change in modus operandi

[c.d.]

Hi John,

You seem to have a penchant for blanket statements. Again, I would recommend that you read Sugden. As far as circumstantial evidence goes:

1. Chapman matches the physical description given by the witnesses.

2. He had a peaked cap as described by the witnesses.

3. He lived in Whitechapel within walking distance of the murders.

4. He trained as a surgeon's apprentice.

5. His arrival and departure from London appear to coincide with the beginning and end of the murders.

6. He was misogynist.

7. He murdered a number of women.

8. He was suspected by three Scotland Yard detectives including Abberline.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

I'm standing by my last statement there is no actual evidence that connects Chapman to the Ripper crimes.

[babybird67]

i agree with cd

there is only circumstantial evidence against Klosowski and against Bury, but Klosowski tops Bury in being a known "serial" killer, imo. Serial killers are rare: men who murder their wives are less so.

[John Wheat]

No Bury is a much stronger suspect than Chapman. Bury's M.O. is miles more similar than Chapman's to the Rippers, Bury matches the Rippers psych profile. Bury is also the only suspect who is a known violent killer and that's fact not circumstantial.

[perrymason]

I think perhaps the folks who propose that serial killers are prone to change MO easily, not just that they do on occasion, but that many do frequently, should evaluate the MO used in Polly Nichols Murder, Annie Chapmans, and Kate Eddowes.

They are 5 weeks from the first to the last, 3 victims, and in all the MO is virtually identical.

Why people kill doesnt change....they continue to kill for the same reasons they killed in the first place. How are Ripper murders and Poisoned Wives indicative of one primary motivator and a shared killer?

They arent.

Perhaps assuming Jack killed because he was a mad bloodthirsty murderer intent on murder using a variety of methods isnt what the evidence suggests. Its maybe what a Canonical Group suggests, but the chances are slim that there was such a Group in reality.

Jack didnt kill....he killed so he could cut.

Why did Chapman kill? So the women in his life would be dead. Were the 5 Canonicals women in his life?

That would make this argument interesting anyway, if so.

Best regards

[c.d.]

I'm standing by my last statement there is no actual evidence that connects Chapman to the Ripper crimes.

You are absolutely right, John. This unfortunately holds true for ALL the known suspects.

As for Bury, what are we to make of the fact that he was questioned by Abberline and that apparently Abberline did not view him as a suspect in the Ripper murders?

c.d.

[John Wheat]

I have to agree with Perry on this point. And if you ask me some put too much emphasis on what the police at the time said about the case. Statements by different policemen contradict each other and after all they didn't come close to solving the case so how can what they say be totally accurate?

[John Wheat]

What Abberline thought about Bury as a Ripper suspect is open to debate if Abberline did actually interview Bury himself and it's not 100 per cent certain that he did. There is atleast one source that quotes Abberline as saying. "We are satisfied that you have hung the Ripper. There will be no more Whitechapel murders".

[babybird67]

but he apparently said they had caught the Ripper when Chapman was arrested!

You seem to be sold on Bury which is fair enough, but this is a thread about Chapman and whether his change of MO debars him from being considered the Ripper, not on his relative mertis as a suspect as compared to Bury.

Both are imo credible suspects, but Chapman swings it for me, if i had to choose, because he is the only known serial killer of women out of the known suspects.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I am not aware of anybody arguing that serial killers change M.O.'s on a frequent basis. The argument seems to be whether it is possible or not. I agree that Chapman loses points in switching to poison but to argue that it can't be done as if it were some physical impossibility is simply foolish.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

A known poisoner but not known for violent murders.

[c.d.]

Are there any murders that aren't violent? He killed THREE people. That makes him a serial killer.

c.d.

[babybird67]

no, a known serial killer. The only known, proven, serial killer amongst all the suspects.

His poisonings were much crueller than Jack's handiwork. At least those poor women were killed quickly and were spared the long drawn out suffering of Chapman's unlucky wives.

I don't see at all why a man capable of serial poisoning should be considered incapable of serial ripping.

[c.d.]

My understanding is that it is a definite fact that Abberline himself questioned Bury. If that is not correct, perhaps someone can let me know (and knowing the people on the boards, I am sure that they will do so). We don't have an account of that interview but I think that we can draw some reasonable assumptions as to Abberline's impressions. If he thought there was sufficient evidence to connect him to the murders, he would have been arrested. This did not happen as far as we know. Since there is no further mention of Bury in police records, I think it is a fairly safe assumption that Abberline was sufficiently convinced of his innocence. There is nothing to indicate that the police investigated Bury further. Does that completely clear him? No, but that is all that we have to go on. You pays your money and takes your chances.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I am not aware of anybody arguing that serial killers change M.O.'s on a frequent basis. The argument seems to be whether it is possible or not. I agree that Chapman loses points in switching to poison but to argue that it can't be done as if it were some physical impossibility is simply foolish.

c.d.

Hi cd,

You mean that youve never suggested that certain victims that do not fit the Ripper MO as laid out in the Canonicals 1,2 and 4 should be included anyway? Because killers change how they go about their business? Isnt that the standard position for inclusion of Mary Kelly,..that Jack must have changed his MO and what he does to women, cause we all know that Jack had to have killed Mary, right?

Im not singling you out.

Many, many people here suggest that killers arbitrarily change how they kill people and back that it with the logic that Zodiak did, and Bundy did, and Son of Sam did. What they dont address is why those killers killed any women....why did they kill? Did the reasons for killing change?

To my eye, No.. for the 3 serial killers above, and most probably No... for Jack.

The man that killed Polly and Annie was JtR...and I for one see no reason to suggest that he suddenly stopped killing women so he could mutilate their abdomens, and instead killed for different reasons and in different ways. He killed those 3 women like it was scripted...and in a sense it was.

If you see a different motive present in a new crime scene and murder details....99 times out of 100, thats because it wasnt the same killer.

If the motives for killing the 5 Canonicals can be found in Chapmans later crimes, then Id say he is worth a serious look. Potentially...are they alike?

Best regards