Thin argument against

[Billy Bulger]

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?

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

It isn't true that the Zodiac murdered in "various" ways, at least, not from what we know of his definite victims. The Lake Berryessa knife attack was the only time the killer deviated from shooting people in cars, but that in itself isn't particularly surprising given that both methods involved direct violence (possible paralells with David Berkowitz). That's quite different from ditching violence altogether in favour of subterfuge. The argument that Klosowski the Ripper had to change because he'd be exposed as the ripper if he killed his wives in a "ripperish" way is logically very flawed, since he never "married" any of his supposed previous victims.

I'd also quibble with the suggestion that MO and signature are the only obstacles to Klosowski's candidacy.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hello Billy,
Abberline thought JtR/SK had committed murder(s) in America, and what's more, he believed in the "Jack-the-Doctor" theory.
Highly disputable views, though SK remains a possible suspect.

Amitiés,
David

[perrymason]

Just as a thought......The Zodiak, like many serial killers, killed to satisfy their own urges or fantasies.

Had Chapman not benifitted financially directly as a result of his actions, I would think he might fit better. There is a clear motive for his poisonings in that fact.....whereas there is not one for any of the 5 Canonicals deaths...unless you determine that issue by only the individual acts performed.

In which case you have a woman who died so her killer could cut her abdomen, the next one was killed because her killer wanted abdominal organs,... the next one was killed in anger, hatred or spur of the moment violence, the next one was killed so the killer could obtain abdominal organs, and the last one was killed so he could cut until sated.

If one man did all these, then maybe he could change to poisoning....but I doubt that we have 5 women killed for different "reasons" by the same individual.

Best regards

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Did Christie kill his wife for the same reason he killed his other victims?

Did Shipman kill his victims for gain, either because he gave jewellery belonging to some of them to his unsuspecting wife, or because he forged the will of a victim so all her money would be left to her wonderfully caring GP - ie himself?

Once a man becomes a killer, for whatever perverse reason, there are many other situations in which he could be persuaded to break the law, in similar or dissimilar ways, just like any other criminal.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,

Once a man becomes a killer, for whatever perverse reason, there are many other situations in which he could be persuaded to break the law, in similar or dissimilar ways, just like any other criminal.

In many cases, perhaps, although perhaps not all. Whilst there may be a correlation between general criminality and murder, this doesn't mean that there's a causal relationship. There may indeed be some sort of framework within which an individual's criminality expresses itself, which may reflect their personality and/or upbringing. It's hard to imagine the likes of Shipman, Shawcross or Christie suddenly becoming serial housebreakers, for example - not only because breaking and entering may have offended their warped sense of morality, but perhaps because they might not have possesed the mindset to get a buzz out of it.

[Celesta]

Hi Billy,

The argument that Klosowski the Ripper had to change because he'd be exposed as the ripper if he killed his wives in a "ripperish" way is logically very flawed, since he never "married" any of his supposed previous victims.

I'd also quibble with the suggestion that MO and signature are the only obstacles to Klosowski's candidacy.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

In regards to Klowsowski's marital status, there is a thread that discusses this matter.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=486

I don't think Klosowski was the Ripper, but, even if he wasn't married to all of them, he was living with these women in a marriage-like situation.
So who is the first person the police would have wanted to talk to, if they had been killed JTR-style? My money is on Georgie-boy Chapman.

Best to you,

Cel

[Sam Flynn]

So who is the first person the police would have wanted to talk to, if they had been killed JTR-style? My money is on Georgie-boy Chapman.

Indeed, Cel. However, there was nothing stopping him continuing to commit JTR-style murders of strangers whilst still living with a partner. Other SKs have done so, and at a level far outstripping either JTR or Kłosowski, time and again.

[Dan Norder]

The argument that Klosowski the Ripper had to change because he'd be exposed as the ripper if he killed his wives in a "ripperish" way is logically very flawed, since he never "married" any of his supposed previous victims.

Are you seriously suggesting that Klosowski could have one after the other slit the throats of all his common law wives and ripped them up and the police wouldn't have been at all suspicious of the fact that there was a string of mutilated women who had been living with the exact same guy each time and used the same methods as the Ripper? You expect that the police would have said, "Oh, he only mutilates live in girlfriends, and he was never living with the Whitechapel murder victims, so there's no way he could be the Ripper."? Give them credit for having at least a modicum of common sense.

