thank you

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Chris,

Most of us know that Sugden didn't really tried to push a suspect based on his own personal beliefs.
The problem is, that it is the supporters of Klosowski who always drag Sugden into it by calling KLosowski "Sugden's suspect" and refer to him by saying that "since Sugden has written one of the best and reliable Ripper books, then Klosowski has to be a good suspect because he has a chapter devoted to him in his book".

I have myself pointed this out a number of times to Klosowski supporters but to no avail.

All the best

[protohistorian]

Only in your own mind, Dave. In my opinion.

All the best

I told myself I would not bite...damnit. How does the profile not fit?

[protohistorian]

Chris,

Most of us know that Sugden didn't really tried to push a suspect based on his own personal beliefs.
The problem is, that it is the supporters of Klosowski who always drag Sugden into it by calling KLosowski "Sugden's suspect" and refer to him by saying that "since Sugden has written one of the best and reliable Ripper books, then Klosowski has to be a good suspect because he has a chapter devoted to him in his book".

I have myself pointed this out a number of times to Klosowski supporters but to no avail.

All the best

How about this, We have afully fledged pathology which strongly intimates earier crime.

[Supe]

Dave,

We have afully fledged pathology which strongly intimates earier crime.

Thee, surely, but we is a stretch.

Don.

[protohistorian]

Dave,

We have afully fledged pathology which strongly intimates earier crime.

Thee, surely, but we is a stretch.

Don.

No stretch at all. In terms of behavior we have to examine earlier actions. He did not wake up a serial poisoner.

[protohistorian]

Dave,

We have afully fledged pathology which strongly intimates earier crime.

Thee, surely, but we is a stretch.

Don.

The coolective we is apprpriate in so far as his conteporaries streched his neck. I would accept thee if I was proposing the ice cream man was the killer, but alas that is not the case.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No stretch at all. In terms of behavior we have to examine earlier actions. He did not wake up a serial poisoner.

That is nonsense. You can't assume this automatically like it's some kind of strange rule.
Some serial poisoners - we have several female examples - have done this with no prior criminal activites behind them.

In most cases the choice of posion as method seem to be strongely rooted in the offender's psyhochology and not something they choose for rational reasons. It's very much like a drug and this point is often missed by the "Klosowski-as-the-Ripper" camp.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

How about this, We have afully fledged pathology which strongly intimates earier crime.

Even if we had, there is no reason to even assume that they would be anything like the Ripper's.

All the best

[Nemo]

I think George is a viable suspect - I see no reason why he would not change his MO - self preservation may be one reason for this.

Poisoning is seen as one of the most diabolical and cruel methods of murder. There is no proof that the Ripper had a psychology that would require mutilation etc for his "satisfaction". A hatred of women could account for the ripping etc and would come into play as he observed the sickness and death throes of those women he came into contact with later.

When his wife was upstairs in bed ill, her friend asked for her, to which he replied that she had died. The friend found her alive and thought his comments strange. The same friend asked after her welfare again, on a later date, to which he replied she was much the same. However the friend went upstairs and found her dead. - this is a sick humour, one that I imagine COULD be possessed by the Ripper.

That episode where he used his face to stifle the woman's screams is also very sinister don't you think?

Then there is that photo of George in the peaked sailor cap... a favourite memento perhaps?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Totally erronous, in my opinion.
A killer who is enjoying watching someone die slowly is more of a type of sadist that the Ripper certainly wasn't. The Ripper's object was not the actual killing or suffering of the victims but to inflict mutilations made post mortem - two totally different driving forces.

Hatred of women and "sinister" things is one thing, but that is absolutely no indication of that it is the same killer. Those are attributes we could apply to many individuals committing such crimes.
I don't see any similarities at all between the wickidness of Klosowski and the crimes of the Ripper nor do I see why the Ripper should have a "sick humour" - nothing in his crimes indicates or proves anything of a kind.

"I see no reason why he would not change his MO - self preservation may be one reason for this."

Murdering several women - who all can be linked to you personally - in the same manner is not "self-preservation" - om the contrary, it's very dumb and risky behaviour as people sooner or later will be ansking questions and put two and two together.
If Klosowski changed MO from the Ripper towards poisoning, why didn't he CONTINUE to change MO with each murder?
This is one of many questions that the Klosowski supporters never seem to be able to answer.

The "change of MO due to self preservation" is an extremely weak argument and it doesn't make sense. It's totally illogical, and that goes for any attempt to tie Klosowski to the Ripper murders.
Klosowski and the Ripper were undoubtadly two different personalities and two different killers who separately were attached to a specific mehtod in their own right.
And both used their individual MO:s rigidly and repeatedly even though it was risky and they didn't have to.

Klosowski has to be one of the lamest and worst Ripper suspects that ever has emerged.

All the best

[Nemo]

Hi Glenn

I respect your views, but nobody knows what the Ripper's intentions or motivations were.

It APPEARS that he was fixated on mutilation but that is not fact.

He could well have read broadside publications and wished to create a terror akin to that of spring-heeled Jack - the mutilations may have been for shock value only, with him feeding the bodily organs to his cat when he got home.
He could have been attempting to gain organs for sale but botched it completely. It may have been totally geared toward making the police look fools..etc etc

In short, there are a number of possible reasons why the Ripper murdered in the way he did. If he killed Kelly, that was a move from his "normal" MO of killing on the street. His fear of capture and satisfaction at a "job well done" may have motivated him to ceasing killing altogether.

