change in modus operandi

[caz]

In the East End - Levisohn meets Klosowski (by his own estimation in 1888), keeping his acquaintance until 1890.

In Tottenham in 1894 - Levisohn meets Klosowski again, and notes his change of image, and the absence of his Polish wife and his children.

In court in 1903 - Levisohn identifies Klosowski, giving a history of their acquaintance to substantiate his identification, and noting that Klosowski still presents with the same affectations he had adopted in the "missing years" between 1890 and 1894.

Simple. The inevitable corollary is that Chapman's "la de da" image was not the one he presented in the East End in (c.)1888-1890.

Regards,

Mark

Hi Mark,

Many thanks for making the context clearer. I can see now how “la de da then” can be interpreted as “in 1894 but certainly not back in 1890” and not “la de da then as now, not changed a bit”.

What I can’t quite see - and this is addressed to all - is what real difference it makes in terms of this thread. Whatever Klosowski’s circumstances were like in 1888, he would presumably have had aspirations to better himself and he had to clothe himself somehow or frighten the horses. The old clothes markets brimmed over with opportunities for a man on the tightest budget to kit himself out in threadbare versions of garments that were once bought new by the smart and stylish.

Also, while I don’t know how true it is, I have seen it suggested that serial killers can stop if they have a strong enough reason to do so, such as a distinct improvement in their personal circumstances, which could be social, material or marital. Assuming Klosowski did indeed undergo a complete change of ‘image’ between 1890 and 1894, some would argue that he could have cast off a need to overpower and cut up poor street women, along with his cheap second-hand clothes, once he had achieved the la de da status that made him feel good about himself.

But sooner or later his new status in life evidently proved no match for his underlying compulsion to have women totally under his power and control, and those he had succeeded in attracting into his life by conventional means were to pay the price.

Would it be so strange for a man destined to become a serial murderer, who was capable of refining himself, in the way it's claimed that Klosowski had by 1894, to have refined the way he exercised power over women too, as part of the same refinement process? A very brief episode of crude and opportunistic field surgery during his early unrefined period, but when the newly refined man emerges, all la de da and smart, the butcher in him will have departed for good with his bloody apron to fit the new improved image, leaving the chemist in him free to experiment in his clean white coat.

Not the most likely solution, I’d say, but by no means out of the question. The basic capacity for getting women on their own and destroying them is at least a definitely ascertained fact in this case. Many on the suspect list are not even known to have harmed a single hair on a female head.

Love,

Caz
X

[babybird67]

excellent post Caz

Klosowski was adept at objectifying, controlling, using and murdering women. there is nothing theoretically, including change of modus operandi, which would rule him out of the running as a possible Ripper for me. A man capable of such cold-blooded murder of the very women who were closest to him, and in such a cruel and inhuman manner, would be capable theoretically of anything, including donning la di da clothes as deliberate disguise whilst appearing as plain old George to others.

In relation to the rippings, although you argue this method of murder was less refined than his poisonings, i see the rippings as much less cruel, since the victims by all acounts were dead pretty swiftly...they did not have the drawn out agonising deaths of Klosowski's wives.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Caz and babybird---enjoyed these thoughtful posts.Chapman has to be ruled out before you can seriously consider others in my opinion.The pity is that though some police and ex police-especially Abberline- suspected him of being the Ripper,no search of his previous pubs or barber shops is recorded in the trial papers or the press of the day.This is frustrating since such searches could have yielded crucial evidence-but maybe it wasnt considered viable to conduct such searches after 15 years had elapsed since the autumn of terror.
Best
Norma

[John Wheat]

Chapman as a serious Ripper suspect is stupid rarely do serial killers change there m.o. unless the changing of the m.o. is there m.o. for example the Zodiac Killer.

[Natalie Severn]

Who says?

Chapman as a serious Ripper suspect is stupid rarely do serial killers change there m.o. unless the changing of the m.o. is there m.o. for example the Zodiac Killer.

The thinking on this matter is changing all the time.The suggestion-for that is ALL it is ,is based on FBI "profiling" and their late twentieth century statistics which are neither infallible nor scientifically proven.

[perrymason]

Hi Nats,

I agree with you that there is research that supports killers changing MO to escape "obvious attributions" to themselves, or based on the circumstances of the moments.....but in this case the most glaring unanswered question on Chapman is why would he have killed poor street whores?

There was nothing in it for him killing poor strangers...save the killing itself. But killing wives has many possible motivations, ...at least one of which is present in Chapmans case, by committing murder, he acquired a business.

If he killed the strangers "for fun" with knives and warm blood and fear and adreneline, then I dont see those urges just transforming into "kill for gain" by slowly poisoning.

Jack must have liked what he did...or needed to do what he did to strangers.....Chapman clearly wanted to kill his wives.

Cheers Nats

[Sam Flynn]

Many thanks for making the context clearer. I can see now how “la de da then” can be interpreted...