[Ben]

So who is the first person the police would have wanted to talk to, if they had been killed JTR-style? My money is on Georgie-boy Chapman.

Exactly, Celesta, so surely the safest bet - if he intended to kill them - was not to marry them in the first place? That way he could continue being Klosowski the Ripper and resume a pattern that was working reasonably well already. The argument that he had to change the style because he'd changed the type of victim doesn't adequately address the question; why change the type of victim?

Best wishes,
Ben

[Ben]

Are you seriously suggesting that Klosowski could have one after the other slit the throats of all his common law wives and ripped them up and the police wouldn't have been at all suspicious of the fact that there was a string of mutilated women who had been living with the exact same guy each time and used the same methods as the Ripper?

No, the precise opposite.

Edit: Looking at my earlier remark, I admit it was open to misinterpretation. For the record, I naturally accept that it would be unthinkable to continue killing "ripper" style if he was living with his victims. In that case, the change in victim would necessarily call for different approach for the sake of evading capture, but that doesn't address the question of why he changed the victim in the first place.

[Celesta]

Indeed, Cel. However, there was nothing stopping him continuing to commit JTR-style murders of strangers whilst still living with a partner. Other SKs have done so, and at a level far outstripping either JTR or Kłosowski, time and again.

I'm with you on this, Sam. The killing, as far as we know, doesn't continue. I don't think he would have gotten anything near the excitement out of poisoning his live-in women that he did out of mutilating them, if he were JTR. In other words, it would not have been enough. That's only if you assume he was JTR, which I don't. Although I still wonder! The wondering is a huge part of my being attracted to these cases at all.

Have a nice weekend, Sam.

[Celesta]

Exactly, Celesta, so surely the safest bet - if he intended to kill them - was not to marry them in the first place? That way he could continue being Klosowski the Ripper and resume a pattern that was working reasonably well already. The argument that he had to change the style because he'd changed the type of victim doesn't adequately address the question; why change the type of victim?

Best wishes,
Ben

Hey Ben,

I don't think he changed his style at all. I think he wanted his victims' money, when they had any, and he thought women easy to come by and were expendable. When one became an encumbrance or lost his interest, he got rid of them. I can easily see him continuing to be the Ripper, if he was the Ripper. I don't think he was. He got fiendish pleasure out of seeing these women waste away. He was intending to kill them all along and he's like Mudgett in this respect, but not as enterprising. In some ways, I find him more insidious than JTR.

Best,

Cel

[claire]

Exactly, Celesta, so surely the safest bet - if he intended to kill them - was not to marry them in the first place? That way he could continue being Klosowski the Ripper and resume a pattern that was working reasonably well already. The argument that he had to change the style because he'd changed the type of victim doesn't adequately address the question; why change the type of victim?

But surely the argument is that he didn't necessarily plan to kill this second batch of women (or, at least, the first one)? Once he saw, though, that he could benefit from her death, his 'background' in killing, as per Caz's argument, would have removed all inhibitions to murder. Your supposition, Ben, is that once MO is established, it persists until death or capture...I think that it is, indeed, possible to suddenly get tired of a certain MO. Then, in Klosowski's case, he might have just given up 'ripping' because it had outworn whatever messed up purpose he felt it had, but turned to killing again later once he saw its other benefits for himself.

Don't know. Just thinking onscreen

[Celesta]

But surely the argument is that he didn't necessarily plan to kill this second batch of women (or, at least, the first one)? Once he saw, though, that he could benefit from her death, his 'background' in killing, as per Caz's argument, would have removed all inhibitions to murder. Your supposition, Ben, is that once MO is established, it persists until death or capture...I think that it is, indeed, possible to suddenly get tired of a certain MO. Then, in Klosowski's case, he might have just given up 'ripping' because it had outworn whatever messed up purpose he felt it had, but turned to killing again later once he saw its other benefits for himself.

Don't know. Just thinking onscreen

Hi Claire,

I see your point and Caz's, about his ease in killing again after he had done so once. The fact that he killed three of them makes me think it was more of a Mudgett style of murder, and some remarks that Klosowski is reported to make, make me think he got pleasure from his killing and the method used. I don't know if he did this totally out of the need to get rid of the women. I think the using them was part of the fun to him.

Regards,

Cel