Chapman: a case for

[Billy Bulger]

I recently watched the movie Zodiac (great film by the way) and the killer-whoever he was- murdered in various ways. This got me thinking about George Chapman. I know history doesn't tell us just how long Inspector Abberline held onto his belief that the Ripper was the surgeon-cum-barber but if we take into account the Zodiac murders 40 years ago, then I do believe history tells us that Chapman could well have been the Ripper. From what I've read, it seems the biggest flaw in Abberline's theory was that Chapman varied his MO (from apparent knife murderer to cerebral posioner) and this alone is what exonerates him but as mentioned, the Zodiac varied his method of murder and I'm sure someone on here can throw up other examples of psychos doing likewise. My point is, I really don't think Chapman should be ruled out as a suspect purely because he varied his method of murder.
What do you think?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Billy,

Chapman already has his own board, here:

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=111

[Billy Bulger]

Hi Billy,

Chapman already has his own board, here:

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=111

Thanks Sam, I couldnt find him in the suspects discussion list! lol

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Sam, I couldnt find him in the suspects discussion list! lol

...he was a very elusive character

[miss marple]

Zodiac

Zodiac used guns and knives not knives and poison, There is a difference between the killer who distances himself from the actual murder, by using poison, and attack killers,Poison killings are usually for some sort of gain either by getting' rid of' someone or for money. Whereas a motiveless murder is usually a physical attack. Zodiac enjoyed the act of murder and making fools of the cops.He was a hunter who stalked his victims with an array of weaponry.
Chapman killed for gain.
Abberline had no previous experience of serial killers, he was acting in the dark, they all were.With our modern knowledge, Chapman appears an unlikely candidate for the ripper.
Miss Marple

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I absolutely agree with miss marple on this, and I couldn't have said it better myself.

All the best

[Ben]

I agree too, and just so we avoid duplicate threads:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1179&highlight=zodiac

[c.d.]

Zodiac used guns and knives not knives and poison, There is a difference between the killer who distances himself from the actual murder, by using poison, and attack killers,Poison killings are usually for some sort of gain either by getting' rid of' someone or for money. Whereas a motiveless murder is usually a physical attack. Zodiac enjoyed the act of murder and making fools of the cops.He was a hunter who stalked his victims with an array of weaponry.
Chapman killed for gain.
Abberline had no previous experience of serial killers, he was acting in the dark, they all were.With our modern knowledge, Chapman appears an unlikely candidate for the ripper.
Miss Marple

Ah, but here's the rub...we simply don't know enough about serial killers to make such generalizations. Does this apply to 100% of all known serial killers in 100% of all their killings? If not......

c.d.

[Fisherman]

c.d. writes:
"we simply don't know enough about serial killers to make such generalizations"

On the contrary, c.d.: It is the fact that we have gathered knowledge relating to hundreds of serial killers that actually allows us to recognize Chapman as a VERY poor contender for the Ripper title. The statistics are there, and they are against him in a massive way.

If you want to use statistics in favour of Chapman being the Ripper, you shall have to settle for the fact that statistics are generalizations in themselves, thus never covering all extremes.

Then again, why should they, in the Chapman case? Im all for the statistics here!

The best, c.d.

Fisherman

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;35023]c.d. writes:
"we simply don't know enough about serial killers to make such generalizations"

On the contrary, c.d.: It is the fact that we have gathered knowledge relating to hundreds of serial killers that actually allows us to recognize Chapman as a VERY poor contender for the Ripper title. The statistics are there, and they are against him in a massive way.

If you want to use statistics in favour of Chapman being the Ripper, you shall have to settle for the fact that statistics are generalizations in themselves, thus never covering all extremes.

Then again, why should they, in the Chapman case? Im all for the statistics here!


Hi Fisherman,

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.

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Or rather: is it likely that a serial mutilator who cuts up his vicims in a consistent manner on three to five occasions would turn into a serial poisoner, who in an equally consistently manner in his own right poisons his victims on multiple occasions?

Of course not.

All the best

[c.d.]

Or rather: is it likely that a serial mutilator who cuts up his vicims in a consistent manner on three to five occasions would turn into a serial poisoner, who in an equally consistently manner in his own right poisons his victims on multiple occasions?

Of course not.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

I somehow had a feeling that you would chime in here. Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. And, as you are so fond of saying, any human being is capable of doing the most extraordinary things in any given circumstance.

c.d.

[Bailey]

While I don't think much of Chapman as a suspect, and I think the slasher to poisoner change unlikely, a thought.

The Ripper killings were fast and vicious, and no doubt over all too soon for the killer. Perhaps poisoning someone at home would allow him to actually enjoy the suffering he was inflicting and draw the experience out more?

Just a thought, as I said, and, I will concede, a rather unlikely one.

B.

[Fisherman]

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!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps poisoning someone at home would allow him to actually enjoy the suffering he was inflicting and draw the experience out more?

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.