Favoured Suspect...

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

Although, of course, you’re right that we shouldn’t expect Abberline to have understood and considered the differences in goals of each series, I don’t think any of what I wrote depends on Abberline’s knowledge of serial killers (or lack thereof).


To be clear, my point wasn’t directed at Abberline or anybody back then, I was just reacting to your “I'm not as convinced that the M.O. of Chapman's domestic murders are a problem for him being a candidate for the Ripper.” and “He couldn't slice up his missus and hope to get away with being the Ripper if he was caught,...”So, your view, not Abberline’s.

I can understand his view, knowing so little about serial killers, but I still think you’re stepping over what satisfied the Ripper a bit too quickly. My view, but it’s just that, is that the Ripper chose the right type of victims to satisfy his morbid desire: women he, probably, didn’t know and found cruising the streets in the middle of the night. So, the chosing of his victims was guided by his desire.

The way I see it is that, if the Ripper was Chapman, then he let go of the desire that drove him in 1888 and it was some other perversion driving him between 1897 and 1902. I don’t think that he was still driven by his desire to cut his victims open by that time and thought: well, I can’t do that with my wife, so, instead, I feed her some poison and watch her die a slow and agonizing death. If he was still driven by the desire that drove him in 1888, then I’d expect him to have chosen victims whom he could cut open. Or that he would have led his wives to some place he had no particular or clear connection with to kill, mutilate & leave them one by one. But, by that, I’m not saying that we can totally rule out Chapman – just like yourself.

Cheers,
Frank

Hiya, Frank. If we're supposing that Chapman was the Ripper, then him poisoning his wives or lovers was merely a relatively quiet way in which to dispatch them, as opposed to him getting his kicks doing what he enjoyed doing to unknowns, which was mutilation after death. So getting a thrill from watching them die slowly may not have been the actual goal, but merely a "bonus," if you will.

Whether Chapman got any kicks from poisoning his lovers or not, who knows, he probably did, but it may have been a happy accident, as opposed to his intention, as his real intention seems to have been to simply rid himself of them quietly. If he was the Ripper, he couldn't rip them up.

Abberline seems to be going for Chapman solely because he was murdering women in the same area, but he did seem fully aware of the differences in each series, and he stated as much, pointing out that it was the similarities which drew his suspicion, and adding that Chapman had reportedly threatened a previous lover with a blade, so he wasn't blind to the difference between the two killers.

My main purpose for backing up Abberline here is purely because another poster (Mortis?) was boldly claiming that Abberline was a terrible inspector simply because he thought it might be Chapman, which is a bit unfair, IMO, and a bit naive.

Like I've said, though, I'm not particularly one for promoting Chapman, but I do feel that him, Bury and Kelly are good suspects, not that that really means a lot!

Cheers

[Mike J. G.]

As far as favoured suspects go, of the list that we have, it's hard to really find any who are better than the ones who we know without a doubt were capable of murder.

I don't see how anyone can confidently pick anyone else from the list and feel without a doubt that they were more likely to be the killer than the ones who were actually proven murderers. Lech, Hutchinson, etc etc, are hard to logically put ahead of known murderers in the area. Deeming should be high on the list, but behind the known murderers proven to have been in or around the area.

That's not to say that the list we have is worth more than a twopenny fart, because it probably isn't, but when it comes to likely suspects on the list, I'd go with the actual killers before the others.

[paul g]

If Bury ( or any suspect for that matter) was eliminated due to the fact they had a cast iron fully checked at the time alibi say for the Stride murder hence elimination as a suspect.
However there is major doubts that Stride was a victim.

[GBinOz]

If Bury ( or any suspect for that matter) was eliminated due to the fact they had a cast iron fully checked at the time alibi say for the Stride murder hence elimination as a suspect.
However there is major doubts that Stride was a victim.

The C5 was an artificial construct of McNaughton, a tea planter promoted after the events to a position (IMO) beyond his competence. Baxter, at Stride's inquest, suggested that the Eddowes murder was a crude copycat of the Chapman murder. Swanson, who was probably more capable in his assessments than McNaughton or Anderson, designated nine Whitechapel murders, from Emma Smith to Frances Coles, plus two additional names being Farmer and Mylett.

So there are differences of opinion as to whether Stride was a victim....of Who? We don't know how many killers were involved let alone which were responsible for which. Neither did the police at the time. Even if Anderson's witness was Schwartz, and Schwartz identified Kosminski, and Kosminski killed Stride, it does not follow that Kosminski killed anyone else.

IMO, proof of guilt or innocence for any one of the Whitechapel victims does not establish guilt or innocence for any of the other victims.