It was, of course interpreted in the form of a song, Caz - click link.

That song, "Lardy Dah" was a smash hit in the 1880s and it really caught on, albeit with spelt slightly differently on the original sheet music. The chorus went:

He wears a penny flower in his coat, Lardy-dah!
And a penny paper collar round his throat, Lardy-dah!
In his hand a penny stick,
In his tooth a penny pick,
And a penny in his pocket
Lardy-dah! Lardy-dah!
And a penny in his pocket, Lardy-dah!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Michael,
In 1902/3 when Chapman was caught ,the police didnt carry out searches of the numerous previous lodgings Chapman had lived in,only the Pub in Southwark appears to have been gone over,where the murder of his last victim took place.This wouldnt be the case today----most of the previous living quarters as well as any cellars,gardens etc are now investigated.So for all we know Chapman could have begun slaughtering women soon after he arrived from Poland in 1887 or 1888.Had he been the Whitechapel murderer in 1888 he could have lain low for a bit in the early part of 1889 since the net had begun to close around him and his high risk killings before he had another go at torso dismemberment ,dumping part of the remains in September 1889 in Pinchin Street across the road from where he was then living .He may have come close to getting caught when he opted for another jtr type murder.He was living round the corner from Swallow Gardens where Frances Coles was murdered in 1891 since it was only a few months before he and Lucy his wife set sail for America----after which no such murders were discovered in England [ but actually for all we know he continued murdering and mutilating right up to his capture in 1902----he just didnt get caught].Like Christie and others,he may have murdered his wives when they got in the way of his real obsession-for example when he needed to bring a woman engaged in prostitution back to his pub and they would have protested.
Michael---its not true to say his motive was gain.....his last bride and final victim Maud,owned nothing was the daughter of a labourer and was eighteen years old.Like Caz says, he needed total control and this he got whichever way he fancied taking life.He was skilled with both the knife and poison-he may have liked practising both!
As far as your question about the type of women he chose .....who knows who turned him on and why?
Best
Norma

[perrymason]

Hi Nats,

I think what we have here are a few killers over the course of the 1888-1896 timeframe that we know of....some had their victims wrongly assumed or thought to be Jack the Ripper victims, the Canonicals, and some men that killed for very different reasons that the reason it appears Polly and Annie were killed for. Jack may well have committed other crimes during that period, or before, or after it. But Polly and Annie were unique acts.

I would certainly place Chapman among a group of those brutal men who would kill just for pleasure, but I wouldnt put him in with a much more dangerous lone man that killed for other reasons.

The only 2 victims I personally can be fairly comfortable with as being Jack the Rippers victims are Mary Ann and Annie. I would think Kate is a very viable 3rd, if not for some troubling circumstantial aspects of that murder.

Those are specific acts. Poisoning is passive evil....Jack the Ripper was not.

All the best Nats, hope all is well.

[protohistorian]

poisoning is not passive when your photographing the victims suffering. Respectfully Dave

[perrymason]

poisoning is not passive when your photographing the victims suffering. Respectfully Dave

Hi Dave,

Id disagree with that,....thats witnessing, not aggressively controlling. Which is passive in comparison.

My example might be A man chokes a woman while his accomplice just watches.....the witness would be just as evil as the murderer, but in passive form.

All the best Dave

[protohistorian]

I think it falls into the realm of torturing myself. Their suffering was not so great as to make him leave the room (passive response), it inspired him to take photo's ( decidedly impassive response) Respectfully Dave

[perrymason]

I think it falls into the realm of torturing myself. Their suffering was not so great as to make him leave the room (passive response), it inspired him to take photo's ( decidedly impassive response) Respectfully Dave

I guess actively inflicting pain is what Im getting at here....taking photos of someone enduring pain not caused directly by the participant but in this case a third part source seems to me an inactive role....hence, passive. Mean spirited surely...but aggressive evil?...I dont see it.

Course Im just a layman, but that makes sense to me.

All the best Dave

[Sam Flynn]

taking photos of someone enduring pain not caused directly by the participant but in this case a third part source seems to me an inactive role....hence, passive.

Plus... you're not in the open with someone else's blood and poop on your hands, with vigilance groups and a reinforced police force looking out for you.

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Sam,Chapman was indeed up to his elbows in faeces during the murders of all three of his "known" victims.Each of them suffered daily bouts of vomiting and diarrhea,as well as each crying out in agony during their last days.Chapman appears to have enjoyed going into great detail about all this to their relatives, the staff at the pub,their doctors, friends etc ,all the while actively plying his victims with the very poison that intensified their suffering.I cant see anything remotely "passive" about his actions and all of the killing was done in both in public and with the same daring and "catch me if you can" bravado as was in evidence in the earlier 1888 Whitechapel killings.......aptly illustrated when he told Lucy Baderski"s sister he "could give her a bit just like that" and 50 doctors would never find out!