If Topping is the witness...

[babybird67]

[QUOTE=perrymason;82994]

Hi babybird,

I do like the way you explore potential answers to the questions, welcome to the boards.

I for one dont think it impossible that he did intentionally create "looks" to use when heading out for a ripping. I also think his normal attire might be expected on the streets at those times of nights. Uniforms, coveralls, docker worker dress styles. Im not sure about the grow a mustache, shave it for the next kill night, dark hair/light hair kind of disguises though. They werent really needed. A Hat a coat that fits with the streets and the hour, and discretion, would go a long way. Evidenced by the fact that not one accredited witness got a great look at any suspects face.

Many people seem to feel that his having some blood on him or bloody organs shouldnt be noticed at that time of night....but Im more interested in what the killer might think are acceptable risks. He does kill in public...but not in daylight. He seems elusive, and that suggests he went to some length to not get caught.

It seems to me that if Toppy was the Hutchinson...and had nothing at all to do with the murder that night, a normal and documented life after Jack makes some sense. We know the man named Joe Fleming that Mary once lived with is institutionalized for life a few years after the murders, so we know what happens to him.

This sticking point though shouldnt sidetrack the little detail of his elimination from the trusted witness pool. Im as curious as anyone as to why this occurred at all...but it seems like there are potential reasonable simple explanations.

Identifying THE Mr H as Toppy would be interesting....what value he would then have to the proceedings today is questionable.

Best regards.

Thank you Mike for your welcome and your thoughts.

I know absolutely nothing about Joe Fleming so i will need to go off and read a bit about him. It could well be that "George Hutchinson" was a name created by someone known to have a relationship with MJK and perhaps this was Fleming? I don't know enough to make a rational comment though! (what's that? Hasn't stopped me in other comments? hahaha)

I agree that it is a real possibility that the killer was orchestrating his looks at the time...haven't there been several descriptions, from a possible sailor, shabby genteel, Astrachan...makes sense for there not to be a consistent recognisible aspect to the possible witness sightings doesn't it?

anyway thank you again for your kind comments.

[babybird67]

Hey BB,



Surely that would be the antithesis of self preservation, though? If he was aware that press and public were clamouring for the arrest of a surly, Jewish man with a black package, surely it would have been the worst possibe misstep for the murderer to dress himself in a fashion that pandered to that very stereotype?

As for Klosowski, the chances of him having access to the sort of garments and accessories referred to by Hutchinson are very remote. By that early stage, he was still a relatively impoverished immigrant of 22 years of age (not 35), and the indications are that he could not communicate in English at that stage. It's unlikely that he wouldn't have minded Hutchinson following him. Miller's Court ony had one exit, and he'd be essentially cornering himself in the certainty that a potential vigilante, informer, or plain clothes police officer had clocked him at close quarters and followed him.

Another problem with Astrakhan man as the ripper is that the police clearly didn't buy into the notion in the long run, and Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was clearly discarded as a potential ripper sighting.

Generally speaking, I'm dubious about the idea that the killer resorted to disguises. They weren't particularly easy to come by, especially if the killer belonged to the vast majority population which comprised the working class poor. Dressing "well-to-do" wouldn't have been a good idea since it was likely to attract interest from the worst possible source - potential muggers and suspicious residents. Not quite the ticket, if you're intent on bloody murder.

Best regards,
Ben

hi Ben

sorry i am not sure how to cut down the quotes to take your points one at a time (if anyone can be bothered to explain to me via PM it would be greatly appreciated!)

Your point about dressing as a well to do Jew being the antithesis of self preservation...

I had an interesting conversation in the chatroom with protohistorian (Dave) regarding the candidacy of Klosowski, and a term Dave uses to describe him is "risk averse"...thus he would not be thinking in the same logical way we would be about murder. Apparently he was extremely sloppy in concealing his later crimes (the poisonings) perhaps because his sociopathy disabled the normal rational part of a person who looks at reality and weighs up the possibilities and probabilities that perhaps you or i might do. So to us, it may look highly unlikely; but to someone like Klosowski, if it was him, he perhaps would not have entertained any rational thoughts about being caught since in his own version of reality he would not be caught. (and he wasn't...not for the ripper crimes anyway, if it was him!)

