Thin argument against

[protohistorian]

because the behavior is better studied now. Illusion or not, we have more notes.

[Ben]

Hey CD,

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?

No. I'm saying that it would be considered more suspicious perhaps to a modern investigator, since there is greater precendent now for offenders approaching the police under a bogus guise than there would have been in 1888.

Edit: I see that Mal beat me too it!

[Malcolm X]

I recently watched the movie Zodiac (great film by the way) and the killer-whoever he was- murdered in various ways. This got me thinking about George Chapman. I know history doesn't tell us just how long Inspector Abberline held onto his belief that the Ripper was the surgeon-cum-barber but if we take into account the Zodiac murders 40 years ago, then I do believe history tells us that Chapman could well have been the Ripper. From what I've read, it seems the biggest flaw in Abberline's theory was that Chapman varied his MO (from apparent knife murderer to cerebral posioner) and this alone is what exonerates him but as mentioned, the Zodiac varied his method of murder and I'm sure someone on here can throw up other examples of psychos doing likewise. My point is, I really don't think Chapman should be ruled out as a suspect purely because he varied his method of murder.
What do you think?

using my memory only, ZODIAC wrote to the police stating that he would totally change his MO in the future, so that all of his future crimes would leave little or no clues to his whereabouts; or indeed, if he was the killer..since then, nobody really knows what the hell he got up to, if indeed; he's still alive.

many other serial killers have indeed switched MO, but only a few as much as Chapman as the ripper

we all know that Chapman couldn't possibly carve up his live in lovers, like the ripper did on the street, so to switch his MO is a definite must, (to escape detection) but what goes against Chapman is:-

during this period of time he is back in kill mode, but he's not murdering on the streets at the same time, this seems wrong to me, because if he was the ripper; there'd be another 5 or 6 murders out on the streets at the same time.

he's a poisoner only, unless of course we're missing something, or he's the one in a million..........who knows!

but Chapman still niggles at me, especially being back on this forum...why kill his lovers? no need to and why start killing later in life; most start killing in their 20's....

Chapman enjoyed killing them/no, he wanted to kill them and i bet you he was a killer years before this too....there is something here that seriously bothers me, even so; i think he was a poisoner only.

[Sam Flynn]

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

He was neither more, nor less, capable of it than a squillion others, Caz. The fact remains that it is only known that Klosowski was a poisoner - that doesn't make him a "more likely" Ripper than the Revd Samuel Barnett, in my view.

[Sam Flynn]

What the historic data would suggest is serial pathology and knife familiarity.

Every man, woman and child in the Western world over the age of four would have met the latter criterion.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

There are no thin arguments against Klosowski - only thin arguments in favour of him.

No doubt, he's one of the worst Ripper candidates ever produced.
In all honesty, absolutely nothing links him to the crime. Being vicious and evil is - I'm afraid - not good enough and it's very amateurish and unprofessional to use such parameters. We also know that other killers and serial killers romaed the area after the Ripper - like Neil Cream - so Klosowski is not in any way unique.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"There are no thin arguments against Klosowski - only thin arguments in favour of him."

Touché, Glenn!!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

He was neither more, nor less, capable of it than a squillion others, Caz. The fact remains that it is only known that Klosowski was a poisoner - that doesn't make him a "more likely" Ripper than the Revd Samuel Barnett, in my view.

Eh? Alert! What about the Reverend Samuel Barnett? Do you know something I don't, Sam Flynn? (not in general terms, obviously..) Its a name I just came across recently in another context entirely, so I'm intrigued.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Do you know something I don't, Sam Flynn?"

Nah, he´s just bragging, Crystal...! No much knowledge there!

honestly, Crystal, I think what Sam is trying to say is that the things that make a poisoner tick are not the same things that makes an eviscerator tick - these two approaches to killing are worlds apart, and in that sense, since we do not know how the good Reverend Barnett would have gone about his killing, had he had his mind set on such things, he of course may have been of the evisceratish type - whereas George Chapman evidently was not.

Therefore - with a twist - it could even be argued that Barnett is the likelier of the two to hide Jack within himself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Glenn Lauritz Andersson;70841]There are no thin arguments against Klosowski - only thin arguments in favour of him.

No doubt, he's one of the worst Ripper candidates ever produced.
In all honesty, absolutely nothing links him to the crime. Being vicious and evil is - I'm afraid - not good enough and it's very amateurish and unprofessional to use such parameters. We also know that other killers and serial killers romaed the area after the Ripper - like Neil Cream - so Klosowski is not in any way unique.


Hi Glenn,
But the "other serial killers" were not living a stones throw from the Berner street crime scene at the time-----which Klosowski surely was.
Moreover,in the annals of crime regarding serial killers,it is most unusual to say the very least,for such killers to only begin their murdering when they are thirty years of age.If Klosowski defied the classical description of serial killers in regard to being a "beginner" in 1895 at the age of thirty ,then he may also have defied the classical descriptions regarding a change of operandi when he reached the mature age of thirty.

Best
Nats

[Crystal]

Hi and thanks for your response - I was interested to see what he was doing in this discussion in the first place! I was looking at some of his letters the other week, is all. He became Canon of Bristol in 1894, so I guess he had enough of Whitechapel...

[Nothing to see]

If Abberline hadn't mentioned Klosowski he would never have been linked to Jack. The barber/surgeon poisoned. Over a period of time. Jack was dash, slash, trash. A few trophies and off he went. Serial killers can change their method of murder but not IMO to that degree.

[Malcolm X]

also about Chapman:-
he had a huge ego, a dashing explorer, a game hunter etc etc, he was a bullshitter...pretending this and that, especially whilst in America... in addition, he was semi- trained as a ``minor surgeon``...so he knew about anatomy/dissection etc.

Kelly's murder also reflets a ``childlike interest in anatomy``, the killer was exploring her with his knife...in a very twisted but amateurish way... this is not Chapman.. he's more likely to show little interest, more likely to stab/ strangle....to kill quickly and avoid detection (out on the street)..now the Kelly murder also reveals that the killer was brash and devil may care, he's a ``risk taker`` and a rough diamond

Chapman doesn't have these traits, tumblety doesn't have them either, these traits you'd notice in somebody like W.Bury/ joe barnett...a working class labourer.... or a ``broadshoulders``

a ``Broadshoulders`` of some kind was probably the ripper and almost definitely seen more than once; my guess is it was Hutchinson, yes it's all very complicated.

[Fisherman]

"it's all very complicated"

Wraps it up nicely, Malcolm!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Not true, Nats.

30 isn't remotely unusual for the start of a serial murderer's career. It may be late for the start of a criminal career, but it's about average for when they escalate into serial crime.

Regards,
Ben