thought experiment

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I'm thinking to myself, C.Eddows was cut up a lot; the autopsy report said he would have spent about five minutes cutting up the face before moving on to the rest of the body.

The cut running down between the breast and down to the groin area seems peculiar why would he cut the breast bone if he wanted the kidney and parts that were easily accessible from the back, it is like taking the engine apart through the tail pipe. Jack was not only killing Eddows but he was killing time as well. He was a great risk taker he was aware of the number of people that frequented that area. He was seen talking to Eddows earliar that evening.

Maybe he wanted to get caught.

BW

[protohistorian]

I'm thinking to myself, C.Eddows was cut up a lot; the autopsy report said he would have spent about five minutes cutting up the face before moving on to the rest of the body.

The cut running down between the breast and down to the groin area seems peculiar why would he cut the breast bone if he wanted the kidney and parts that were easily accessible from the back, it is like taking the engine apart through the tail pipe. Jack was not only killing Eddows but he was killing time as well. He was a great risk taker he was aware of the number of people that frequented that area. He was seen talking to Eddows earliar that evening.

Maybe he wanted to get caught.

BW

IMO he was experimenting

[Sam Flynn]

Do we know much about his mentoring relationships?

Dave - I started a new thread (this one's getting too general!) specifically about Klosowski's surgical experience. I've posted some info in answer to your question over there.

[protohistorian]

Dave - I started a new thread (this one's getting too general!) specifically about Klosowski's surgical experience. I've posted some info in answer to your question over there.

Thank you very much

[caz]

Indeed, Frank. To be honest, I can't see why "un-caught" serial killers would behave differently from those who were caught. Why should I suppose that the rabbit in my stock-pot once behaved any differently to the rabbit who got away?

All rabbit stews comprise of caught rabbits. Some of today's non-caught rabbits may eventually end up in a stew, whilst others will live to a ripe old age. It largely depends on the skill (and luck) of the person hunting them as to which category they'll end up in.

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid I have a real problem with your simplistic comparison between rabbits and serial killers.

If a rabbit ends up in your stew instead of dying of old age it's because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and wasn't alert enough to outrun or hide from the man with the gun, skill and luck to track him down.

Active serial killers very often come unstuck, sooner or later, by their own doing. They know they are hunted men and they also know that the hunter needs to find something that can connect them with one or more of their crimes. Unless a killer leaves that something himself, by word or deed, or carelessly allows himself to be caught in the act, the hunter's skill or luck won't get any chance to show itself.

Roger rabbit doesn't end up in your stew because he foolishly drops his military issued gas mask in the field where he has just been mating with Jessica. Equally, a serial killer who keeps his wits - and gas mask - about him after offending might well go on to offend another day, when he will once again risk leaving that vital clue behind that may or may not take the hunter's skill or luck to unearth.

Obviously in Chapman's case, his fatal mistake was to murder women directly connected to him, taking possession of whatever money or other valuables they left behind. It seems that Jack also took the opportunity to retrieve any coins his victims may have died with. So you could say that while murder did not pay much in his case, it certainly paid him to stick with strangers in anonymous surroundings, leaving them where he killed them and leaving no clue to his possible identity or home address. We just don't know how long he could have carried on doing the same without making a fatal error, as Chapman did when he thought he could 'work' from home. In his case, crime really didn't pay.

So I can't agree that unidentified killers are largely going to behave just like the ones we know about who all allowed themselves to get buckled in the end, one way or another.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid I have a real problem with your simplistic comparison between rabbits and serial killers.

If a rabbit ends up in your stew instead of dying of old age it's because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Correct - but that doesn't make him a "special" rabbit, just a rabbit that got caught. Up until that point, we have no reason to suppose that it behaved differently than any other rabbit. Ditto with criminals. There's no reason to suppose that criminals at large (i.e. those who haven't yet been caught) are any different to those who have been caught and banged up.

