change in modus operandi

Since in Chapmans case he was convicted and hanged for slowly, sadistically killing women for his own financial gain, it is very hard to reconcile that with a killer that killed quickly, and apparently for biological specimens....his greatest display of sadism being that he mutilates victims post mortem.

A serial killer can easily switch from knife to gun, garrot to club, strangling to drowning...but I would think its related mostly to the "why" he kills, not the "how".

Chapman killed to steal possessions and money...a creep for sure, but also a madman who previously killed for biological specimens obtained by post mortem mutilations?..maybe not.

Best regards all.

[gizmo]

Hi Glenn,

Bottom line - the logical argument against Chapman as the ripper is not that he would not have graduated to poison, but that Jack was unlikely to have got ripping out of his system by choice, ie something beyond his physical or mental control most likely did the job for him.

Love,

Caz
X

Hiya, The fact that George Chapman was hung is definately beyond his physical and mental control. Who knows, if he had got away with it,he may have returned to his ripping ways

[caz]

Hi Glenn, All,

I think anyone who says that Jack could not have stopped ripping unfortunates and later started poisoning wives must also believe that Jack could not have stopped ripping unfortunates and gone on to do anything else with his life afterwards. Obviously when he had killed his last Whitechapel victim he was choosing to do something else if he still had his freedom and his health.

Out of all the ripper suspects who could have retained a capacity to kill after the ripper murders ceased (ie all those who weren't locked up, physically impaired or dead), at least we know Chapman did have that capacity. That has got to give him an edge over all the others in that category who are not known to have endangered a single female life at any time. Otherwise the suggestion would be that a man may go from ripping street women to staying in and sipping cocoa of a night, but not from ripping street women to poisoning the wife's cocoa. And that would be absurd.

Bottom line - the logical argument against Chapman as the ripper is not that he would not have graduated to poison, but that Jack was unlikely to have got ripping out of his system by choice, ie something beyond his physical or mental control most likely did the job for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[nickie]

There have been serial killers who have also killed spouses so that doesn't eliminate anything. You can't pigeonhole all serial killers. There are probably more kinds out there than we have even thought of yet.

Hi Stan,
Unfortunately I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one...I shudder to think what kind of maniacs might be coming out of the dark for the future. What has society come to?

[mercurior]

I agree, but it would be unusual. Not that I discount that theory. Just there seems to be more questions about WHY? If someone changes so much.

As i said i am not an expert, maybe others are better able to comment, but i say what i see.

[sdreid]

There have been serial killers who have also killed spouses so that doesn't eliminate anything. You can't pigeonhole all serial killers. There are probably more kinds out there than we have even thought of yet.

[Graham]

I'm wondering how one could possess anatomical skill, anyway. Knowing that "De toe bone connected to de foot bone", where they are and indeed how they are connected, requires a degree of knowledge for sure - but simply knowing something rather well isn't the same as displaying a "skill".

Hear de word of de Lord!

Graham

[mariag]

Agreed, boys. He must have had some knowledge, given his previous training, and maybe some practical application of it. Those circumstances by themselves, along with his being a foreigner and a known killer do make him attractive. He certainly is someone who should have been looked at and investigated.

That said, his crimes just don't jibe with my opinion of Jack.

[mercurior]

i heard that a serial killer may change his modus operandi, but rarely changes his signature.

the killing of a wife, would be at odds with the killing of prostitutes. Being married must have meant a certain closeness towards an individual, whereas to my mind the ripper killed strangers, maybe people he created a relationship with.

to have such a divergence of signature, the stranger killing, to a wife killing. seems a stretch to me. Of course i am not an expert, maybe other people better qualified may expand on it. or not ;-)

[Monty]

Sam,

Thats the exact point I was trying to make, thank you.

And I think this is what sticks Chapman apart from the other lesser thought of suspects and probably why Abberline said what he supposedly said. The possibility he had skill, limited as it may be. That said, its highly unlikely Chapman was our man in my opinion. Too much against.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

That's a good point, Sam. I would assume - of course - one is referring here to placement of internal organs, combined with the fact the general level of education was not the same among the general public in 1888 as it is today.
But I agree, 'anatomical skill' is perhaps a strange term.
I think we can say with some certainty that the Ripper had some basic anatomical knowledge, but that could of course apply to thousands of people of different working categories in the East End in those days. Medical skill was hardly needed for the things the Ripper did - some skill with the knife - yes - but again, that would also apply to hundreds of the male population, since the knife was a primary working toool for most people.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

I'm wondering how one could possess anatomical skill, anyway. Knowing that "De toe bone connected to de foot bone", where they are and indeed how they are connected, requires a degree of knowledge for sure - but simply knowing something rather well isn't the same as displaying a "skill".

[nickie]

Hi All,
While I agree that the level of skill for the Ripper crimes wouldn't take the level known to a surgeon, there is still something about Chapman that intrigues my curiosity. I am in no way implying that he was the Ripper, there are obviously more possible and probable candidates for the man responsible. I think the biggest problem is the lack of hard evidence against any one of the suspects which allows for anyone to be a hotly debated topic. Thank you all for the interest in this post. I so enjoy the educational value of everyone's knowledge of the case, it is a great help as someone who is relatively new to the research end of the case.

[Ben]

Agreed, Glenn.

Sequiera was markedly unimpressed by the level of "skill" displayed by Eddowes' killer. Note that the phrase "did not have any great skill" can encompass anyone from a totally unskilled operator to a man with limited (i.e. not "great" experience). He's clearly not ruling those with no skill or experience whatsoever.

Best regards,
Ben

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Monty,

Yes, Monty, especially skill.
It's true that Klosowski as a barber surgeon (although even the level of his so called training has been debated on these Boards) would have slightly more anatomical knowledge and possibly skill than a butcher - but the point is: it wouldn't be needed, as far as the Ripper crimes are concerned, since the Ripper's level of skill doesn't display anything beyond what a butcher would be able to do - somthing that even Phillips admitted when he was asked about it.
A butcher would probably handle the speed and the difficult circumstances on the crime scenes much better than anyone with surgical experience.

So again - the point about Klosowski having ' medical knowledge' and being a barber surgeon is not a valid argument and never has been.

All the best