Also, Klosowski was not a Jew, he was Roman Catholic, yet he pretended to be Jewish at certain times (again, this is from Dave in the chatroom so i am sorry i have no link...perhaps dave has details?)This wouldnt make sense at a time when Jewish people suffered discrimination and victimisation.

Also, various witnesses seem to describe the killer dressed differently...sailor, shabby, La Di Da...this would keep the description of the wanted man vague and contradictory, especially with the wearing of hats...which could be used to obscure facial features. Despite all this, the modern day photofit thing does resemble Klosowski quite closely...eerie. If the police/public/press were looking for the murderer based on witness descriptions, and if the killer were varying these for that very purpose, they would be on the lookout also for sailors, everyone dressed in a shabby-genteel manner, and all La Di Da's wouldn't they? At that time, was it not harder for the killer to be caught precisely because of all these variables in those descriptions? So people didn't really know who they were looking for in the first place?

Personally, i think Klosowski was only counting on being seen in passing as the La Di Da. He had no way of knowing Hutch was going to follow him back to Miller's Court, much less stand and wait for him to come out. I personally think this is what led to the escalation of mutilation of MJK. He was trapped in there until Hutch got bored and went away. This could have made him so angry that there was an element of the murder that was completely out of control...what if Hutch waited until morning? As you say, only one means of escape. He would certainly have been caught, whoever he was, if Hutch had not given up waiting when he had. I think this possibility that the "reality" of the wider world was imminently going to destroy his inner version of reality led to a huge rage which also led to the extent of the mutilations in this murder. And dressing well to do before and yet shabby after the murder might make sense, in that he was not really La Di Da, so a shabby genteel barber in the immediate area after would not have been connected with the person last seen with MJK.

As for his communication issues: from the podcast on Klosowski, L. Michael Gordon seems to suggest he could speak some Russian as well. It's not inconceivable that he was a polyglot and quick to pick up languages imo, especially being in front line customer services in his hairdressing. Of course i need to read more...i'm still very much a baby ripperologist and i appreciate that! Also, if he was a barber...might his clients have fogotten jackets that he could borrow? Might he have stolen certain items from elsewhere? Might Hutch have been embellishing a little bit to account for his actions of following the couple?

I don't know the answers but i certainly think it possible that the killer was manipulating the witness descriptions, rather than the witnesses getting it wrong or lying outright.

thanks for your interest and help Ben...i appreciate everyone here is much more experienced than me!

[Ben]

Hi BB,

thanks for your interest and help Ben

You're welcome.

I'm not sure I'd characterize Kloswoski as a great risk-taker. Poisoning is not only decidedly meek as a method of dispatch, it's also rather underfurnished in the "risk" department in contrast to other methods. It relies on subterfuge, as well as the ability to blend in and remain inconspicuous, all of which is heavily at odds with the hypothetical Klosowstrakhan as ripper. Sociopathic serial killers evade capture, for the most part, by appearing very rational and not worthy of note. They generally don't hamper their own criminal activity by deliberately trying to be as suspicious-looking as possible.

Astrakhan could not possibly have relied in only being seen "in passing". He'd have been dressing in the most conspicuous attire imaginable, in the worst possible district for vice and crime, at the worst possible time, and worse; his get-up pandered to precisely the sort of ripper-fears that had been in circulation from the early murders. He couldn't have expected anything other than immediate and unwarrented attention from suspicious men-folk, and a negative reaction from the prostitutes.

