Kłosowski's appearance

[Sam Flynn]

I'd just like to respond to something Batman recently posted on another board.

I know you might not like that [Kłosowski] is described as wearing a nautical cap and navy style clothing but it's a fact of the matter.

It's not a question of my "not liking" anything, but my insistence on accuracy. You said that he "dressed like a sailor at his trial", but there is no evidence of this. He may have carried (what was described as) a nautical cap and wore (what was described as) a serge double-breasted sailor's suit, but that's not exactly cosplay is it?

What about his trousers... were they bell-bottomed? What about his footwear... was he wearing plimsolls? What about his shirt, his necktie, his overcoat?

The fact is that only two items of his attire were described as naval by a journalist, but this does not constitute "dressing like a sailor". And, as I've pointed out more than once, the descriptions in question relate to his pre-trial Police Court appearance, not the trial itself.

He even bought a boat. The Mosquito. Donned his nautical suit and P&O cap and boasted that he one day cross the Boulogue.

That was after Kłosowski had moved to the seaside town of Hastings in the late 1890s. What he looked like at his trial or, more importantly, in 1888 are entirely different matters. In respect of the latter, we don't know how he dressed during the time of the Ripper murders. The nearest we get is a description of what he looked like in Tottenham in 1894, where Woolf Levisohn apparently described him as "la di da, all high hat and umbrella". Hardly sailor-like by any stretch of the imagination.

If you have read [Helena Wojtczak's] book then you are doing your best to miss all this.

I knew this before Helena's book came out, having conducted extensive research into Kłosowski myself, and gave a talk about him at the 2010 Ripper Conference. That aside, I'm not missing anything (deliberately or otherwise) but I am sticking carefully to the facts. This is important in general, of course, and certainly applies to the question of how Kłosowski dressed at the time of the Whitechapel Murders. How he dressed later is another matter entirely.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, how misleading to say someone merely 'described as' wearing a sailor's suit and carrying a nautical cap was dressed like a sailor. That gives completely the wrong impression.

Clearly, if Chapman wasn't wearing bell-bottomed trousers (which we all know were mandatory for all merchant seamen) there is no way that anyone would have confused him with a sailor on a dark Whitechapel street.

🤓

[Jon Guy]

Yes, how misleading to say someone merely 'described as' wearing a sailor's suit and carrying a nautical cap was dressed like a sailor. That gives completely the wrong impression.

Indeed, Gary.
Wearing two items of sailors clothing does not constitute being dressed like a sailor ;-)

[Batman]

"Like" is not "As"

I said like a sailor, not as a sailor. It is subjective in part. It was based on the following...

Pressmen saw Chapman for the very first time. The Daily Mail said he appeared ‘haggard and distressed’, and that his fingers ‘clutched in agitation’ at his nautical pilot’s cap. The blue of his double-breasted, serge sailor’s suit ‘intensified his pallor, and he seemed to feel the full significance of the accusation’. - WOJTCZAK, HELENA. Jack the Ripper at Last? The Mysterious Murders of George Chapman. (Kindle Locations 2117-2118). Hastings Press. Kindle Edition.

I said this looks 'like' a sailor from this description.

In all likelihood, this is how he looked from a photograph on his boat ->https://i.imgur.com/gCtky1F.png

In that photo, he IS dressed as a sailor because he is sailing.

In the description, he is dressed LIKE a sailor, a subjective interpretation based on nautical caps and sailor's suits.

I don't know why you would want to fight this one. Anyone would think that you are afraid of him looking like a sailor because it matches some JtR witness descriptions. Your claim to 'accuracy' seems absolutely congruent with this.

[Sam Flynn]

Clearly, if Chapman wasn't wearing bell-bottomed trousers (which we all know were mandatory for all merchant seamen) there is no way that anyone would have confused him with a sailor on a dark Whitechapel street.

My comments about bell-bottoms, and plimsolls for that matter, were somewhat tongue in cheek. My point is that a double-breasted suit and cap alone do not a sailor's costume make so, whilst it would be legitimate to say that he's reported as having worn a sailor's cap and jacket at his Police Court appearance, it was not the case that he "dressed like a sailor at his trial".

But that's just me being pedantic. The important thing is that we only know about Kłosowski wearing those (two) items described as naval in 1902, prior to which his maritime proclivities are only known in conjunction with his living by the seaside in the late 1890s. We have no idea about the kind of things he was wearing in 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know why you would want to fight this one. Anyone would think that you are afraid of him looking like a sailor because it matches some JtR witness descriptions.