JMO.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

Hiya, Frank. If we're supposing that Chapman was the Ripper, then him poisoning his wives or lovers was merely a relatively quiet way in which to dispatch them, as opposed to him getting his kicks doing what he enjoyed doing to unknowns, which was mutilation after death. So getting a thrill from watching them die slowly may not have been the actual goal, but merely a "bonus," if you will.

Whether Chapman got any kicks from poisoning his lovers or not, who knows, he probably did, but it may have been a happy accident, as opposed to his intention, as his real intention seems to have been to simply rid himself of them quietly. If he was the Ripper, he couldn't rip them up.

Abberline seems to be going for Chapman solely because he was murdering women in the same area, but he did seem fully aware of the differences in each series, and he stated as much, pointing out that it was the similarities which drew his suspicion, and adding that Chapman had reportedly threatened a previous lover with a blade, so he wasn't blind to the difference between the two killers.

My main purpose for backing up Abberline here is purely because another poster (Mortis?) was boldly claiming that Abberline was a terrible inspector simply because he thought it might be Chapman, which is a bit unfair, IMO, and a bit naive.

Like I've said, though, I'm not particularly one for promoting Chapman, but I do feel that him, Bury and Kelly are good suspects, not that that really means a lot!

Cheers

Hi there Mike,

Thanks for your response. The only thing I wouldn't agree with is "If he was the Ripper, he couldn't rip them up." I think that, if he really wanted to, he could have. He just couldn't cut them up at his home.

So, if Chapman was the Ripper, then he had 2 morbid desires, either all along or developed at different stages of his life. Even though I don't see this as very likely, it's still possible and that's why I keep the door just ajar to the possiblity that Chapman was JtR. That's how I see it, anyway.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

re the chalked messages..to me i dont place much emphasis on them, but i read somewhere once there were questions about who wrote them and it came up that they were written by the locals. the messages predate ellens murder. did the locals know something about bury? was there gossip he was the ripper? why?

Hi Abby,

Even though we can only speculate, I do think the chalked messages are interesting, as they might give us some answers (depending on who we suppose wrote them & when), however indefinite. They'd only become less interesting or even uninteresting if they were written after the murder became known, which doesn't seem to be the case.

and i would be remiss if i didnt compliment you for your open mind and rational responses, much appreciated.

Thanks for the compliment!

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

The C5 was an artificial construct of McNaughton, a tea planter promoted after the events to a position (IMO) beyond his competence. Baxter, at Stride's inquest, suggested that the Eddowes murder was a crude copycat of the Chapman murder. Swanson, who was probably more capable in his assessments than McNaughton or Anderson, designated nine Whitechapel murders, from Emma Smith to Frances Coles, plus two additional names being Farmer and Mylett.

So there are differences of opinion as to whether Stride was a victim....of Who? We don't know how many killers were involved let alone which were responsible for which. Neither did the police at the time. Even if Anderson's witness was Schwartz, and Schwartz identified Kosminski, and Kosminski killed Stride, it does not follow that Kosminski killed anyone else.

IMO, proof of guilt or innocence for any one of the Whitechapel victims does not establish guilt or innocence for any of the other victims.

JMO.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I think we can rather safely assume that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly were victims of Jack the Ripper. I don't doubt that any modern day police investigation would include all of them - regardless of the opinions of any of the men you mentioned above. So, your point/opinion only goes so far, the way I see it.

Cheers,
Frank

[Mike J. G.]

Hi there Mike,

Thanks for your response. The only thing I wouldn't agree with is "If he was the Ripper, he couldn't rip them up." I think that, if he really wanted to, he could have. He just couldn't cut them up at his home.

So, if Chapman was the Ripper, then he had 2 morbid desires, either all along or developed at different stages of his life. Even though I don't see this as very likely, it's still possible and that's why I keep the door just ajar to the possiblity that Chapman was JtR. That's how I see it, anyway.

Cheers,
Frank

Allo, Frank. I do see what you mean, and I guess he could have ripped them up if he wanted to, but it'd put him into a corner, imo, if his lovers started to turn up as Ripper victims.

I do feel that, if he was the Ripper, poisoning was a means to an end for the women he no longer wanted around, whereas the Ripper victims were his actual pleasure.

I'm not confident at all that Chapman was the man, but I do feel that for a named suspect he's actually pretty good, and anyone backing him could be totally forgiven.

I often wonder if any of the named suspects knew the killer, not necessarily that they were aware of them being the killer, but if they simply knew the person behind the killings, assuming it was one person.

[Lewis C]

Hi George,

I think we can rather safely assume that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly were victims of Jack the Ripper. I don't doubt that any modern day police investigation would include all of them - regardless of the opinions of any of the men you mentioned above. So, your point/opinion only goes so far, the way I see it.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank-O,

I agree with this, except that I think there's an outside chance that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim. Still, if someone has an iron-clad alibi for Kelly's murder, I would consider such a person an extremely weak Ripper suspect.