Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?.

[Busy Beaver]

"Let's see now, having exited 29, Hanbury Street, what does someone with knowledge of the ins and outs do that someone with just a general knowledge of the area might not? Turn left or right are the only two options. Then, reaching the next junction, it's left or right again. Once you've done that a few times you are a sufficient distance from the murder site to avoid suspicion when the screams of 'murder!' begin."

If you turned the wrong way killer might have just walked bang straight into a police officer. The ins & outs are used to describe what you know about an area, not just where you are going to.

[MrBarnett]

Did you commit any evisceration murders in the open air, remove any organs and scuttle away to safety amid an increased police presence? A tourist's stroll around modern-day Whitechapel (far less of a rat's maze than it was in 1888, BTW) cannot be compared to what JTR was up to.

Sorry, Gareth, it can. You are not and were not presented with a 'rats maze' on exiting 29, Hanbury Street. If you wanted to get as far away as possible from the murder scene you had to either turn left or right along Hanbury Street.

Let's say you chose right and found yourself in Commercial Street, which rabbit hole would you then disappear into that kept you immune from detection? Or would you just look both ways and head towards the quietest looking junction?

[MrBarnett]

"Let's see now, having exited 29, Hanbury Street, what does someone with knowledge of the ins and outs do that someone with just a general knowledge of the area might not? Turn left or right are the only two options. Then, reaching the next junction, it's left or right again. Once you've done that a few times you are a sufficient distance from the murder site to avoid suspicion when the screams of 'murder!' begin."

If you turned the wrong way killer might have just walked bang straight into a police officer. The ins & outs are used to describe what you know about an area, not just where you are going to.

I wondered when the detailed knowledge of police beats would surface. So, our killer knew the exact timings of all the beats in a large part of H division and the eastern edge of the City?

[MrBarnett]

You know, if there's one thing I've always hated, it's being wrongly accused of some sort of wilful malfaisance when such was not the case. Pisses me off no end, especially when you could so easily have made your points without the "naughty naughties" added. There's no need to make things personal.

Gareth,

You misrepresented my original comment and then changed the wording of your post to virtually agree with it.

Let me apologise for my attempt at a tongue in cheek response.

A little less 'faste fastee' and a little more 'thinky thinky' is advised.

Gary

[packers stem]

I wondered when the detailed knowledge of police beats would surface. So, our killer knew the exact timings of all the beats in a large part of H division and the eastern edge of the City?

Evening news of Sept 12th

POLICEMEN'S BEATS.
The safety of Londoners' property depends, not on the regularity, but on the irregularity of the policeman's beat. Every one knows that houses and streets are actually tested, indicated, and identified by London thieves, and that there is a code of signals which they perfectly understand. The policeman goes his rounds at night with the regularity of a well-appointed omnibus service, and the thieves know it well. If the inspectors would only order the reversal of the routes, and introduce a little irregularity into their nocturnal visits, we should have fewer burglaries and probably more prisoners. - Daily News

Beats weren't a mystery.
Neither was the fact that the fixed point officers changed shift at 1am
Appropriate for the 30th

[MrBarnett]

Evening news of Sept 12th

POLICEMEN'S BEATS.
The safety of Londoners' property depends, not on the regularity, but on the irregularity of the policeman's beat. Every one knows that houses and streets are actually tested, indicated, and identified by London thieves, and that there is a code of signals which they perfectly understand. The policeman goes his rounds at night with the regularity of a well-appointed omnibus service, and the thieves know it well. If the inspectors would only order the reversal of the routes, and introduce a little irregularity into their nocturnal visits, we should have fewer burglaries and probably more prisoners. - Daily News

Beats weren't a mystery.
Neither was the fact that the fixed point officers changed shift at 1am
Appropriate for the 30th

So how did thieves ever get caught?

Our killer would have had to have known the exact timings of the beats around Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square? Is that what you think?

What if he'd located a victim somewhere else, was his knowledge so encyclopaedic that he knew every beat in the district?

[packers stem]

So how did thieves ever get caught?

Our killer would have had to have known the exact timings of the beats around Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square? Is that what you think?

What if he'd located a victim somewhere else, was his knowledge so encyclopaedic that he knew every beat in the district?

Not really
My thinking is quite different and virtually negates the need to care about beats .
I was just showing that they were common knowledge if that helps anyone in their thoughts .
It's interesting that the city beats were reversed on the evening of the 29th.

[Batman]

JtR did a lot more than just dodge police beats. He also dodged all of the following.

• Plainsclothes with no fixed beat.
• Fixed stakeouts done from indoors looking out onto streets.
• Bait prepared for JtR.
• Lusk's men.
• Civilian awareness.

All of this before we consider that he could also make mistakes that get him caught.

This mass surveillance had 500 officers available to work shifts. Many serial killers don't kill in a 9km^2 area like this in the space of a few months. The only other similar situations I can think of in the UK were with the Suffolk Strangler and the Yorkshire Ripper, but they were attacking all around their respective city (cities plural in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper) and used vehicles to get around. Still UK police did try mass surveillance at each but were heavily concentrated on red light districts, which I guess in a way describes Whitechapel. Yorkshire Ripper was caught by bobbies on the beat. Suffolk strangler by DNA matching.

Anway the dodging of Whitechapel police and all their methods of catching JtR suggests some form of inside knowledge.

So all in all, it isn't a bad case against Chapman, but that goes for every other suspect without inside information.

HOW JtR got away with it, is a much bigger question than I originally thought years back. Studying up on the case for catching EARONS in Sacramento pretty much did that for me. All the reasons for why JtR can't be a police officer are defeated. It's time to start again on that angle.

