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

[Ben]

The evidence suggests very much that Klosowski associated with fellow Eastern Europeans, of which there were a great many in that part of London, as we know. He might, therefore, have perceived very little need to pick up English at that time. It would have been quite a different story in America, of course, thus accounting for Levisshon's observation that he was speaking English in 1895. It would be rather pointless to highlight this detail if he was speaking English years in advance of this.

[Natalie Severn]

I'm unaware of any evidence that Klosowski was living in the East End as early as 1887, Norma. I'm afraid I doubt very much that Klosowski would have "spoken English like a native" after 18 months, assuming he was even in England for that length of time prior to the murders, which I also consider unlikely. Moreover, as I've already observed, the evidence of Wolf Levisshon suggests that he wasn't speaking English until after his visit from the States.

The recent A-Z of Begg and co ,like most other publications go along with the traditional belief that this was the time of his arrival in the Uk.It makes a lot of sense since his last recorded paper from Poland is dated the end of February 1887.He is likely to have left Poland shortly afterwards, most probably for the UK.

[Ben]

Ah, but would he have found many "willing prostitutes", CD? I'm inclined to doubt it, given the climate of fear that pervaded the district with regard to the killer's likely appearance. "Leather Apron" had contributed a great deal towards a general fear and suspicion of foreigners, and if Klosowski belonged firmly and conspicuously in this category, they might well have avoided him. It's not as though they weren't spoiled for choice, after all.

[Natalie Severn]

Ah, but would he have found many "willing prostitutes", CD? I'm inclined to doubt it, given the climate of fear that pervaded the district with regard to the killer's likely appearance. "Leather Apron" had contributed a great deal towards a general fear and suspicion of foreigners, and if Klosowski belonged firmly and conspicuously in this category, they might well have avoided him. It's not as though they weren't spoiled for choice, after all.

Do you know Ben that even the parents of the victims spoke of how he came across as a perfectly nice man who they also thought was a good man!!!Its said he looked quite good too which doesn't come across so much in photos---he looks smart in some of them but quite a cold fish.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

"M.O." is learned behavior and some aspects of M.O. can change somewhat over time and circumstances. However, a suspects M.O doesn’t change completely so that an all new M.O. appears. It is therefore meaningless when suggesting that because killer “X” changed his M.O. slightly that, therefore, this is proof that Klosowski could have been both a ripper and a poisoner. “Signature” is also important in this debate and Signature changes very little, if at all. The combination of the M.O. and Signature of the Whitechapel Murderer were so far removed from that of Klosowski’s, the poisoner, that we can easily take it for granted that they weren’t the same man.

It is also interesting, to me at least, that posters who debate this point, and it’s been going on for many years, invariably seem to believe that a serial killer like the Whitechapel Murderer just wakes up one day and decides that he is going to kill and mutilate several women and remove organs and take them away with him. Then, on another day, he apparently just decides to stop doing that and then, later, decides to start up again but this time using poison. They seem to think that it’s as simple as changing your coat The complex mental problems, complicated psychopathology and powerful demons which drive an individual to do what the Ripper did, and which were unique to him, simply don’t exist (it’s easier to play the I Have A Favorite Suspect game this way it seems).

Now, I’m no expert on the psychological profile of the Whitechapel Murderer but there is literature on this fascinating subject written by mental health and police experts and I would suggest that posters might want to read up on this. The upshot is that the Ripper seems to have been a much more mentally disturbed individual than most think and he was unlikely to have merely just stopped and gone about his business without anyone noticing his decaying mental state.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I posted this recently on another board:

There is no proof as to when Klosowski arrived in London. The date “June, 1887,” appears in The Jack the Ripper A-Z and apparently comes from Arthur Fowler Neil’s book Man-Hunters of Scotland Yard (Doubleday, 1932). As Neil was a Scotland Yard detective who worked on the Borough Poisoning Case, the case which sent Klosowski to the gallows, some believe that this makes it correct. However, Neil’s book is full of inaccuracies (he gets Kloswoski’s name wrong, calling him “Kloskovski” throughout) and some of it is downright fiction.