If George was the culprit, I see no reason why, years later, he could not have read about poisoners/poisoning and thought it would be a good method - safe clean and diabolical and thought he would give it a try.

George obviously did not expect to be caught. The cunning and daring of the Ripper could well be a myth. Maybe he was just lucky. That George made some bad decisions does not exempt him from the suspicion of his being the Ripper.

I only object to the dismissing of George because of the erroneous assumption that a killer such as the Ripper would not drastically change his MO. It may have never happened before or since, but serial killers are individuals and George may have been one who DID drastically change his MO.

I don't champion George as THE suspect but I do think he is in the running. I can think of numerous suspects who are much more "lame" than Chapman.

[Fisherman]

With all respect, Nemo, I have to side with Glenn here. With your reasoning, the only reason we do not have Lee Harvey Oswald among the Ripper contender lies in his being born a wee bit too late.
Much as you have a point when you say that we do not know what the Rippers intentions and motivations were, there is eminently good sense in recognizing that whatever these motivations and intentions were, they did not make the Ripper come up with anything that is even remotely similar to Chapmans killings. Other type of victims, other method of killing, other surroundings chosen, other-you-name-it!

They both killed women. They both lived in the East end, at the same time. Thatīs as far as we can allow us to go. And if that is enough to go on, well, Nemo, then we are all of a sudden flooded with viable suspects, arenīt we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Nemo]

Hi Fisherman

Chapman & the Ripper - Poles apart ?

I understand the arguments against Chapman being the Ripper - granted there are many. However, it seems to me to be within the realms of possibility that the Ripper had a purpose that was completed in some way either with the Eddowes or the Kelly murder. If he continued in a like manner then he was going to get caught. Hence the Ripper crimes ceased.

I think the daring of the Ripper in killing on the street, pretty much under the noses of the police, is comparable to the daring shown in poisoning those around you and expecting to get away with it. The difference in MO is dictated by the difference in intended victims as well as the surrounding circumstances.

The difference in MO is extreme, yes, but no amount of psychological profiling will prove that the change was impossible. Profiling etc can only speak in generalities. Who knows what was going on in the Ripper's or Chapmans minds?

We have the Suffolk strangler in custody at this very moment - able to be studied and researched by anyone who cares to do so, but we will never know for certain why he killed in the manner in which he did unless he opens up and explains it to us.

I am all for conjecture, it may indeed reach the correct solution. That is, in the main, why I object to statements of fact such as "Chapman could never have been the Ripper" when he clearly COULD have been.

The only thing that completely exonerates a suspect for me is if that suspect can be proven to have been elsewhere when the murder(s) occurred. This is not the case with Chapman.

In my mind, anyone and everyone in Whitechapel or able to travel there in autumn 1888 is a suspect until proven otherwise.

If a suspect is found in the area who fits description(s) of a possible culprit, goes out frequently all night, has reasonable anatomical knowledge, is skilled with a knife, and who is subsequently found to have murdered numerous women albeit by a different method - then he becomes a major suspect to me, not a lame one.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

The difference in MO is dictated by the difference in intended victims as well as the surrounding circumstances.

But that leaves another more pressing question hanging awkwardly in the air.

Why was there a "difference in intended victims"? If Klosowski was the ripper was getting along fine killing prostitutes and evading detection in the process, why did he change victim type? He didn't "marry" his earlier victims. That alteration requires an adequate explanation, as opposed to arguing that maybe something changed in his circumstances without tacking the reason.

I'm not sure why a ripper suspect becomes more plausible on the basis of what's "not impossible". Many supects meet that criteria, but it doesn't advance their case. I've always believed that a compatibility between other serial cases and historical precedent is an integral part of assessing the viability of "ripper" candidates, and that if you're arguing for a change in behaviour, there always needs to be logical reason for a change.

The case against Klosowski seems to be lacking in both respects.

Best regards,
Ben

[protohistorian]

Hi Nemo,



But that leaves another more pressing question hanging awkwardly in the air.

Why was there a "difference in intended victims"? If Klosowski was the ripper was getting along fine killing prostitutes and evading detection in the process, why did he change victim type? He didn't "marry" his earlier victims. That alteration requires an adequate explanation, as opposed to arguing that maybe something changed in his circumstances without tacking the reason.

I'm not sure why a ripper suspect becomes more plausible on the basis of what's "not impossible". Many supects meet that criteria, but it doesn't advance their case. I've always believed that a compatibility between other serial cases and historical precedent is an integral part of assessing the viability of "ripper" candidates, and that if you're arguing for a change in behaviour, there always needs to be logical reason for a change.

The case against Klosowski seems to be lacking in both respects.

Best regards,
Ben

I suspect that he found a method he enjoyed better. The reason for behavioral change will likely not be visible by the external viewer. A fantasy driven killer need only to have a change in fantasy to change his observable behavior. In terms of the gap between methodologies, Plenty of evidence exists to show that fantasy driven subjects manifest broad changes in behavior. Is the gap between poison and the knife wider than the gap between a cat and a person? The reality is that the only one for whom the behavior changes ever takes a concrete form is the killer. At this distance in time and culture the best we will ever have is approximations.