Article on Abberline's opinions

[celee]

Hi,

Abberline knew more about the Rippr murders then we do. To suggest, just because we have a better knowledge of serial killers and what makes them tick, that somehow a person knows more about the ripper murders today then Abberline, is wrong.

The interesting thing to me about the Abberline interview is that it gives us insight to what the Inspector thought about victims and suspects. I dont care if he put forth a dubious organ harvesting theory.

The first bit of insight we gain is, Abberline did not know who Jack the ripper was for certain. This means we can do away with all the theories that involve Abberline knowing who the Ripper was and the Inspector keeping the knowledge from the public. Abberline was not involved in any coverups, sorry.

Obviously Abberline did not find any eye witness crediable and this means Anderson witness was week. Abberline would have known of any positve identification that took place and if the witness would have been slam dunk then Abberline would have never pointed the finger at Chapman.

It is a safe bet that either Abberline was kept out of the loop about Druitt, I believe Monroe could have kept some things secret from his lead Detective, or the evidence/private information concerning Druitt was not conclusive and did not convince Inspector Abberline.

After the 1903 interview it became obvious that Abberline thought Tabram to be a ripper victim. Tabram's inclusion has long been debated and now we know that the lead Detective in the field believed the unfortunate woman to indeed be a ripper victim.

Inspector Abberline tells us that he believes the Ripper went to America. He claims, in the press, that he never thought the ripper had committed suicide or was in the lunitic asylum.

I take away alot from the the interview Abberline gave. The man was not stupid. he ws very capable. I dont focus on the suspect he puts forth or the motive.

I feel Chapman is a viable canidate. If he wanted to get rid of his wives he very well could not have hacked them to bits he would have been caught. Chapman would have had to come up with an alternate method. plus we do not know the motive for the murders. Who to say Chapman's prefered method of killing woman was hacking them to bits. Maybe the situation called for the woman to get mutilated.

I doubt that Chapman is our guy. I feel Jack the Riper hatted women. I think he was scared of women and he was very frustrated by them. George Chapman ws none of those things. However, I can only guess at motive, just like Abberline could only guess. I would love to be able to speak with Abberline on the subject.

your friend, Brad

[protohistorian]

They would have at least a working knowlege of people who had been convicted of multiple homicides in multiple events. They also would have a working understanding of killers who displayed extreme violence upon the victim. Sine the natural functioning of human minds is pattern oriented, I suspect they preobably had some understanding, albeit a vague one. Respectfully Dave

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I am sure of that Abberline knew more about ordinary Victorian criminals in general than the next guy, but the problem is that Abberline had not more knowledge about or experience of serial killers and what makes them tick psychologically than any other.
I would say on that particular field none of the officers, including Abberline, really had a clue even though they may have been very experienced in other regards. Sims, however, seemed to be more up to date in his psychological evaluations regarding this particular issue.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

I would expect Sims to seem a bit more modern in his thought process than Abberline. That doesnt mean he knew anything more about victorian criminals than Abberline. Theres good suspicion Lizzy Borden tried to poison the family before she went nutso. I dont know how a victorian would perceive poison and a knife differently. Could just be Abberline knew more about victorian killers than modern ones. He certainly knew more about the ripper.

If he had only written a book.

[protohistorian]

new data anda lesson

Hi c.d.,

I am sure those awards came from solving other types of crimes and not from capturing complicated serial killers. In the 19th century the understanding of serial killers would be limited amongst almost anyone, including Abberline.

Sims, at least, showed some common sense and some more intelligent, modern approach in his deductions as far as psyhcology is concerned.
No, Sims didn't catch the Ripper but neither did Abberline - in spite of his numerous 'awards'.

Even though we as moderns can bring to bear new understandings of behavior , we should understand that dilligent and intelligent men didn't catch the man we are after and our new understandings may not even offset the tremendous amount of information those men could access that we cannot. Hope is a fine breakfast, but a poor dinner, LIve Strong Dave

[Brenda]

If the Ripper did change his M.O. later on, I don't think it would be from fear of getting caught. Maybe some kind of illness would have slowed him down from employing a more physical type of killing. Something like untreated diabetes could cause extreme fatigue. A neurological disorder could cause uncontrollable muscle weakness.