More importantly, during his trial in 1903 the closest the Solicitor General, armed with all the facts obtained by Scotland Yard from their investigation into Klosowski’s movements, could come to the date Klosowski arrived in London was to state that it was “about 1888.” Also, Ethel Radin, the wife of Klosowski’s employer when he first arrived in London, later stated (1930) that in August of 1888 he was new to London and very homesick.

Wolf.

[Natalie Severn]

Now, I’m no expert on the psychological profile of the Whitechapel Murderer but there is literature on this fascinating subject written by mental health and police experts and I would suggest that posters might want to read up on this. The upshot is that the Ripper seems to have been a much more mentally disturbed individual than most think and he was unlikely to have merely just stopped and gone about his business without anyone noticing his decaying mental state.

Wolf.

Inspector Abberline was a police expert and very good detective.He thought Chapman was the Ripper.So there we have a police expert of sound experience.
The trouble with Chapman is we know so little about what he did in terms of criminal deeds between 1887 say and 1897.He dodges about---now you see him now you don't -one minute he is in Docklands next in Whitechapel, next in Tottenham ,then New York, then back to Whitechapel then Leytonstone,Bishops Stortford, Hastings,now back in London near Pentonville Road next Eastwards but this time on the far side of the river in Southwark.
How do we know that Chapman didn't murder numbers of homeless women
during his time in these places ?How do we know that poisoning wasn't a convenient,very clever[in his case] method of getting rid of 'wives'- before they got suspicious and started prying into his other interests? He could hardly have had them simply disappear as their relatives would have immediately gone to the police.
So in my own opinion Chapman could have been a serial murderer who took the lives of his 'wives' solely to prevent the main business of murder ever coming to light.

[FrankO]

“Signature” is also important in this debate and Signature changes very little, if at all. The combination of the M.O. and Signature of the Whitechapel Murderer were so far removed from that of Klosowski’s, the poisoner, that we can easily take it for granted that they weren’t the same man.

Very good post altogether, Wolf.

All the best,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

"M.O." is learned behavior and some aspects of M.O. can change somewhat over time and circumstances. However, a suspects M.O doesn’t change completely so that an all new M.O. appears. It is therefore meaningless when suggesting that because killer “X” changed his M.O. slightly that, therefore, this is proof that Klosowski could have been both a ripper and a poisoner. “Signature” is also important in this debate and Signature changes very little, if at all. The combination of the M.O. and Signature of the Whitechapel Murderer were so far removed from that of Klosowski’s, the poisoner, that we can easily take it for granted that they weren’t the same man.

It is also interesting, to me at least, that posters who debate this point, and it’s been going on for many years, invariably seem to believe that a serial killer like the Whitechapel Murderer just wakes up one day and decides that he is going to kill and mutilate several women and remove organs and take them away with him. Then, on another day, he apparently just decides to stop doing that and then, later, decides to start up again but this time using poison. They seem to think that it’s as simple as changing your coat The complex mental problems, complicated psychopathology and powerful demons which drive an individual to do what the Ripper did, and which were unique to him, simply don’t exist (it’s easier to play the I Have A Favorite Suspect game this way it seems).

Now, I’m no expert on the psychological profile of the Whitechapel Murderer but there is literature on this fascinating subject written by mental health and police experts and I would suggest that posters might want to read up on this. The upshot is that the Ripper seems to have been a much more mentally disturbed individual than most think and he was unlikely to have merely just stopped and gone about his business without anyone noticing his decaying mental state.

Wolf.

Hi Wolf
Well said. But i disagree. It would be extreme IMHO to rule someone out to the point of "taking it for granted" that they could not be the same perpetrator of two series of crimes just because psychological reasons make it impossible. Psychology is an inexact science and i dont think you could find two psychologists to even agree to an exact and accurate definition of what M.O. and signature is, let alone agree to what are the real reasons that determine someone's behavior.

The human mind is the most complex thing we know of-who's to say that someone could not have the psychological reasons to kill 2 series of women in 2 different ways at different times?

To rule out SK, a known serial killer of women, especially since there are other reasons to rule him in as a possibility, based solely on psychology would be a mistake IMHO.

Would you look at two series of crimes of say, auto theft, an earlier series(unsolved) that the method was violent carjacking, and then a later series of auto thefts where cars were stolen with obvious meticulous planning from a car dealership (solved) and conclude that the person who committed the later series could not possibly have been the same as the first based on different M.O.? I think not, nor would any good detective.


