thank you

[Ben]

A fantasy driven killer need only to have a change in fantasy to change his observable behavior.

Unfortunately, that range of criminal diversity has been absent from all serial cases recorded by history. It doesn't make it impossible, but it markedly reduces the likelihood of such an occurance. Whatever the imaginative range of "fantast driven subjects" may be, it tends not to manifest itself in such wildly contrasting methods of victim dispatch.

[Fisherman]

Nemo writes:

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

You´re welcome to that wiew of yours, Nemo. But you should prepare for a pretty exhausting job looking for Jack.

"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."

There´s another wiew I won´t snatch from you, Nemo. My own stance on the matter is that any man who has not given away in which fashion he would kill if he had to or felt compelled to, is a better choice than Chapman. Potentially, the man of whose killing preferences we know nothing, could prove to be a throat-cutting eviscerator, albeit the risk is tiny. In Chapmans case, we KNOW that he chose poisoning repeatedly - and therefore he is not viable as the Ripper to any extent as far as I´m concerned.

It´s sort of "Thanks for giving yourself away, George - one less suspect" the way I see things.

The best!
Fisherman

[c.d.]

I was reading Sugden the other night and what he had to say about Chapman. I think he gives a good balanced approach as to the pros and cons of his canidacy. He says that Chapman lived within walking distance of all the murder sites during the time the murders took place. Has that been confirmed or disproven?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Certainly Sugden does not need me to defend him. I thought he did an excellent job of laying out both the pros AND THE CONS of Chapman as JTR. He deliberately avoids saying that Chapman was Jack only that he believes Chapman to be the best of the suspects. Now for anybody who hasn't read Sugden here is the case for:

1. Lived within walking distance of all the murder sites during the time the murders took place.

2. Had medical training.

3. Fits the witness descriptions of those witnesses most likely to have seen Jack.

4. Known serial killer.

5. Suspected by Abberline, Godley and Neil, all Scotland Yard detectives. Although some of the information on which they formed their beliefs was erroneous, none of it was the lynch on which their beliefs rested.

So it seems to say that Sugden didn't pick Chapman's name out of a hat. And while there are definitely cons against his canidacy, I don't see how he can be dismissed so easily. My opinion only.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi CD,

Just addressing those points one by one:

1. is true for many thousands of men living in the districts, and Klosowski's residence in 1888 is actually at odds with the killer's known escape route which took him to Goulston Street after a Mitre Square. A most illogical and unnecessarily dangerous route for anyone bolting for Cable Street.

2. is completely moot, since the preponderance of evidence suggests that the kiler did not have medical training.

3. is simply untrue.

4. is fair enough, until we contemplate the nature of his known serial crime.

5. is seriously weakened by the actual basis upon which the detectives in question were suspecting Klosowski. It isn't just erroneous information, it's the clearly outlandish "theory" woven around Klosowski's suggested involvement.

I don't think he should be summarily dismissed either, but some of the factors being touted as "pros" are dubious in the extreme.

Ben

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Well your argument is with Mr. Sugden not me since I was simply listing what he wrote and which to him is supported by the evidence.

c.d.

[Ben]

S'okay, CD.

I realize you were only passing on Sugden's observations, but suffice to say I disagree with most of those "pros".

Ben

[Nemo]

Hi all
Nice posts Protohistorian and Fisherman

I can absolutely see your points against Chapman, Ben and Fisherman

As I stated, I am not really a champion of Chapman as the Ripper, though from what little I have read of him I believe his personality, history and habits make him a very viable Ripper to me.

What the Ripper did was calculated and horrific. Surely there were few people capable of the Ripper crimes? Mentally I mean. Who could walk with a woman and then be prepared to carry out such horrors?

If you read between the lines regarding anecdotes concerning Chapman, I think you can tell he was a very disturbed individual, especially where women were concerned.

I am also intrigued by his seeming lack of real friends. Wasn't he able to speak multiple languages and was only "fitting in" the local society by masquerading as a certain type of Jew? (There were numerous Jewish communities at the time seperated by language and origin).

It seems to me that he was isolated socially and was a major mysogynist.

I think Chapman would have been physically capable of carrying out the murders and that he had a psychology conducive to him being able to deal with the horrors of what he was doing.

If he was the Ripper, I imagine him taking home and cooking the organs and flesh for others to eat. This action is very similar to poisoning. I believe he would be able to keep the secrets of his horrors from everyone surrounding him, content that he alone knew the true story.

Sounds fictional I know - but there are very few other suspects I have come across who I believe would have the mentality to kill in such a manner, never mind being physically able to carry out the deeds - unless you go with a raving lunatic theory.

I think Chapman would be a good suspect for the type of Ripper who had a home base were he could leave and return at any hour without being questioned. His ideal cover (in a way a little like Sutcliffe) was that he did not live alone.

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Nemo - and thanks for being openminded about Chapman.

I will do the same for you and freely admit that it cannot be excluded that Chapman actually was the Ripper. There is no denying that any proven serial killer deserves a good look into before you take him away from the list of suspects for other murders in his surrounding.

That said, I really don´t feel that you can compare killing by poison to carving the flesh from a human body and cooking it. To me, these are totally incomparable deeds. One of them is, if you like, a cowardly method, that does not include any physical contact with the victim. It´s remote control killing.
The other is a VERY physical deed, nothing for the squeamish type of killer who evades that contact with the victims.

