Thin argument against

[Sam Flynn]

So I presume you similarly reject each and every suspect who was at liberty after November 1888 and capable of Jackie-boy exploits

That's the problem, Caz - we don't know he was any more capable of Jackie-boy's exploits in 1888 than a million others. In fact, Klosowski didn't resort to anything remotely like Jackie-boy's exploits during his known career as a killer.

To be fair, you would have to apply that equally to anyone's orbit after that time.

Indeed - there were no more uncontroversial "Ripper" killings after November 1888 in London, yet Klosowski was known to be at large in that very town, and wouldn't "settle down" until several months later. Of the various explanations we've seen for Jack's apparent retirement, I don't think anyone's yet suggested that he might have hung up his knife simply because he was "courtin' strong"...

[Natalie Severn]

it should fit within the context of someone who cannot percieve what we think is real. If it were severin, the points between discernable actions would be small. If you load no other hypothetical software, "I" would be the center. Beyond that personal preferances would sway.

That is one way of looking at it I guess.But I am inclined to think Severin was seriously mentally ill,like those with certain types of schizophrenia.

[caz]

Hi Sam,

But with respect you miss my point, which is that you certainly can't argue that Chapman was any less capable of Jackie-boy exploits after November 1888 than any of the other usual suspects (again using Hutchinson as the most obvious example, despite Ben's silly tantrums) who had no known career as a killer, nor even as a confirmed ill-user of women, either before, during or after 1888.

Look, Hutchinson must have 'hung up his knife' if he ever had one to hang up, and he did so presumably of his own free will after stepping, again of his own free will, into the lions' den and the spotlight of the world's press for a very brief moment in time.

But for some reason you sit back fondly while all sorts of speculation goes back and forth about a man with no known history of violence of any kind towards man, woman or beast, who as far as you know was free after November 1888 to mind his own business and did just that, without harming a flea.

While Chapman took up poisoning, some of the other suspects were evidently still very much alive and kicking, and without anything to suggest otherwise, they were choosing to leave the women they came across alive and kicking too. So what makes any of them remotely more credible to you as a ripper suspect?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

who had no known career as a killer, nor even as a confirmed ill-user of women, either before, during or after 1888.

And there's no evidence that Klosowski lied about his suspicious behaviour near a crime scene. Believe me, that would be of more immediate interest to a modern detective than someone who poisoned people years later, despite the absence of any comparable examples of serial killers having such contrastong methods. I'm always the first to urge caution against limiting a serial killer's range for no good reason, but Klosowski is a bridge too far in my book.

Your priotitization of what constitutes "suspicious" criteria in the context of the ripper crimes is flawed, in my view, and Hutchinson was a poor choice to illustrate your point.

But if we're up for Hutchinson debate here, and fancy derailing this thread...

[caz]

Hi again Sam,

I just wanted to add that I'm not arguing that Chapman was more likely than a million other ill-users of women at the time to be Jack. My point is purely related to how you can see Chapman as a less likely ripper than other suspects with no known history of violence, who were around when Chapman was doing his thing but chose to do other things that didn't involve ripping either.

My comparison with Hutchinson is valid, because the way you treat his suspect status is poles apart from your hasty dismissal of Chapman, with his 'known career as a killer' - while Hutchinson could have been playing tiddlywinks.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
What do you make of Chapman only becoming a killer in his late thirties? Was he playing tiddlywinks before then? What suddenly made him take a three year " practical" in poisoning for his PH D?
Cheers Caz
Norma
x

[caz]

And there's no evidence that Klosowski lied about his suspicious behaviour near a crime scene. Believe me, that would be of more immediate interest to a modern detective than someone who poisoned people years later...

You have got to be kidding, Ben.

There's also no evidence that the police were not able to satisfy themselves that while Hutch may have been a liar who acted suspiciously, he was not a killer.

The police had no way then, and you have no way now, of knowing that a convicted poisoner could not have been doing other equally horrible things with his time at an earlier date.*

Love,

Caz
X

*which, I hope, addresses your point, Nats, which crossed with my post.

[Ben]

There's also no evidence that the police were not able to satisfy themselves that while Hutch may have been a liar who acted suspiciously, he was not a killer.

Not without positing the existence of some mythical imaginary report that must have become lost, and even then, short of a miraculous alibi for a fleeting moment in time, it would have been mroe or less impossible to rule him out. Besides which, you have equally no evidence either than Abberline didn't satisfy himself that Klowoski wasn't the killer some time after 1903. Either way, the "there's no evidence that the police didn't know" argument is applicable to both.

You cannot negate Gareth's positions on the grounds of what you believe to be "suspicious" criteria. From a modern investigatine viewpoint, proximity to the crime scene and dubious accounts that attempt to explain that proximity to the crime scene is probably more of an immediate investigative priority than someone who poisons people.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Are you saying that admitting to knowing the victim and being the last one to see her alive and being seen loitering outside of her room is only something that would arouse suspicion in a modern day police force and not in 1888?

c.d.


c.d.

[Malcolm X]

chapman could indeed be the ripper, but we lack any kind of evidence; only strong coincidences and a thoroughly evil personality.

in choosing Chapman as a fav suspect, you have to accept this switch in MO; as a priority for him to escape detection...but as far as evil killers go, he is the most evil of all our ``top suspects``and one of the few; that is capabable of being the ripper...this is accepted all over the web.

but we have no more ripper style murders whilst he was in America, plus back over here... so this is a total switch in MO, it's not two MO's at the same time...it's a total switch, this is too much of a change in ``personality`` to accept.

Hutchinson looks far more suspicious because he was hanging around outside kelly's for so long....plus he lied about his statement, it is totally fabricated.

hutchinson was described as military in appearence...yes he was standing there as if on ``guard duty``.... he was fixated on millers court, or rather; lurking and stalking.

Abberline believed Hutch, yes but they also believed Bundy, the yorkshire ripper etc etc....when first interviewed, good grief, Sutcliffe was interviewed about 4 times

[Malcolm X]

Hi Ben,

Are you saying that admitting to knowing the victim and being the last one to see her alive and being seen loitering outside of her room is only something that would arouse suspicion in a modern day police force and not in 1888?

c.d.


c.d.

both eras, but more suspicious nowadays; dont forget that we know far more about serial killer profiling today than back then..

but there was something about Hutch that obviously made him appear innocent.... he just did not fit Abberline's profile of the ripper.... a shifty looking Jew, or a street thug...Hutch probably looked ``neutral/ average``..a concerned citizen

[c.d.]

Hi Malcom,

I fail to see how it could be more suspicious today than back in 1888. It seems to be more of a case of common sense and basic police training than anything to do with serial killers.

c.d.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcom,

I fail to see how it could be more suspicious today than back in 1888. It seems to be more of a case of common sense and basic police training than anything to do with serial killers.

c.d.

no, because today police are far more wary/knowledgable about serial killers..plus interviewing techniques/ reading body language is more advanced too.. but Hutch could still have been believed today, because it still happens..but even so, still easier to fool the police back then, because in addition, today we have fingerprinting, DNA etc

[c.d.]

Hi Malcom,

I am not sure we are discussing the same thing. See my post #54. GH's activities were suspicious. Then and now. That pertains to killers, serial or otherwise.

c.d.

[protohistorian]

It is quite beyond Aberline,and Adams. What the historic data would suggest is serial pathology and knife familiarity. What we have then is a mountain of modern data that suggests a behavior we can not historically see.