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

[Fisherman]

I went into Helena's book to learn about all the mistakes made surrounding Chapman which she appears to have done quite well in correcting.

Did it exonerate Chapman as a potential ripper candidate? No. In fact, there were many more things I learned, such as ... the reasons for murdering his partners, which I thought was always financial, but isn't.

If anything, the matter that he did not murder his partners for financial gain is something that - to my mind - points away from him being the Ripper.

If Chapman did away with his partners on account of an urge instead of a wish to gain financially, then we have to accept that one killer could satisfy his urge to kill by way of using two methods that were (and remain) extremely far apart. I find that totally and utterly unbelievable and unlikely.

If he had instead lost his urge to cut and eviscerate and needed money ten years on, then the case would be a better one. Not a good one, mind you, it would still be thoroughly bad the way I see things, but it would leave you with some faint and far away smallish glimmer of hope.

The idea of two diametrically opposite types of urges surfacing within the same individual, causing two series of murders within the span of ten, fifteen years leaves you totally in the dark, however.

Theoretically, just about anything can take place. It´s when they are put to the test practically that things reveal their true nature.

[John G]

Wow, some people will go a long way to try and dissuade themselves that Chapman can't be a mutilator and a poisoner if he wanted to be, but being in denial that there is any evidence H.H. Holmes murdered anyone is a pretty extreme length to go to do that.

So a confession to 27 murders isn't sufficient? Geyer was tracking him as he was leaving bodies behind in his wake fleeing his murder hotel. Geyer was uncovering them.

Also this idea generally one is either a conman or serial killer is a false dichotomy obviously. They can be both.

Except he didn't kill the 27 people he confessed to killing-some of them were still alive!

[John G]

If anything, the matter that he did not murder his partners for financial gain is something that - to my mind - points away from him being the Ripper.

If Chapman did away with his partners on account of an urge instead of a wish to gain financially, then we have to accept that one killer could satisfy his urge to kill by way of using two methods that were (and remain) extremely far apart. I find that totally and utterly unbelievable and unlikely.

If he had instead lost his urge to cut and eviscerate and needed money ten years on, then the case would be a better one. Not a good one, mind you, it would still be thoroughly bad the way I see things, but it would leave you with some faint and far away smallish glimmer of hope.

The idea of two diametrically opposite types of urges surfacing within the same individual, causing two series of murders within the span of ten, fifteen years leaves you totally in the dark, however.

Theoretically, just about anything can take place. It´s when they are put to the test practically that things reveal their true nature.

Excellent post. Clearly in respect of the two sets of victims there is a completely different victimology, hence different motive.

[Batman]

Except he didn't kill the 27 people he confessed to killing-some of them were still alive!

One can chalk that up to the fact it's 27 people he is trying to recall, out of a potential 100+

[Batman]

If anything, the matter that he did not murder his partners for financial gain is something that - to my mind - points away from him being the Ripper.

Chapman gained £500 from his first poisoning of Spink who he beat mercilessly. He gained nothing from the other two. £500 back then was the equivalent of £60,000 today give or take a few grand.

[John G]

One can chalk that up to the fact it's 27 people he is trying to recall, out of a potential 100+

He's only presumed to have killed 9 victims, and it wasn't proven that any of them were poisoned.

[John G]

Following on from Fisherman's point, there is, at the very least, no reason to assume that Chapman is a more likely candidate than any of the other tens of thousands of men who were living in the locality at the time. The murder of his "wives" doesn't elevate him as a candidate, because no serial mutilator has ever evolved into a serial poisoner, presumably because what drives the two types of killers is materially different. In fact, as noted, Chapman 's series of crimes involved a completely different victimology and completely different motive, so is no link whatsover to the Whitechapel murders.

[Fisherman]

Chapman gained £500 from his first poisoning of Spink who he beat mercilessly. He gained nothing from the other two. £500 back then was the equivalent of £60,000 today give or take a few grand.

The question then becomes whether he thought he would gain from the other two or if something else drove him to poison them. What about yourself, what motive do you identify for the three partner murders he committed?

[Batman]

Following on from Fisherman's point, there is, at the very least, no reason to assume that Chapman is a more likely candidate than any of the other tens of thousands of men who were living in the locality at the time. The murder of his "wives" doesn't elevate him as a candidate, because no serial mutilator has ever evolved into a serial poisoner, presumably because what drives the two types of killers is materially different. In fact, as noted, Chapman 's series of crimes involved a completely different victimology and completely different motive, so is no link whatsover to the Whitechapel murders.

Well, you don't think H.H.Holmes poisoned anyone, despite the gassing chambers built in his murder hotel, and his access to poisons from the pharmacy he ran. However, if you want to claim that there is a lack of evidence to convict Holmes, then your criteria for evidence is very high indeed. If I held such a high level of criteria then I wouldn't be able to say much about the Whitechapel murders at all except repeat what's in the case files and newspapers. No deductions. No Inferences. Do you keep that up? Or is it a special case for just this one time?

Using your rationale, I could say no serial killer has ever evolved into a compliance officer who targets family pets to be put down in order to harass women. Let's say BTK left no evidence and all we have is Dennis Rader harassing women. He gets a restraining order (as he did) and his name pops up. Using your rationale this is what you would be saying...