The idea of him "waiting" for Hutchinson to leave somewhat begs the question, why wait at all? For all he knew, Hutchinson could have taken that curiosity that one step further and retrieved the nearest copper on beat, or worse, Hutchinson could have been a copper or vigilance committe member himself. The general implausibility of Astrakhan's behaviour and appearance is one of the reasons I'm inclined to the opinion that Hutchinson made him up to explain his loitering presence.

As for the witness descriptions, they weren't all contradictory. There is some uniformity in certain elements of the witness descriptions. Unfortunately, none of them look anything like Klosowski.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Hi BB,



You're welcome.

I'm not sure I'd characterize Kloswoski as a great risk-taker. Poisoning is not only decidedly meek as a method of dispatch, it's also rather underfurnished in the "risk" department in contrast to other methods. It relies on subterfuge, as well as the ability to blend in and remain inconspicuous, all of which is heavily at odds with the hypothetical Klosowstrakhan as ripper. Sociopathic serial killers evade capture, for the most part, by appearing very rational and not worthy of note. They generally don't hamper their own criminal activity by deliberately trying to be as suspicious-looking as possible.

Astrakhan could not possibly have relied in only being seen "in passing". He'd have been dressing in the most conspicuous attire imaginable, in the worst possible district for vice and crime, at the worst possible time, and worse; his get-up pandered to precisely the sort of ripper-fears that had been in circulation from the early murders. He couldn't have expected anything other than immediate and unwarrented attention from suspicious men-folk, and a negative reaction from the prostitutes.

The idea of him "waiting" for Hutchinson to leave somewhat begs the question, why wait at all? For all he knew, Hutchinson could have taken that curiosity that one step further and retrieved the nearest copper on beat, or worse, Hutchinson could have been a copper or vigilance committe member himself. The general implausibility of Astrakhan's behaviour and appearance is one of the reasons I'm inclined to the opinion that Hutchinson made him up to explain his loitering presence.

As for the witness descriptions, they weren't all contradictory. There is some uniformity in certain elements of the witness descriptions. Unfortunately, none of them look anything like Klosowski.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi again Ben

still dont know how to cut the quote up so sorry about that.

Regards to the risks etc of Klosowski's poisonings: i would agree the risks of these murders would have been a lot less than the JtR killings...but perhaps this had been partly brought about by being trapped in the room with MJK? Maybe that is what brought about the change in MO which is often thought incompatible with Klosowski as Ripper? Certainly, there would be no issues of being seen with the victims as the victims would have been expected to be seen with him, as they were "married".

Poisoning may be "meeker" in some ways, but i consider it much much crueller than the Rippings as although the latter were bloodier, at least the Ripper victims died quickly by all accounts and were ripped after death. The level of cold-bloodedness and sadism needed to slowly torture a woman to death must have been much greater, and perhaps a development of his growing confidence in killing and a general hardening of his psychology? (all speculation again!)

I take your point about La Di Da, but i think Hutch embellished him a little. I think it possible that the Ripper whoever he was was fairly innocuously dressed at the time Hutch saw him and the only way Hutch could explain what he was doing following them back to MJK's room was to embellish the description a bit and possibly build on the stereotype of the killer circulating around at that time. I personally believe at this point that Hutch was approached by Mary and asked if he wanted her services to which he replied he was broke; she went past him...Hutch may have thought Mary was drunk enough to take advantage of without payment, by which time she had passed by, met Astrakhan, and turned and walked back past Hutch again. He followed them because he thought once she has finished with him, i'll try my luck. Never ending wait...goes away...goes to Romford or elsewhere for weekend, comes back and discovers with horror that MJK is dead and he was there at the scene and noticed by someone. Comes forward to make statement but doesn't want to admit to making use of MJK's services. Hence embellishment of Astrkhan.

You say none of the witness descriptions look like Klosowski...how does the photo fit which i believed was made up from witness descriptions look so much like him then?

thanks again for discussing this with me...i find the whole thing fascinating!

