Question about "Cable Street Dandy"

[Natalie Severn]

Cheers, Norma. Just to clarify, you aren't saying he had a "record of ruthless and criminal behaviour" prior to the three poisonings, just that you suspect he probably did, based on his later behaviour.

I don't know enough about serial killers in general to answer your query, sorry.

While we are at it, do you believe the New Jersey knife story is true? If so, do you think it came from Lucy herself? If so, did she tell the police, or a reporter? If she told the police, how did the story get into the papers? Just asking your opinion, as I don't see we can prove any of it now.

Truly,

Helena

Hi Helena,
Thats right--and my suspicions are based on his subsequent behaviour.

---I dont have the book any longer and can't find the bit about the New Jersey story in my computer file but I remember it was in Philip Sugden's book- an article from the Pal Mall Gazette of 23rd or 24th March 1903 [I think].This paper had a reasonably good name and so would probably have checked its sources reasonably well.They quote having had an interview with Abberline---which I am sure they did---but Abberline himself may have relied on Godley or one of the other policemen for the story rather than having anything to do with it himself.On the other hand,Abberline was very much a hands on policeman-and very thorough so it really is difficult to know.He retired to Bournmouth which was even then only about a one and a half hour train ride from London so he may have made a couple of trips up to LOndon or the journalist may have gone to see him down in Bournmouth and got the New Jersey story directly from Abberline who in turn may have spoken to Lucy himself or reported what he had been told by other policemen friends-hence the possibility of certain inaccuracies in terms of New Jersey and where Chapman had lived and when and the stuff about the Dr who wanted to buy organs.You bet there were doctors who wanted to buy organs---but that doesn't mean they approached Chapman---but if Chapman worked at the East End's barber- cum- clinics then he may have been involved in illegal abortions as some of these were known for helping women to terminate pregnancies---like Tumblety was involved in in Canada earlier in the century.
This is where Levishon comes in stating on oath that Chapman had tried to get illegal substances from him as early as 1888/9-which he said he refused to do as he didn't want to go to prison for 12 years etc .
Cheers
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

By the way, have you read this? Hilarious!

http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/dewiki/en/George_Chapman_%28Giftm%C3%B6rder%29

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena,
Thankyou for your email of today.Re-reading those sentences I can quite see what you mean.Certainly up to the present time he can only be judged in retrospect ,as apart from the interview alleged to have taken place with a journalist and his wife Lucy, who is reported to have said in it that he had behaved in a brutal way towards her when they were briefly in America together in the early 1890"s ,we know nothing of his ruthlessness until we learn about him planning, apparently all of a sudden,in his mid 30's a series of three murders starting with Mary Spink,and taking place over a period of 5 years. I doubt its the case that he suddenly became ruthless and that prior to a mid life murder spree he had always been known for his gentleness towards women.Would he really have waited 20 odd years before he commited his first act of violence against women ? If that is so ,then would he not surely be unusual- if not exceptional- in terms of what we now know about serial murderers?
Best Wishes
Norma

Cheers, Norma. Just to clarify, you aren't saying he had a "record of ruthless and criminal behaviour" prior to the three poisonings, just that you suspect he probably did, based on his later behaviour.

I don't know enough about serial killers in general to answer your query, sorry.

While we are at it, do you believe the New Jersey knife story is true? If so, do you think it came from Lucy herself? If so, did she tell the police, or a reporter? If she told the police, how did the story get into the papers? Just asking your opinion, as I don't see we can prove any of it now.

Truly,

Helena

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Helena,
Thankyou for your email of today.Re-reading those sentences I can quite see what you mean.Certainly up to the present time he can only be judged in retrospect ,as apart from the interview alleged to have taken place with a journalist and his wife Lucy, who is reported to have said in it that he had behaved in a brutal way towards her when they were briefly in America together in the early 1890"s ,we know nothing of his ruthlessness until we learn about him planning, apparently all of a sudden,in his mid 30's a series of three murders starting with Mary Spink,and taking place over a period of 5 years. I doubt its the case that he suddenly became ruthless and that prior to a mid life murder spree he had always been known for his gentleness towards women.Would he really have waited 20 odd years before he commited his first act of violence against women ? If that is so ,then would he not surely be unusual- if not exceptional- in terms of what we now know about serial murderers?
Best Wishes
Norma

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have a query about an ambiguous sentence In ‘The Cable Street Dandy’, published on here and in the Ripperologist magazine, May 2009.

The quote goes:

‘In 1888, an American agent is said to have approached the sub-curator of one of the pathological museums attached to one of the big medical schools in London, offering £20 for a number of specimens…Given Chapman’s record of ruthless and criminal behaviour, had he seen or heard of such a lucrative offer, it’s quite possible he would have been capable of “obtaining” such organs by fair means or foul.’

My question is about the sentence: "Given Chapman’s record of ruthless and criminal behaviour". Is Norma saying that given that we know in retrospect that Chapman was going to be ruthless and criminal in the future, or is she saying that he was in 1888 already "ruthless and criminal"?

Thanks to whoever can clarify this ambiguity.

Helena