Kłosowski's appearance

[Sam Flynn]

Will you ?

I hardly think that's all that was said. What else passed between the man and Annie Chapman before and after Mrs Long walked by? What else passed between them if, as is possible, he didn't happen to pick her up right outside #29 but elsewhere? And, if #29 happened to be the only pick-up point, are we to believe that JTR simply loomed up on Dark Annie and uttered just two syllables, before heading out back and killing her?

[Jon Guy]

Note the bit in red, by the way. Levisohn said that Kłosowski could "talk a little English" in 1894, which implies that when they first met (probably 1889/90) Kłosowski's grasp of English was cruder still, if not non-existent. How far do we think Jack the Ripper would have got in terms of duping a potential victim in 1888, if he could only manage a little English six years later? And, before someone comes up with the counter-argument that it doesn't take much to signify one's intentions to an "unfortunate", JTR certainly seems to have engaged both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes in some sort of conversation before luring them to their deaths and, if Hutchinson can be trusted, the same would apply in spades to Mary Kelly's killer.

Will you ?

[Sam Flynn]

That's a variation of 10 years. 30-40.

What it tells us is that there was a lot of variation in estimating his age. Which is to be expected.

Anyone should have been able to easily distinguish a 21 year-old youth from someone who, in Victorian terms, was practically middle-aged.

[Sam Flynn]

You can't tell by his 'build'.

I think we can. He certainly doesn't look like the type to have been a "stout" person at any time in his life. And, certainly, his shoulders would not have shrunk since 1888, nor would he have appeared to be in his 30s during that year.

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.

It comes from the account of the Southwark Police Court hearing published in HL Adam's Trial of George Chapman.

"The witness [Levisohn] ceased to see the accused from 1890 until 1894, when he saw him as an assistant at 5 West Green Road, South Tottenham. [...] The witness lost sight of him for some little time, and next saw him at a shop opposite Bruce Grove Station. This was his [Kłosowski's] own shop. [...] When at Tottenham the accused could talk a little English.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sydney: 'You saw him at Tottenham. What sort of man was [he]?'

Levisohn: 'He was la de da, then; with black coat, patent boots, and high hat. There he sits. He has not changed a bit...'

Stanislaus Rauch/Baderski [Kłosowski's brother-in-law] testified as follows: "He had not seen the accused from [1892/93] until he saw him in the dock; an interval of ten years. The accused had not changed in appearance"

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?

I never claimed they were just addressing his physique, but it's quite clear that his overall appearance had changed very little.

Note the bit in red, by the way. Levisohn said that Kłosowski could "talk a little English" in 1894, which implies that when they first met (probably 1889/90) Kłosowski's grasp of English was cruder still, if not non-existent. How far do we think Jack the Ripper would have got in terms of duping a potential victim in 1888, if he could only manage a little English six years later? And, before someone comes up with the counter-argument that it doesn't take much to signify one's intentions to an "unfortunate", JTR certainly seems to have engaged both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes in some sort of conversation before luring them to their deaths and, if Hutchinson can be trusted, the same would apply in spades to Mary Kelly's killer.

[Batman]

Age is probably the least reliable component of any offender description.

You even demonstrated this when you said...

Long (about 40), Schwartz (30-35), Lawende (30-35), Hutchinson (34-35).

That's a variation of 10 years. 30-40.

What it tells us is that there was a lot of variation in estimating his age. Which is to be expected.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Wolff Levisohn was commenting on Kłosowski's general appearance in order to confirm his identification of the defendant; he wasn't saying that he hadn't aged. Besides, a 22 year-old is still in the flush of youth; he's not going to look like a man in 30s, like the majority of Ripper witnesses reported seeing, and none - as far as I recall - reported seeing a man in his early twenties. Furthermore, "broad-shouldered" is "broad-shouldered", "medium build" is "medium build", and "stout" is "stout". Whoever Long, Schwartz, Brown, Lawende, Lewis et al saw on those fateful nights, it wasn't Seweryn Kłosowski, we can be fairly certain about that.

Heck, we don't know for sure that he even lived in the area at the time.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[Robert]

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

[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.