his wife Lucy was conducted in a too “amateurish“ capacity for him to be of serious consideration for a Ripper suspect.
And now I hope that we might move away from Klosowski, who has nothing to do in this thread. :-)

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

I think everybody is getting a bit too hung up on the whole Klosowski as JTR thing - for a start, it's not even related to this thread, and in any case, as I stated in the very beginning, it is only my personal opinion that he is the "least unlikely" of the Ripper suspects, and I gladly keep an open mind to any other evidence - it's not as if i've come out and said Klosowski was JTR, end of story.

Chris:

This has already been pretty well answered, but yes, I am including Abberline, Godley and Arthur Neil as my three officers. There may have been more of the lower rank but these three are certainly the most prominent. Neil expressed his opinion on Chapman in his memoirs from 1932, despite incorrectly calling him "Kloskovski".

Maria:

Uh, no. There's quite a difference between Chapman murdering random prostitutes and murdering his WIVES. Obviously it would not do to have them turning up mutilated in his bedroom, would it? He had to choose a much more subtle option - hence, poison. And it worked, for a while.

As for Levy, you still haven't answered the question - why does the lack of sexual and/or physical assaults make him a better of worse Ripper suspect? Are you not generalising who you think Jack the Ripper ought to be?

YS, Wickerman, etc:

Abberline stated to the press of his own free will in 1903 that he felt Chapman was Jack the Ripper, and just to avoid any mis-reporting, he stated exactly the same thing again a couple of weeks later to the press, and just to make sure that time hadn't changed his opinion or he'd been influenced by the trial, he didn't bother to change his story even in the 1920's. As Chris said, there's nothing "third hand" about it.

As for everybody saying a serial killer can't change their M.O., i'm not even going to waste my time on this one - it's been proven time and again that it can and does happen (certain serial killers have even been known to deliberately make a point of changing their MO from murder to murder so as to confuse the police), and there's no reason why JTR would be any different to the rest. Besides, again, this is completely off topic.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Completely agree with you on all this, Adam.

As for Rip 113-117, sorry mate, had to take a rain check for tonight (too busy completing a long French article on dealine which is partly still in conference paper-form), but I haven't forgotten, and I'll definitely read your old Rip serialized debate with Tom in the next couple days.

[Adam Went]

Wow. If only it was that easy to change people's minds all of the time...

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Maria:
Uh, no. There's quite a difference between Chapman murdering random prostitutes and murdering his WIVES. Obviously it would not do to have them turning up mutilated in his bedroom, would it? He had to choose a much more subtle option - hence, poison. And it worked, for a while.

Hi Adam. Have you noticed my post #116 at all? That's exactly what I said in there.

As for Levy, you still haven't answered the question - why does the lack of sexual and/or physical assaults make him a better of worse Ripper suspect? Are you not generalising who you think Jack the Ripper ought to be?

Surely you're not serious, Adam? OF COURSE it has HUGE importance towards Jacob Levy's candidancy as a Ripper suspect if there were evidence in the Old Bailey records of him having sexually assaulted a young girl at a young age. Only it turned out a false alarm. Why “generalizing“? I'm referring to perfectly specific details here.
Adam, your reaction to the Jacob Levy discussion here makes me think that perhaps you havent followed the latest debate on this? It's all in Tracy's (Teej's) Jacob Levy thread to see.

Also, your being under the impression that you've just changed my mind only proves you read my previous posts in a haste. (And nothing too wrong with that, I'm very busy myself.) Sorry to disappoint you about your convincing capabilities, Adam, but I was agreeing with you pertaining to Klosowski already BEFORE.