thought experiment

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Dave,

It occurs to me that Chapman's "wife" left him on the return trip from America

She was actually his real wife.

Also, what is the span of time between Chapmans return and poisoning no.1?

Six years, give or take.

[protohistorian]

thank Sam

Hi Dave,She was actually his real wife.Six years, give or take.

That being the case, do we have a fix on Georges location at the time? If we do, If I am correct this would be a period of experimentation by George, A closer look at assaults on women in his vicinity, particularly older women would be interesting and potentially fruitfull. If chapman did commit crimes in this period, they would not be ripperlike, probably not involve fire arm or knife, they may however contain the an overt sexual or dehumanizing element.

[protohistorian]

Hi Dave,She was actually his real wife.Six years, give or take.

It also has occured to me that he may be practicing low medicine at this ( the 6 yr interveening period) time. If I had my guess his preference would be an abortionist or underground surgeon. You might also wish to peruse hospital entries with existing medical type wounds or deaths that seem as though they might result from a botched medical procedure.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Chapman has been characterized as a man who callously rid himself of the women whom he tired of. Once the female in his life bored him, snap of the fingers and they could be gone. This to me is an altogether different mindset from the random, quick, stranger killings of the Ripper. You say this behavior points to an evolution of his organization, but Chapman seems to settle into domestic relationships and then become unsettled, then murder or not murder. Its hard for me at least to connect the two as an evolution of his technique.

JM

Excellently put, menges. This is exactly how it is.

Besides, it's nonsense to claim that Klosowski may have turned more organized as time goes along - that is to truly underestimate the pshychological driving forces that drive each serial killer.
And if there is any developing at all, it is usually the other way around, that the organized killer with time turns more and more disorganized and out of control (see people like Bundy).

In all honesty, Klosowski was an idiot for killing victims that could be personally linked to him and for choosing the same modus operandi each time but he was a calculating poisoner where the crimes involved a certain amount of planning, self-control and manipulation.
The Ripper, on the other hand, was so screwed up and his crimes appear to have been unnecessarily risky and triggered by pure predator instinct.
That a person like the Ripper (although he does display some organized traits) - already so messed up as he was - would develop into such a controlled, organized schemer like Klosowski is quite unlikely and actually quite ridiculous.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It also has occured to me that he may be practicing low medicine at this ( the 6 yr interveening period) time. If I had my guess his preference would be an abortionist or underground surgeon. You might also wish to peruse hospital entries with existing medical type wounds or deaths that seem as though they might result from a botched medical procedure.

There is no evidence whatsoever of that the Ripper should have had any medical/anatomical knowledge or skill beyond that of a slaughterer/butcher, if even that.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

This is one of the primary considerations for JtR fitting into the disorganized category, the other chief consideration being leaving bodies posed in public for discovery.

Although I don't have any objections to the Ripper as a partly disorganized killer, there is one thing that several people forget (including the profilers from FBI when they made their Ripper profile) and that is to take the historical context and environment into account.

Today it is relatively easy to dispose of a body, regardless if we're talking domestic or sexual predar/serial killer murders. But in 1888 these possibilities were clearly limited. No one had a car in which they could put the bod in the trunk or boot. Looking at how the crime scenes were picked, there was absolutley no chance for the Ripper to dispose or hide the bodies, nor did he have any time. Most of the crime scenes were littered with police officers who regularly patroled the spots during their beats and the killer's time was really limtied so that he hardly had time enough to commit his crimes without being detected.

Therefore we shouldn't assume - based on modern profiling, in turned based on modern serial killer crimes - that him leaving the bodies for display was a result of attempted shock value. It could be - but my point is, that we can't say if the reasons were simply practical or not. We shouldn't read too much psychological stuff into this and realize that the circumstances and the aims of the killer in 1888 were different that they would be today.

All the best

[harry]

To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.

[protohistorian]

To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.

By that logic we may suspect no one. Unless your implication is that these women tire of lifed and willed themselfs to self destruct in a violent manner.

[protohistorian]

Although I don't have any objections to the Ripper as a partly disorganized killer, there is one thing that several people forget (including the profilers from FBI when they made their Ripper profile) and that is to take the historical context and environment into account.

Today it is relatively easy to dispose of a body, regardless if we're talking domestic or sexual predar/serial killer murders. But in 1888 these possibilities were clearly limited. No one had a car in which they could put the bod in the trunk or boot. Looking at how the crime scenes were picked, there was absolutley no chance for the Ripper to dispose or hide the bodies, nor did he have any time. Most of the crime scenes were littered with police officers who regularly patroled the spots during their beats and the killer's time was really limtied so that he hardly had time enough to commit his crimes without being detected.

Therefore we shouldn't assume - based on modern profiling, in turned based on modern serial killer crimes - that him leaving the bodies for display was a result of attempted shock value. It could be - but my point is, that we can't say if the reasons were simply practical or not. We shouldn't read too much psychological stuff into this and realize that the circumstances and the aims of the killer in 1888 were different that they would be today.

All the best

Point taken, but an organized serial in the contemporary 1888 environment would manifest different target selection and disposal methods, ones suitable to his environment. An example would be the torso killer. There could be an arguement for him/her being an organized killer based on the destruction of the body for purposes of identification. As for crime scene locations, those are a consequential outcome of victim type (prostitute) and method of approach used by the killer (ingratiating)

[protohistorian]

To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.

then why is Lewis Carrol in the suspect section?

[protohistorian]

Excellently put, menges. This is exactly how it is.

Besides, it's nonsense to claim that Klosowski may have turned more organized as time goes along - that is to truly underestimate the pshychological driving forces that drive each serial killer.
And if there is any developing at all, it is usually the other way around, that the organized killer with time turns more and more disorganized and out of control (see people like Bundy).

In all honesty, Klosowski was an idiot for killing victims that could be personally linked to him and for choosing the same modus operandi each time but he was a calculating poisoner where the crimes involved a certain amount of planning, self-control and manipulation.
The Ripper, on the other hand, was so screwed up and his crimes appear to have been unnecessarily risky and triggered by pure predator instinct.
That a person like the Ripper (although he does display some organized traits) - already so messed up as he was - would develop into such a controlled, organized schemer like Klosowski is quite unlikely and actually quite ridiculous.

All the best

Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior. Not all or even the majority of serials lose it and betray themselves. Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.

[FrankO]

Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior.

Hi Dave,

The poisoning would involve conscious thinking and behaviour, so a lot more realising of the consequences, which is really what organised behaviour is a result of.

Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.

It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.

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?

[protohistorian]

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?

It is not a matter of a difference in behavior. The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals, a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.

[Sam Flynn]

The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals

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.

a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.

Why should such a perception exist? I'm sure there are plenty of criminals, with or without delusional personality decay, who simply "get away with it"; just as there are a certain percentage of criminals, again with or without such "personality decay", who'll get caught.