Did he always believe Chapman was the ripper?

[bolo]

Hi Helena,

it's great to see you're still at it!

Regards,

Boris

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena

2nd surely!
(jus' teasing)

Did you finally lay your hands on, The Trial of George Chapman, H. L. Adam, 1930?

Regards, Jon S.

Yes, a very kind man on here sent me his copy to borrow ... then said, keep it.

Helena

[DVV]

Did you finally lay your hands on, The Trial of George Chapman, H. L. Adam, 1930?
Regards, Jon S.

What for ? She's writing on George Chapman.

[Wickerman]

If I may be permitted to be less than modest for a moment, I'd make the claim that it's the first factual book on Chapman.

Hi Helena

2nd surely!
(jus' teasing)

Did you finally lay your hands on, The Trial of George Chapman, H. L. Adam, 1930?

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

yes, but Chapman can also be A.CHAPMAN and MJK so there you go and he can definitely be the torsos.

but unfortunately the guy seen running out of that house after stabbing the young girl upstairs is definitely not GC, more like Sailor boy yet again.

unless of course G Chapman is seriously smart and disguising his face with War Paint but i doubt it .

[DVV]

I'm afraid there was more than one "murderous nature" in London 1888.
If Chapman is Sailor-Man, I eat a raw donkey. If Sailor-Man isn't JtR, I eat two.

[HelenaWojtczak]

No problem, Helena, that's good. I find Chapman quite a fascinating villain, although imo he is both viable and very unlikely as a JtR-suspect.

Bottom line is, nothing other than our belief that a murderer doesn't change his MO rules him out. Right place, right time, and a murderous "nature"....?

[Malcolm X]

No problem, Helena, that's good. I find Chapman quite a fascinating villain, although imo he is both viable and very unlikely as a JtR-suspect.

yes he's both for sure, because JTR could quite easily have never been seen, it just depends how accurate these eyewitnesses are with regards to their Times quoted.

my guess is these times could be at least 15 mins out, especially if none of them had watches like today.

.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcolm,

In Abberline's report on Hutchinson, dated 13th November 1888, he says, "I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true".

I think it highly unlikely that a detective of Abberline's experience would interrogate a witness without taking the elementary precaution of verifying his identity, an omission which would be seen as a schoolboy error by any officer possessed of an ounce of common sense.
I accept that we don't know who Hutchinson was, but that doesn't mean that Abberline didn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

we have no idea how convincing a serial killer may be in conversation, and to confirm his name, he only has to show Abberline his signature in Victoria homes, any other proof of I.D he doesn't have with him right now, ``but i can get it for you in a few days time, no worry``.

and if he does have proof on him, it's so easy to make up/ forge, dont forget that GH had two days to suss this out before going to Abberline.

i think you're confusing how hard it is today to fool the police, compared to how easy it was back then, because even i managed to do this back in 1979, when i showed the police my forged MOT certificate and Car Insurance, it was two years out of date and it fooled them completely, yes that's right two years !

yes what a lad i was back then, the coppers knew me very well, they always stopped me for driving offences, searched the car boot for stolen goods etc, but never found a thing.

so GH going to the police as JTR ?... Yes very easy, but you would need to have loads of bottle, tons of it, and it's quite easy to fool them if they like you as well.

because the hardest person for a criminal to fool, is another criminal, because he knows and frequents the world that you live in and he can understand you instantly.... but a copper is on the outside looking in.

this is why when I.EDWARDS said that he thought that REG was lieing, that i believe him...because it takes one to know one.

i've noticed this quite often, members here are confusing the modern world, with what it was like back then, it was so easy to commit crime and escape detection back then, just like it was in 1979.

what do i personally think :-

1.... i would have nicked G.H for being two days late, this is enough for me, plus some of the things he said are classic lies, no doubt about it.

Abberline knew a hell of a lot more than we did yes, but i'm guessing this is because GH looked nothing like a killer, not even close and this saved his Bacon

[DVV]

No problem, Helena, that's good. I find Chapman quite a fascinating villain, although imo he is both viable and very unlikely as a JtR-suspect.

[HelenaWojtczak]

A new book on Chapman ?
I'll look forward too.
It's cool to change topic at times, and study cases that have nothing to do with the Ripper murders.

If I may be permitted to be less than modest for a moment, I'd make the claim that it's the first factual book on Chapman.

Helena

[DVV]

A new book on Chapman ?
I'll look forward too.
It's cool to change topic at times, and study cases that have nothing to do with the Ripper murders.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena,

Agreement on Casebook? Whatever next?

I look forward to the publication of your book, especially as I don't subscribe to the notion that a serial killer can't change his MO when killing for a different motive. I wish you luck with it.

Regards, Bridewell

Oh I do apologise, Bridewell, I forgot myself for a moment, forgot which site I was on, and will remember to disagree vehemently in the future.

I am glad to hear that I have a forthcoming sale for my book. I am, however, a tad concerned that you are already assuming its content.

Yours, combatively

Helena

[Wickerman]

Hi Malcolm,

In Abberline's report on Hutchinson, dated 13th November 1888, he says, "I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true".

I think it highly unlikely that a detective of Abberline's experience would interrogate a witness without taking the elementary precaution of verifying his identity, an omission which would be seen as a schoolboy error by any officer possessed of an ounce of common sense.
I accept that we don't know who Hutchinson was, but that doesn't mean that Abberline didn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

Abberline was more actively involved in the Kelly murder. It appears he also interviewed, or was present at the interview of, all the witnesses in Millers Court.
To Dave's point, I don't recall Abberline interviewing Cross personally, so not a relevant comparison. Although Abberline was in charge in the Nichols case, the ball, so to speak, had not got rolling yet.

On the other hand, you may read numerous cases of dubious characters being hauled in off the street, "acting suspicious", "well-dressed", "black bag" and all. Yet after providing a name & address and being held for a brief few hours they are set at liberty.
We are left to wonder just how extensive those background inquiries were.

That said, I do agree that by the time of the Kelly murder the police were dotting the "i's" & crossing the "t's" for this murder. Yes, Abberline knew more about Hutchinson than we do, and he was satisfied.

Regards, Jon S.

[Beowulf]

I did not know you have a book coming out on Chapman. I do look forward to reading that!