... there is, at the very least, no reason to assume that Rader is a more likely candidate than any of the other tens of thousands of men who were living in the locality at the time. The harassment of women doesn't elevate him as a candidate, because no serial strangler has ever evolved into not murdering and just being satisfied harassing women and murdering their dogs, presumably because what drives the two types of crimes is materially different. In fact, as noted, Rader's series of crimes involved a completely different victimology and completely different motive, so is no link whatsover to the BTK murders.

The rationale can't be right. Rader IS BTK.

The rationale is that there was a barrier of 'I can't believe it' put in there somewhere which isn't based on any modern professional literature which indicates MOs and Signatures can change. The moment the idea appears that not all MOs and no all Signatures are immutable is why it collapses.

In fact, Rader wouldn't have come to our attention for this because there were no murders in his later life, meaning he doesn't enter into the statistics of the population density for homicides... but Chapman does. Chapman is a candidate because he is a serial killer living in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. You have two killers operating in a 9km^2 area with a population of a few tens thousands of people. Which points to Chapman being JtR statistically. Chapman is the statistical argument for JtR.

[Batman]

The question then becomes whether he thought he would gain from the other two or if something else drove him to poison them. What about yourself, what motive do you identify for the three partner murders he committed?

He was a violent misogynist who murdered women because he hates them basically. He enjoys the power and control over them and found a method to watch them suffer from poisoning which he believed he could do safely without detection. He was successful for a time.

[Sam Flynn]

"I find it rather hard to believe that a comparative newcomer to an area like Whitechapel would commit such audacious crimes knowing that he'd face a 15-20 minute walk - at least once, apparently, in daylight - before reaching the saftety of home."

But wouldn't a couple of dry runs using different routes overcome that problem?

Possibly, but once we start doing that kind of thing, we're in the territory of inventing handy mechanisms/excuses to get around a problem.

This mechanism/excuse creates a problem of its own, in that it supposes that Kłosowski landed in Whitechapel (St George in the East, to be more accurate) as a fully-formed Ripper, and almost immediately started "practising" for the Autumn of Terror. Assuming he arrived in Cable Street before the murders started, which is by no means certain as I've said.

Even with "dry runs", the fact remains that he'd have been out in the open for a reasonably long time after each murder, Stride excepted. Furthermore, his route back to Cable Street would entail him having to traverse some well-lit and comparatively busy routes at some point (e.g. Commercial Road, Whitechapel Road), at least once in daylight after the Hanbury St murder.

These problems aren't overwhelming, but they require at least some degree of ingenuity (or excuse-making) to get around them. However, such concerns simply wouldn't exist for a Ripper who was based more centrally to the murders, e.g. in Spitalfields, as opposed to a Ripper based in St George-in-the-East.

And let's not forget that the killer's apparent trajectory from the Eddowes murder indicates that he was headed Northeast into Spitalfields, not Southeast towards Cable Street. "Ah, but he could have been laying a false trail!", comes the objection; perhaps so, but that would be yet another mechanism/excuse that would be needed to keep Kłosowski in the frame, and they all add up.

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman is a candidate because he is a serial killer living in Whitechapel at the time of the murders.

We don't know that for certain, on both counts. Precisely when he arrived in Whitechapel (St George-in-the-East) is unknown, and at face value Kłosowski wouldn't become a serial killer until nine years later.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Abby

Its the huge change in MO-and I can certainly see the point. One of the biggest changes in MO Ive ever seen in SKs. However, its not enough to rule him out.

There is also the huge change in his life.
Think about the life he was leading prior to moving to London.
Doing all the shittty jobs in the hospital. Not a big leap to Ripper world

And of course, he was abusive toward women and i think if theres any link it could be seen as similar deep seated psychologocal desire to utterly control and dominate women. different women/circs different MO-kind of like Abberline alluded to.

Yes, if anything the Ripper was kinder to his victims than poisoner Chapman ever was.

hes got alot else going for him-there at the time, basically fits descriptions, known to have a peaked cap, surgical experience, abberline suspected. fits profile of local avg joe.

I`ve not seen anything to rule him out.

my main problem is not the poisoning thing, its that he would have had a thick accent and no one who heard the ripper suspects ever mentioned a heavy accent-which they would have.

No-one heard a possible Ripper speak except Mrs Long, and Hutchinson, and they both thought their men were foreigners.

[Batman]

We don't know that for certain, on both counts. Precisely when he arrived in Whitechapel (St George-in-the-East) is unknown, and at face value Kłosowski wouldn't become a serial killer until nine years later.

We don't know if JtR killed before the autumn of terror or not.

Klosowski's passport was valid until November 1887 so he wasn't in Poland after that date. Klosowski was likely in England before that date. There is no reason not to assume that he was in London by that time, which not just allows for nearly a year to learn the streets but also means he was available for the non-canonical murders also.

[Sam Flynn]

There is also the huge change in his life.

No more so than when Lucy Baderski (the real Mrs Kłosowski) and Annie Chapman, and their children, left him in the 1890s. It was also at the beginning of this decade that Kłosowski's son, Władysław, died in infancy.