I'm not fighting anything, and I'm not afraid of anything either. The fact of the matter is that, whilst Kłosowski may have acquired a boat and sailor's cap (etc) in the late 1890s, this coincides with his moving to the seaside. We have no evidence that he dressed like that nearly a decade earlier.

[Batman]

We have no idea about the kind of things he was wearing in 1888.

This isn't the great fashion revolution of the 1950s. This is 1888. He was probably wearing the same clothes for 40 years and if not kept the same style. As we can plainly read from what he wore even in court!

There was probably a black version of the cap and jacket and this was the 'cab driver' version. In blue it is the 'sailor' version and in... oh well black or blue were probably the only two choices you had in 1888. You could switch it out with a bowler hat and then you had the 'businessman version'.

I doubt Chapman changed his looks that much. He looks the same in all his photographs. The only difference is when you see his whole head of hair without the cap. Then he isn't too much different either.

Let's face it, in terms of witness descriptions, Chapman is a very nice candidate.

[Robert]

I don't see Chapman butchering these women - the parrot would have given him away.

[MrBarnett]

I don't see Chapman butchering these women - the parrot would have given him away.

Mr Slater's parrot used to put him off.

[Sam Flynn]

This isn't the great fashion revolution of the 1950s. This is 1888. He was probably wearing the same clothes for 40 years

Even after he'd started making a living as a self-employed hairdresser and later publican from the 1890s onwards, to say nothing of his "marrying" into money?

Did he have a penchant for naval headgear before he moved to the seaside and acquired a small boat in the late 1890s? Or is it more likely that the cap and, if you like, the "sailor's" serge suit, was acquired at the same time?

Let's face it, in terms of witness descriptions, Chapman is a very nice candidate.

Kłosowski was only in his early twenties at the time of the Ripper murders, very much younger than the men described by most, if not all, of the witnesses: Long (about 40), Schwartz (30-35), Lawende (30-35), Hutchinson (34-35).

Kłosowski was also rather wiry, which doesn't tally with the men seen by James Brown (stout), Schwartz (stoutly-built, full-faced, broad-shouldered), Lawende (medium build), Sarah Lewis (stout).

There may be some variation between witnesses, and it's unlikely that they all saw the Ripper, but the consensus (such as it is) points to a stout thirty-something, not a slim 22 year-old.

[Jon Guy]

A short man, with a dark moustache and shiny boots and blue trousers, just like a sailor approached Frances Coles on Whitechapel High Street in the early hours of 13th Feb 1891.

Was Chapman living on Whitechapel High Street at this time ?

[Batman]

How do you know he was a slim 22-year-old if you are saying we can't make any claims about his looks during 1888?

[Sam Flynn]

How do you know he was a slim 22-year-old if you are saying we can't make any claims about his looks during 1888?

You can tell by his build; some people are naturally bony, and I doubt that a newly arrived immigrant earning the meagre wages of a barber's assistant in 1888 would have been larger than he was when he eventually started making a modest living in the 1890s. He apparently looked the same in 1902 as he did in earlier years (Levisohn), and it's hardly likely that his shoulders would have shrunk in the interim, nor that he'd looked like a thirty-something when aged only 22.

[Batman]

You can tell by his build; some people are naturally bony, and I doubt that a newly arrived immigrant earning the meagre wages of a barber's assistant in 1888 would have been larger than he was when he eventually started making a modest living in the 1890s. He apparently looked the same in 1902 as he did in earlier years (Levisohn), and it's hardly likely that his shoulders would have shrunk in the interim, nor that he'd looked like a thirty-something when aged only 22.

You can't tell by his 'build'. Beer is very high in carbohydrates. A lot of stout people are stout from drink but mostly malnourished all the same. Just look at the unfortunates.

By the way, you have found a source that seems to claim that he looked the same in 1902 as he did in earlier years. So why didn't you mention that when discussing how we have no idea what he was wearing in '1888'. Does your source specifically say they are just addressing his physique?

Jon has a good question above.

[Abby Normal]

You can tell by his build; some people are naturally bony, and I doubt that a newly arrived immigrant earning the meagre wages of a barber's assistant in 1888 would have been larger than he was when he eventually started making a modest living in the 1890s. He apparently looked the same in 1902 as he did in earlier years (Levisohn), and it's hardly likely that his shoulders would have shrunk in the interim, nor that he'd looked like a thirty-something when aged only 22.

HI Sam
but if he looked the same in 1902 than he did in his earlier years, dosnt that mean he looked older than he was in his earlier years?