[perrymason]

As for the witness descriptions, they weren't all contradictory. There is some uniformity in certain elements of the witness descriptions. Unfortunately, none of them look anything like Klosowski.

Best regards,
Ben

I dont know that the above is accurate Ben, no 2 witness sightings from any of the 5 Canonical murders described the same man on their respective nights. Different clothes, different hats, different ages, a scarf, wideawake hat, shabby genteel, some with whiskers, some not, blotchy face, broadshoulders, hard felt hat....

None may be remarkable manners of dress for the place or the time of day, but none are a match for one another.

If it was one man and the killer, as Crystal suggested, he may well have worn wear different clothes and hats. The most likely prospects are Mrs Longs shabby genteel at Hanbury, Mr Browns man or Israel Schwartz's man with Liz in Dutfields Yard, Sailor Man with Kate outside Mitre Square, and Blotchy Face with Mary, entering her room in Millers Court.

They are the last men seen with the murdered women, and as such, the primary suspects in the unsolved murders.

If they were all one man and the killer, then unequivacably he wore different hats and coats on different nights. Making Crystals suggestion very plausible....if they were one man did he change his attire each night to deceive potential witnesses or prospects for that night?

For example,...if they were all the same guy, did he go from Shabby genteel to Sailor Man purposefully?

Best regards Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Is this discussion about Topping, Hutch, "Topping/Hutch", Flemming, "Flemchison", Blotchy, Klosowski, Astrakhan Man, the reliability of witness descriptions... or what?

No disrespect, folks, but please read the title of the thread!

[babybird67]

ooops sorry Sam

was that me?

My brain tends to work not so much as a train of thought as a convoy of loosely connected but disparate vehicles!

I'll learn though...give me time!

[Sam Flynn]

was that me?

It was everybody, BB, so don't be too hard on yourself

[Malcolm X]

[QUOTE=babybird67;83012]


Also, various witnesses seem to describe the killer dressed differently...sailor, shabby, La Di Da...this would keep the description of the wanted man vague and contradictory, especially with the wearing of hats...which could be used to obscure facial features. Despite all this, the modern day photofit thing does resemble Klosowski quite closely...eerie. If the police/public/press were looking for the murderer based on witness descriptions, and if the killer were varying these for that very purpose, they would be on the lookout also for sailors, everyone dressed in a shabby-genteel manner, and all La Di Da's wouldn't they? At that time, was it not harder for the killer to be caught precisely because of all these variables in those descriptions? So people didn't really know who they were looking for in the first place?

QUOTE]

the Lawende suspect was described as fair in appearence, fair moustache etc
this doesn't fit Chapman and this suspect is also slightly too tall, he is a similar match to ``Old Shakespear``...but different hat.

LA DI DA is a fabricated description, the Ripper wouldn't have dressed as rediculous as that .... his priority was to melt into the crowd and go undetected, expect him to dress similar to Joe Barnett or BS.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Malcolm X;83061]

Also, various witnesses seem to describe the killer dressed differently...sailor, shabby, La Di Da...this would keep the description of the wanted man vague and contradictory, especially with the wearing of hats...which could be used to obscure facial features. Despite all this, the modern day photofit thing does resemble Klosowski quite closely...eerie. If the police/public/press were looking for the murderer based on witness descriptions, and if the killer were varying these for that very purpose, they would be on the lookout also for sailors, everyone dressed in a shabby-genteel manner, and all La Di Da's wouldn't they? At that time, was it not harder for the killer to be caught precisely because of all these variables in those descriptions? So people didn't really know who they were looking for in the first place?



QUOTE]

the Lawende suspect was described as fair in appearence, fair moustache etc
this doesn't fit Chapman and this suspect is also slightly too tall, he is a similar match to ``Old Shakespear``...but different hat.

LA DI DA is a fabricated description, the Ripper wouldn't have dressed as rediculous as that .... his priority was to melt into the crowd and go undetected, expect him to dress similar to Joe Barnett or BS.