[caz]

Well thanks for not even addressing my point and just repeating your own argument.

Can you not even bring yourself to acknowledge that the serial killers who make the most or biggest mistakes are also the most likely to get caught eventually, while those who succeed in leaving only the faintest traces of anything that can connect them with their crimes are the most likely to remain unidentified?

Love,

Caz
X

[Spitalfields Wanderer]

Accent

Hi Proto - new member here so please be gentle!

I was thinking about Chapman's/Klosowski's accent. Assuming for the point of this argument that he was the Ripper, he was overhead speaking (albeit just a few words) to Annie Chapman, Liz Stride and Mary Kelly on the nights they were murdered and yet not one of the witnesses to these titbits of conversation considered him to have a foreign accent. As Ch/Klos had arrived in England barely a year before the first canonical murder took place wouldn't he have had a quite discernible 'foreign' accent. A counter argument would be of course that the witnesses didn't hear enough to say definitively or perhaps they had little knowledge of what an eastern european accent would sound like.

What does anyone think?

[protohistorian]

or perhaps the accent was not pronounced enough fo witnessess to comment on. There are two considerations to this. The first is the speed of aquisition of English by Severin. The second is given the massive density of immigrants in the area, how much accent is notable. Respectfully Dave

[Ben]

Hi SW, and welcome!

According to the evidence of Wolf Levisshon, it's very likely that Klosowski couldn't speak any English in 1888.

All the best,
Ben

[Spitalfields Wanderer]

Proto and Ben - many thanks for getting back so soon. I am now off to read Levisshon's evidence in full! On the other hand, as Proto says with the dense population of immigrants in the area would an accent really stand out or even be considered that material. I feel, myself, that Chapman would have acquired enough English to make basic conversation etc in the short time he had been in England esp as he was working with the public at the time. Back to the drawing board - thanks again guys.

[Ben]

Hi SW,

While it's true that Klosowski would have been working with the public, his friends, acquaintances and clientele were likely to consist of fellow Polish immigrants, of which there were a great many where he lived. An inability to speak English would therefore not have been a hinderance. They would all have communicated with eachother in their native tongue.

Best regards,
Ben

[Spitalfields Wanderer]

You are right Ben, certainly Chapman wouldn't have needed to have learnt much/any English to get by but (you can probably tell he is my suspect of choice!) it would certainly have benefited him to have picked up enough to make some degree of conversation. I am just looking around the site and familiarising myself with things and honestly the wealth and depth of information and the breadth of informed opinion is staggering, it is going to be a great place to be. Right, off to read some more and then, no doubt, to find my suspect of choice changes (again!). Talk again soon I hope.

All the best
SW

[c.d.]

Hi SW, and welcome!

According to the evidence of Wolf Levisshon, it's very likely that Klosowski couldn't speak any English in 1888.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

But as Sugden pointed out, it is likely that Klosowski and Levisshon conversed in Polish and that Levisshon might not have been aware of the progress that Klosowski had made in speaking English. Besides if you are going to move to a foreign country, wouldn't it make sense to try to learn a little of the language prior to doing so?

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

But as Sugden pointed out, it is likely that Klosowski and Levisshon conversed in Polish and that Levisshon might not have been aware of the progress that Klosowski had made in speaking English

Probably not, or else Levisshon would have specified that Klosowski spoke only Polish and Yiddish to him. Another crucial clue is evinced from levisshon's later testimony, which referenced Klosowski's time in Tottenham High Road when the two caught up with eachother again in 1895. I'm probabaly paraphasing, but it was observed that "(Klosowski) could speak English then". The obvious inference being that he couldn't when the two were first acquainted.

Besides if you are going to move to a foreign country, wouldn't it make sense to try to learn a little of the language prior to doing so?

Not when you know that your intented destination was guaranteed to be chock full of fellow Polish immigrants all speaking your native tongue, and that your first employment prospects are likely to reside with them too.

Best regards,
Ben