In other words, a man who wasn't up to the brutal killings of his past, but who still couldn't get enough of killing.

Anything's possible, but I still don't believe Chapman was JTR.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi c.d.,

I am sure those awards came from solving other types of crimes and not from capturing complicated serial killers. In the 19th century the understanding of serial killers would be limited amongst almost anyone, including Abberline.

Sims, at least, showed some common sense and some more intelligent, modern approach in his deductions as far as psyhcology is concerned.
No, Sims didn't catch the Ripper but neither did Abberline - in spite of his numerous 'awards'.

[c.d.]

Hi Glenn,

I see that your Abberline prejudice is alive and well. Why the man was a complete bumbling idiot. A regular Clouseau. How in the world he got those 84 awards and citations from his peers is a mystery, is it not? Just think how many he would have gotten had he been anywhere near competent.

As for Sims, I don't recall him catching the Ripper despite all his apparent psychological insight.

c.d.

[Mitch Rowe]

To put it frankly, Abberline had no clue of what he was talking about.

Maybe he just wasnt tainted by all the profiling mumbo jumbo we have been fed in our modern times. He is coming up with his own logical conclusions with what he knows about SKs at the time. Wich of course was virtually nothing. Abberline told us the organ for profit theory was whacky but also points out that crime records have shown anything is possible.

He is not an idiot by far. He admits he has no clue. He proves no one else did either.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Prothistorian,

That, I dear say, is nonsense. The East End murderer had already perpetrated several crimes in a similar MO and signature without any real concern about it tracking them to him. Not to mention the fact, that the Ripper did these crimes under gravely riskful circumstances. He could have chosen other means already back then in order to point them away from him but he didn't.

The other thing you forget - and which constantly has to be repeated - is that instead of talking about a killer changing MO, we here seem to have two different killers with quite different agendas, mentality and personality.
The Ripper AND Klosowski made several killings with very identical, typical MO and signatures in their own right - Kloswoski had his way of doing it and repeated it for several murders and so did the Ripper in his way.

You talk about Klosowski wanting to avoid capture for the Ripper killings by changing MO. But frankly, his own modus operandi repeated again and again to the letter - and choosing victims close to him on each occasion - clearly shows that Klosowski wasn't that clever. Any man who works with the same MO each time and also in the process murders women to whom he are personally attached is bound to be found out and detained sooner or later when people will put two and two together. If Klosowski was so concered about changing MO and not getting caught after the Ripper murders, then why didn't he do the same when killing his fiancees?

Clearly those who stress this idea that KLosowski changed MO in fear of capture has not thought this thing through. Not to mention the fact that WH Bury murdered and mutilated his wife in a Ripper-like manner and not seemed to be that concrened about being suspected of being the Ripper. So why should Klosowski?

Clearly neither the Ripper or Klosowki were changing their personal individual general modus operandi that much - in fact, both of them in their own right appear to be very attached to their methods.
So what we have are two serial killers who both are true to their methods (and expereince tells us that SERIAL poisoners seldom chooses their MO out of coincidence, in fact it appears to be very deeply connected with their personality - like an addiction - and they rarely choose any other method even though it would be wiser for them to do so).

In essence, Abberline talked rubbish, as he usually did. In the statements made in the article he revealed a lack of knowledge of criminal psyhology and people like George R Sims who at the time attacked him for his conclusions were absolutely right in doing so. To put it frankly, Abberline had no clue of what he was talking about.

All the best

[protohistorian]

a potential explanation for the change in m.o.

One thing we should consider in reference to a change in criminal methodology is the the notion of guilt avoidance. The context of killing an unlinked hooker and a wife greatly effects the presuposition that the killer would wish to remain at large. The lack of evidence at the crime scenes literally fulfills the same role as the use of poison in an attack on the "spouse", namely to deflect attention away from what is really going on. If you use a knife and horribly mutilated your signifigant other, even by victorian standards you would be engaging in a behavior that would call severe attention to oneself. The change in M.O. could therefore be seen within the context of the assertion of the drive for self preservation. One thing we may be certain of is that within the mind of the author of these outrages is that detection and the subsequent confinement would without doubt deprive him of the opportunity to express his rage, this is true regardless of his specific psychopathology.