Don"t forget Chapman worked in a barber shop which in those days sold a variety of wigs and advertised hair dyes/lighteners ,moustache dyes/lighteners etc.He could easily have been clean shaven pasting on a moustache to change his appearance at this time.Some people used to get Victorian "make overs" in these barber shops,using rouge,powder etc as well as wearing wigs----which the Jewish ladies attending synagogue would have as the wearing of wigs formed /forms even today in traditional Jewish families, part of their "religion" but in any case barber shops kept men supplied with wigs too if they wanted them.
And not all serial killers dress down to blend in.....Bundy for example was a flash dresser as was Chapman,by several accounts and judging from photos.

[Malcolm X]

Toppy isn't too old for the Ripper, he's about right, expect the Ripper to dress differently from time to time, i'd never wear the same clothing would you?

if Toppy was the witness....and a big if, then yes he maybe saw G.Chapman.... i'd say about 65% certainty.....

but i dont think Toppy saw anyone, he made it all up and i'm not sure if he's JTR either......yet!

because if he's not the ripper, then we cant be sure if Blotchy is either.... because if Toppy wasn't there and Kelly went out again at 2am...then we're in a pickle!

but even so, due to kelly being blind drunk; i very much doubt she went out again, more like collapsed in bed...if so my bet is Blotchy killed her.

but was Toppy there? it all hinges on him and as neutral as i can be.....it looks like it, but he made it all up.

i cant say much more, which is rare for me until i do that research, God i'm lazy right now, i should've done it Saturday, shame on me!

[Malcolm X]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;83062]

Don"t forget Chapman worked in a barber shop which in those days sold a variety of wigs and advertised hair dyes/lighteners ,moustache dyes/lighteners etc.He could easily have been clean shaven pasting on a moustache to change his appearance at this time.Some people used to get Victorian "make overs" in these barber shops,using rouge,powder etc as well as wearing wigs----which the Jewish ladies attending synagogue would have as the wearing of wigs formed /forms even today in traditional Jewish families, part of their "religion" but in any case barber shops kept men supplied with wigs too if they wanted them.
And not all serial killers dress down to blend in.....Bundy for example was a flash dresser as was Chapman,by several accounts and judging from photos.

that's what i said wasn't it .... but only you bothered to answer my thread...the problem with Chapman is, that rediculous clothing he wore to kill Kelly........it's way too conspicuous !

[Ben]

I dont know that the above is accurate Ben, no 2 witness sightings from any of the 5 Canonical murders described the same man on their respective nights.

A lot of the descriptions could easily apply to the same man, Mike. Lawende, Schwartz, Wilson, Lewis, Cox could all be describing the same individual. I'm not saying they did, necessarily, but it's a very reasonable possibility, especially when we're dealing with witness descriptions that are often very unreliable in the sense that the same features aren't always picked out, and the same detail is described in different ways (i.e. a billycock in place of a wideawake).

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

And not all serial killers dress down to blend in.....Bundy for example was a flash dresser as was Chapman,by several accounts and judging from photos.

There's no evidence that Bundy dressed flashily when he murdered his victims, and Klowoswski only developed a penchant for flashy dressing once he returned from America. No evidence of flashy dressing in 1888.

[Malcolm X]

A lot of the descriptions could easily apply to the same man, Mike. Lawende, Schwartz, Wilson, Lewis, Cox could all be describing the same individual. I'm not saying they did, necessarily, but it's a very reasonable possibility, especially when we're dealing with witness descriptions that are often very unreliable in the sense that the same features aren't always picked out, and the same detail is described in different ways (i.e. a billycock in place of a wideawake).

this is true...considering how dark Whitechapel was at night and how unreliable these witnesses were...these descriptions could be 50% out...add to this, JTR changing his appearence regularly.

i dont think they're describing the same individual anyway, especially Lewis and Cox..... but the Lawende suspect is the odd one, because he's closest to being JTR.