All SK ever did was change. Killing 2 sets of women at different times with a different MO as you said is not as "easy as changing your coat". But neither is constantly changing your country, place of residence, occupation, wives/girlfriends, name etc.

This was a very strange and complex individual.

[Ben]

Very good post altogether, Wolf.

I'll second that, Frank. I thought Wolf's post was absolutely spot on.

Norma, I'm afraid that Abberline had very little insight into serial murder and its perpetrators. His ultimate conclusion, that Klosowski harvested organs on behalf of some unseen innard-collector from America, leaves a great deal to be desired. We can't ridicule Abberline for having this opinion. He was operating in 1888, when policing itself was in its relative infancy, let alone investigations into serial killers. But at the same time, it would be foolhardy to prioritize his opinion over modern day experts with considerably greater knowledge of serial crime, especially when the latter observe that:

"There is no way a man hacks apart five or six women, lies low for ten years with no one noticing anything about him, then resumes his homicidal career as a poisoner, who, along with bombers, are the most cowardly and detached of all murderers. It just doesn't happen that way in real life"

So in my own opinion Chapman could have been a serial murderer who took the lives of his 'wives' solely to prevent the main business of murder ever coming to light.

But his wives were murdered well after the ripper murders. It hardly makes sense to argue that he killed them in order to cover up crimes that he wasn't committing at the time, and hadn't committed for several years.

[Natalie Severn]

But at the same time, it would be foolhardy to prioritize his opinion over modern day experts with considerably greater knowledge of serial crime, especially when the latter observe that

Which 'modern day 'experts'? I remember one of these so called 'experts' leading the police on a complete wild goose chase ie in the opposite direction from the serial killer of a recent UK case , a serial killer btw who went on to murder several more victims---precisely because the police had been running round after a completely innocent man .Profilers were not exactly up to the mark over Bundy either.Its just a lot of mumbo jumbo and waffle by pomposities posing as 'experts' with not a single qualification to their name most of the time.Abberline had more good sense than a dozen of your experts waffling away with their mumbo jumbo.
Fred and Rose West defeated the lot of them----and went on secretly killing for twenty years before being caught.
Their victims mostly just the sort of homeless kids that Chapman could have been targeting once he had lost his nerve over killing outdoors.
The Russian serial killer's known victims totalled 58---sorry must look his name up later------.He killed in all sorts of ways,disposed of his victim's bodies in a great variety of ways too------but after a near miss with the law rather early on in his thirty year career
targeted mostly the homeless.

[Ben]

What absolute nonsense, Norma.

The individuals I referred to were not just "profilers" but actual criminologists, with decades of experience of serial offenders and who certainly have qualifications. The only people who tend to dismiss their expertise out of hand are those who've nailed their colours to certain theories and get upset when the experiences of these experts don't dovetail very well with certain suspects. What I find more insufferable that anything else is the way some people pooh-pooh such experts as Keppel, Douglas et al whilst inserting themselves as the replacement expects on the topic. They are infinitely better qualified to pass comment on the sorts of "MO" deviations being proposed here, and therefore worth listening to.

[Natalie Severn]

Waffle on Macduff!


Explain Andrei Chikatilo and his unseen / unknown reign of terror;his variety of methods---killing and disposing of.
Explain Fred and Rose West/ditto
Brady and Hindley/ditto

Did profilers play a role in their capture?

Tell me where they solved a case [ instead its death by waffle].

[Ben]

Tell me where they solved a case.

(Sigh)

(Yawn)

I have told you already that I am not referring exclusively to "profilers", who incidentally are not expected to "solve the case", but to provide guidance that will enable law enforces to make better progress. I have no idea what you're expecting me to "explain" with regard to the serial killers you've named, but I can assure you than none of them demonstrated anywhere near the sort of divergence in methods that you're proposing of Klosowski.

For the record, the 1987 profile of Chikatilo was very accurate.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have a few points to make, and am going to put them in separate posting to make it easier for people to respond (if they will!)

I read on another thread that Norma cited Hitler as someone who killed millions of people and by a wide range of methods from shooting to gassing to starvation etc.

Does the concept of a killer not changing his modus operandi apply to people like Hitler, who didn't actually do the killings himself?

Helena