[Ben]

The Ripper wasn't mad, and by that I mean insane, but you knew what I meant anyway

How do you know, George? He might have been a psychopath, or he could have suffered from some form of psychosis.

He was the right build. He had wide shoulders and was strong looking the way he carried his frame.

No, he wasn't. According to his contemporaries, Klosowski was an "undersized man" with small, sharp features, an impression borne out by photographic evidence depicting a short, diminutive man. The precise and polar opposite to a strong, broad-shouldered individual.

The ripper did have surgical knowledge to be able to cut out organs.

Yes, easy.

You don't need surgical knowledge to "cut out organs". The manner in which internal organs are excised may provide an indication as to the extent of anatomical knowledge, and although opinion was divided on that score as far as the ripper case went, the preponderance of medical evidence pointed away from "surgical skill".

Which "Jersey murders" are you referencing specifically?

Regards,
Ben

[george chapman]

Ben

The Ripper wasn't mad, and by that I mean insane, but you knew what I meant anyway.

He was the right build. He had wide shoulders and was strong looking the way he carried his frame.

Your typical argument for arguments sake on surgical knowledge is tripe. The ripper did have surgical knowledge to be able to cut out organs. Could you do it?? (Unless you are in the medical profession. Forgive me if you are)

The Jersey murders with Chapman moving there. If it wasn't him by jiminy, what a coincidence.

Who did Lawende see??

Regards
GC

[Ben]

they were either mad, wrong build, didnt look like witness descriptions and had no surgical knowledge and thats just to get us started

Aren't we dealing with some rather moot points here, George? For example:

"Mad"? Well, what if the real ripper was "mad"?

Wrong build? Well, what's the "right" build? A number of witnesses described men with a stoutish build, which is the exact opposite to Klosowski. Certainly Klosowski is a misfit for pretty much all witness descriptions.

Surgical knowledge? Well, what if the ripper didn't have any, as suggested by the preponderance of medical evidence?

The USA murders were unlikely to have been perpetrated by Jack the Ripper, let alone Severin Klosowski. You highlight the fact that Klosowski was hanged for murder, but so was William Henry Bury. I'd be interested to know why you aren't as excited about him.

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks for the post Chris, and to Simon for offering it up.

The section I captured is of great interest to me, and I believe makes a weak case for Chapman as Annie Chapmens killer....the one that medical authorities suggested was killed so as to obtain her uterus.

There is still another link in the chain with which, as the author of the Whitechapel murders, the ex Scotland Yarder is seeking to forge about the Pole, Klosowski, and curiously enough, it is also particularly of interest to Americans.
"While the Coroner was investigating one of the East End murders," says ex Inspector Abberline, "he told the jury a very queer story. You will remember that the divisional surgeon, who made the post mortem examination, not only spoke of the skilfulness with which the knife had been used, but stated that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the criminal had so mutilated the body that he could possess himself of one of the organs. The coroner, on commenting on this, said that he had been told by the sub curator of the pathological museum connected with one of the great medical schools that some few months before an American had called upon him and asked him to procure a number of specimens. He stated his willingness to give $100 for each. Although the strange visitor was told that his wish was impossible of fulfilment, he still urged his request. It was known that the request was repeated at another institution of a similar character in London. The Coroner at the time said 'Is it not possible that a knowledge of this demand may have inspired some abandoned wretch to possess himself of the specimens? It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man; but, unfortunately, our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible.'"
"It is a remarkable thing," Abberline pointed out, "that after the Whitechapel horrors America should have been the place where a similar kind of murder began,as though the miscreant had not fully supplied the demand of the American agent."

I believe that the references in this excerpt do not help make a convincing case for someone like Chapman to be targeting uteri, but they do for someone alledged to have a collection, who is from American, and a "Doctor".

Cheers all.