Chapman: a case for

[c.d.]

Indeed, and perhaps waiting fully nine years after the Ripper murders before he started killing again made the experience even more delicious

I shouldn't joke - those who would have Chapman switch from being a swift-moving, daring, mutilating, organ-stealing, disembowelling spiller of strangers' blood to a clandestine and patient poisoner of "wives" have a hard enough task ahead of them as it is, without also having to account for the almost decade-long sabbatical in between two such radically different MO's.

Hi Sam,

Well we really don't know what he did during that so called Sabattical do we? And that task as you put it, was apparently accomplished by three Scotland Yard detectives, Abberline, Godley and Neil. Now throw Phillip Sugden into the mix and that is not such shabby company.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman,

If you focus solely on the poisoning issue, then you lose track of the fact that Chapman lived in the area, had training as a surgeon's apprentice, was a misogynist, a known murder and was suspected by Abberline, Godfrey and Neil. He was also the favored suspect of Sugden.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d. writes:

"If you focus solely on the poisoning issue, then you lose track of the fact that Chapman lived in the area, had training as a surgeon's apprentice, was a misogynist, a known murder and was suspected by Abberline, Godfrey and Neil. He was also the favored suspect of Sugden."

Yep, c.d., that is as correct as can be.
But the fact of the matter is that I DON´T focus solely on the poisoning issue! I weigh in the factors you mention too, but that does not help in any significant manner. The man is and remains utterly incredible (not to be mistaken for "impossible") in the Ripper´s role.
Also, the fact that Chapman was favoured by Sugden, and that I refute the suggestion does in no way mean that I see myself as a better judge of the matter. I have no problems bowing to Sugden, who is one of the best sources on the Ripper case. The problem is, though, that if I am to bow to all the good researchers and authors in the fiels, I shall have to acknowledge Chapman, Cohen, Kelly, Bury, Fleming, Barnett, Stephenson and a good few others as being the Ripper. And renowned though the authors and researchers may be, we can both be sure that they are not ALL right, can´t we?

The best!

Fisherman

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;35048]c.d. writes:

"Yes, you are right. I should have said that we don't know enough about serial killers to take generalizations and extrapolate them to the point where they become immutable laws of physics. Statistics only give us the probabilities while ignoring the possibilities. So, it is possible to switch from cutting throats to poisoning? The answer is yes."

Agreed, c.d. Just as we cannot allow ourselves to assert that Team Canada would beat Kiribati in a hockey game, we cannot say that it is impossible to shift between poisoning and throat-cutting.
To state that it is very improbable though, that we can do, and thus find Chapman a place waaaaaayyy down the list of Ripper contenders.

The best, c.d!

Hi Fisherman,

Being a hockey aficianado, I am sure that you remember the United States beating the Soviet Union to take the gold medal in the 1980 Olympics. Draw your own conclusions.

Keep your stick on the ice.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d. writes:
"Being a hockey aficianado, I am sure that you remember the United States beating the Soviet Union to take the gold medal in the 1980 Olympics. Draw your own conclusions."

I did - it means that it follows that the US and the Kiribati team are equally strong teams if you are right on Chapman!

The best, c.d!

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have not contributed to this thread as yet ,for I find it on a same par as Tumblety/ Gull/ Barnado etc.
I ask the obvious 'Does any one out there in ;Casebook' the worlds most authority on the 'Ripper Murders', actually believe that ' Chapman' [Poisoner] was a savage knive killer?
I rest my case, and if I am wrong , then I would be most disapointed to say the least.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
'Stella again'.
'Savage Knife killer...
Regards Richard.

[sdreid]

Chapman is not my top pick but I don't see why switching from knife to poison is such a big obstacle. A much bigger change is switching from a non-killer to a killer and we all know that happens.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

Hi Sam,

Well we really don't know what he did during that so called Sabattical do we?

Well, we hear of no more mutilation murders in London (or Hastings for that matter), no serial street murders of any description, and no serial antimony poisonings. Perhaps he tried sticking pins in wax dolls for a while to sublimate his homicidal urges

...urges which, incidentally, we have to assume had been with him since his early 20s, if he was indeed Jack the Ripper.

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman is not my top pick but I don't see why switching from knife to poison is such a big obstacle.

But he wasn't merely switching from knife to poison, Stan. He was switching from extreme use of a knife to inflict heretofore unimaginable carnage on strangers in the street... to domestic poison. We're not talking about the transformation from your average stabber or even throat-cutter; we're talking a dramatic shift downwards in gear.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Exactly Sam. Or rather: turning from another consistent serial killer for a series of murders into another equally consistent serial killer for an equally consistent series of murder of a completely different character.

We are not talking about one killer who changes his MO on occasion, but two very consistent serial killers in their own right.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

If you focus solely on the poisoning issue, then you lose track of the fact that Chapman lived in the area, had training as a surgeon's apprentice, was a misogynist, a known murder and was suspected by Abberline, Godfrey and Neil. He was also the favored suspect of Sugden.

We don't know where Chapman was in Autumn 1888 - for all we know he was still mooching around the streets near West India Dock. He may well have been busy a-courtin' at the time, too - something often overlooked, but he was in his early 20s, and was shortly to meet his future wife, Lucy Baderski (if he wasn't wooing her already).

The degree of surgical training remains a moot point - equally so is the relevance of surgical training in the Ripper murders.

Was Chapman truly a misogynist? Was Jack, for that matter?

It's true that Chapman was suspected by later police and authors, but all this came very much after the event. I'm not sure that the later suspicions of others can influence the likelihood of his actually having been the Ripper, anyway.

My belief is that, by not focusing on the poisoning issue, there's a real tendency to lose track of the known fact that Chapman was... a poisoner.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

A very good post, Sam.
All relevant points covered there in a nut shell, I believe.

All the best

[perrymason]

I agree with Glenn, nice summary of some major issues Sam.

I think the tendency is to try and rule him in or out based on the fact he was convicted of poisoning in the 1890's, but as you point out, what other indications are there that these were committed for anything other than money?

Which the Canon clearly were'nt.

I do believe there is a greater likelihood Jack was a Pizer type, rather than just a sleazebag like Chapman. I think "Jack" was a man overtly wrong in the head.

All the best Sam.

[c.d.]

It's true that Chapman was suspected by later police and authors, but all this came very much after the event. I'm not sure that the later suspicions of others can influence the likelihood of his actually having been the Ripper, anyway.

My belief is that, by not focusing on the poisoning issue, there's a real tendency to lose track of the known fact that Chapman was... a poisoner.

Hi Sam,

The later police that you refer to were Scotland Yard detectives including Abberline himself. Sugden is a highly respected author in the field. As you point out, their suspicions can not alter facts one way or another but to my mind they give Chapman's candidacy a degree of legitimacy. I just don't see how he can be so easily dismissed as a suspect.

And yes, he was a poisoner. A poisoner who killed women. Killed being the operative word there.

c.d.