[Batman]

Not really
My thinking is quite different and virtually negates the need to care about beats.

I am starting to think your view is a more conspiratorial angle allowing bodies to be dumped from wagons. Is it?

[packers stem]

I am starting to think your view is a more conspiratorial angle allowing bodies to be dumped from wagons. Is it?

No need for wagons 😉

[John G]

Overall, I regard Chapman as a weak candidate. I just don't see how a mutilator, who also demonstrated overkill as a signature characteristic, can transform into a serial poisonor. In fact, as this ever happened in world criminological history?

Bury's a better candidate, albeit still unlikely, because at least he carried out mutilations.

[John Wheat]

Overall, I regard Chapman as a weak candidate. I just don't see how a mutilator, who also demonstrated overkill as a signature characteristic, can transform into a serial poisonor. In fact, as this ever happened in world criminological history?

Bury's a better candidate, albeit still unlikely, because at least he carried out mutilations.

I agree with what you're saying about Chapman John. But as you know I differ to you about Bury.

[Batman]

I just don't see how a mutilator...

Is that an argument though that it can't happen? Or is it an argument that you can't see how it can happen? The latter is obviously the position of many people on the issue of Chapman, but this position is not a logical or rational one to take, on ANY topic. It can actually be classed as an argument from incredulity - "I don't believe it! The sun goes around the Earth when I look at it". Yet it doesn't and it took more than an emotional response to demonstrate that.

Saying you can't believe something is fine, but it is an emotional response to being presented with the hypothesis. What one needs to do is to show why it can't happen. A fact driven evidenced tour-de-force of why it can't happen. Granted, it is a shift of the burden of proof (onus should be proving they can change MO/signature not disproving it), but if people are making the statement it can't happen, then that is still a positive statement (positive it can't happen) and it requires evidence to support it. None over the decades has been forth-coming... and the reason is clear. MO changes and signature changes are a fact of modern criminology and there is no peer-review in forensic psychology to support the immutability of MO/signature changes and the very opposite is true, that they can, and do. More importantly is the misconception they are changing permanently when all they could be doing is off committing other crimes because of various pressures preventing them carrying out their prior MOs and Signature.

There are no examples of mutilators becoming poisoners. This is not a barrier to MO/Signature changes. We have examples of serial killers who were bondage freaks and performed manual and rope strangulations then becoming compliance officers terrorizing women by spamming them with complaints and killing their dogs by impounding them and sending them to the vets.

Anyway, all this has been restarted for several pages, but since there is no professional literature supporting the view that serial mutilators can't become poisoners, it is just a subjective opinion with no grounds in modern psychology, which is what denialists really need to show but can't.

Furthermore, they won't because the examples coming forward constantly conflict with it.

IMO, the immutability of MO and signature has been falsified totally in the 21st century.

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with what you're saying about Chapman John. But as you know I differ to you about Bury.

Bury's still a better candidate than Klosowski, though... and you know what I think about him

[John G]

Is that an argument though that it can't happen? Or is it an argument that you can't see how it can happen? The latter is obviously the position of many people on the issue of Chapman, but this position is not a logical or rational one to take, on ANY topic. It can actually be classed as an argument from incredulity - "I don't believe it! The sun goes around the Earth when I look at it". Yet it doesn't and it took more than an emotional response to demonstrate that.

Saying you can't believe something is fine, but it is an emotional response to being presented with the hypothesis. What one needs to do is to show why it can't happen. A fact driven evidenced tour-de-force of why it can't happen. Granted, it is a shift of the burden of proof (onus should be proving they can change MO/signature not disproving it), but if people are making the statement it can't happen, then that is still a positive statement (positive it can't happen) and it requires evidence to support it. None over the decades has been forth-coming... and the reason is clear. MO changes and signature changes are a fact of modern criminology and there is no peer-review in forensic psychology to support the immutability of MO/signature changes and the very opposite is true, that they can, and do. More importantly is the misconception they are changing permanently when all they could be doing is off committing other crimes because of various pressures preventing them carrying out their prior MOs and Signature.

There are no examples of mutilators becoming poisoners. This is not a barrier to MO/Signature changes. We have examples of serial killers who were bondage freaks and performed manual and rope strangulations then becoming compliance officers terrorizing women by spamming them with complaints and killing their dogs by impounding them and sending them to the vets.

Anyway, all this has been restarted for several pages, but since there is no professional literature supporting the view that serial mutilators can't become poisoners, it is just a subjective opinion with no grounds in modern psychology, which is what denialists really need to show but can't.

Furthermore, they won't because the examples coming forward constantly conflict with it.

IMO, the immutability of MO and signature has been falsified totally in the 21st century.

It's an "anything goes" approach. You may as well say that there's nothing in the literature to disprove the Jill the Ripper mad midwife theory. Of course, the reason for this is that there are no historical examples, no precedents, so why should there be any literature on the subject?

The fact is serial poisoners are a breed apart: they're very consistent and they don't commit violent murders: Harold Shipman, Graham Young, George Chapman!

Speaking of Harold Shipman...He was a serial poisoner who lived in both Yorkshire and Lancashire, and was active during the same time period as the Yorkshire Ripper.

Now what's the betting that if Sutcliffe hadn't have been caught someone would be arguing that Shipman was the Yorkshire Ripper? Thus, Yorkshire Ripper active in both Yorkshire and Lancashire; Harold Shipman lived in both of those counties. Shipman and the YR active at the same time. Serial murder rare in Yorkshire and Lancashire. Shipman is a serial killer. Ergo Shipman is the Yorkshire Ripper!