So, worlds apart if you ask me.

All the best!
Fisherman

[Nemo]

Hi Fisherman, thanks for the reply

No problem being open minded - it is in trying to be open minded that I include Chapman really.

As to your point about difference in method/crime...

Some serial killers have been arsonists at some point in their life. When these killers set fires with an intention to kill, it could be said that this is a distance act. Violence without physical contact with the victim. Cowardly even.

Later in life they may be stabbers etc Very personal killers. The arsonist and knife killer can exist within the same person. Two very different crimes carried out by the same personality type.

I know it is not exactly the same as the Chapman circumstances but...

[Fisherman]

Hi Nemo!

As for
"Some serial killers have been arsonists at some point in their life."

...you are absolutely right. There is an oft-spoken of triumvirate that is supposed to be present in the CVs of many a serial killer, and that triumvirate is made up of bedwetting, cruelty to animals and setting fire to things. But we must keep in mind that these traits all belong to the childhood of the killers, and are something that is expressed in their behaviour BEFORE they enter the realms of serial killing.
There are probably exceptions to the rule. Peter Kürten is one such exception that springs to mind, but he never locked onto any specific method of killing as do most serialists; he bludgeoned, stabbed and strangled - and put fire to things. Plus he was a full-blown sadist, enjoying tormenting his victims.

Jack seems another character altogether - he is firmly locked on target methodwise, and he has no need to let his victims suffer. A swift kill, and on we go with the eviscerations. To Kürten, a dead victim was a victim spent, but to Jack a victims life was something to impassionately snuff out before he could do his thing.

So Jack is not like Kürten, Kürten is not like Chapman - and Chapman is not like Jack. Two of them were driven by desires that scorched and burnt them from the inside, consumed them alive - whereas the third was just another tediously greedy and unhealthily incompassionate little man. He does not belong to the same zoo as the others.

All the best,
Fisherman

[protohistorian]

Hi Nemo!

As for
"Some serial killers have been arsonists at some point in their life."

...you are absolutely right. There is an oft-spoken of triumvirate that is supposed to be present in the CVs of many a serial killer, and that triumvirate is made up of bedwetting, cruelty to animals and setting fire to things. But we must keep in mind that these traits all belong to the childhood of the killers, and are something that is expressed in their behaviour BEFORE they enter the realms of serial killing.
There are probably exceptions to the rule. Peter Kürten is one such exception that springs to mind, but he never locked onto any specific method of killing as do most serialists; he bludgeoned, stabbed and strangled - and put fire to things. Plus he was a full-blown sadist, enjoying tormenting his victims.

Jack seems another character altogether - he is firmly locked on target methodwise, and he has no need to let his victims suffer. A swift kill, and on we go with the eviscerations. To Kürten, a dead victim was a victim spent, but to Jack a victims life was something to impassionately snuff out before he could do his thing.

So Jack is not like Kürten, Kürten is not like Chapman - and Chapman is not like Jack. Two of them were driven by desires that scorched and burnt them from the inside, consumed them alive - whereas the third was just another tediously greedy and unhealthily incompassionate little man. He does not belong to the same zoo as the others.

All the best,
Fisherman

It is not a matter of similar or dissimillar between serials. It is a matter of the staticnature of behavior. I would not even begin to belief that the violence reflected in our victims constitutes "static" behavior. The diversity seems to indicate experimental behavior. The only characteristic which nedd be invoked to reconcile Chapman, is more frequent experimentation. I do not believe this to be an unreasonable postulate given the analog of modern serials who frequently admit that experimentation for them is rooted in a perception that they may insdvertly tie themselves to the victim. Jack would have had no such consideration. The single most frequently cited external behaviorial modifer of modern serials would likely be nonoperational in Jack's context.

[Fisherman]

Protohistorian writes:
"The diversity seems to indicate experimental behavior."

To a limited extent, perhaps. But then again, we really do not know if there had been any element that would allow itself to be interpreted as "experimentation" if the external factors had all been the very same from deed to deed. It could all have gone down in a VERY static manner if that had been the case, for all we know.

And we have a lot of ground to cover if we are to read a wish to poison into the fact that he took Eddowes kidney whereas he refrained from that in Chapmans case. It´s not exactly a beeline, is it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[protohistorian]

Protohistorian writes:
"The diversity seems to indicate experimental behavior."

To a limited extent, perhaps. But then again, we really do not know if there had been any element that would allow itself to be interpreted as "experimentation" if the external factors had all been the very same from deed to deed. It could all have gone down in a VERY static manner if that had been the case, for all we know.

And we have a lot of ground to cover if we are to read a wish to poison into the fact that he took Eddowes kidney whereas he refrained from that in Chapmans case. It´s not exactly a beeline, is it...?

The best,
Fisherman

No sir, It is not. Excellent point about crime individuality. As external observers we are not likely to have "evidence" for shifts in behaviors aside from those that are features within the crime. Jack would have done what made sense in his mind, and there are few markers for what that might have been. I will pick up a copy of Adams today, my hope is a careful reading will help. It will still only be circumstancial though. So far however, this guy has alot of circumstancial indicators. Be Well

[Fisherman]

Protohistorian writes:
"I will pick up a copy of Adams today, my hope is a careful reading will help."

The best of luck with that, Proto! Make sure you share the more interesting bits and pieces as you pick them up!

All the best,
Fisherman