Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[Amanda Sumner]

I'm a new member on here, and I noticed that Helena Wojtczak is a member on here too. I've read one of her books, which was excellent, and I've been aware for some time that she is writing a book on George Chapman and his crimes. I believe it's about to be published very soon.
I am very interested in George Chapman, first and foremost because he was a murderer, and I'm very interested in crime,and secondly because one of his victims was an ancestor of mine. Maud Marsh was my grandmother's cousin, and her grandmother was my great, great grandmother.
I know about George's crimes fairly well, he was nick named the 'Borough Poisoner' but I've never been totally convinced that he was Jack the Ripper.
It will be interesting to read Ms Wojtczak's stance on this case and how he fits in as a candidate, if at all. As I know she is a historical writer rather than a criminal one, her book will be very factual, no doubt, and it will be a refreshing change to read it from a historian's point of view. I am really looking forward to reading this. It should be interesting to learn about things that I don't know and Chapman's crimes are fascinating in themselves, in my opinion. There is an air of mystery about him, I think, so I am eager to find out more and about poor Maud too.

What do others think?

[Robert]

Well it gets a thumbs up from me for having a question mark in the title, which is a nice piece of restraint in Ripperworld.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Robert,
Yes, the question mark is intriguing isn't it? Was he or wasn't he?
For me, personally, I am more interested in his story than whether he was the Ripper or not but it will be interesting to read what the author's conclusions are.
I am quite happy to be persuaded either way but I have always felt, based on what I know, that the two are not the same man. I shall reserve any further opinion until I've read the book.

[pinkmoon]

I've just re read Philip sugdens excellent book and his examination of Chapman is very good.Here we have a suspect who we know has killed has been violent towards women would have resided in the area had some surgical training and when he departs area murders stop very interesting indeed

[Trevor Marriott]

I've just re read Philip sugdens excellent book and his examination of Chapman is very good.Here we have a suspect who we know has killed has been violent towards women would have resided in the area had some surgical training and when he departs area murders stop very interesting indeed

But in 1888 he had not killed

His later murders were as a passive poisoner.

Can someone change from being a serial mutilator to being a passive poisoner I think not.

Half the men of London probably showed violence towards a woman at some point.

To many suspects have been propped up with these same tenuos statements

[pinkmoon]

But in 1888 he had not killed

His later murders were as a passive poisoner.

Can someone change from being a serial mutilator to being a passive poisoner I think not.

Half the men of London probably showed violence towards a woman at some point.

To many suspects have been propped up with these same tenuos statements

Hi Trevor, I know he was a poisoner and yes it is a big if to put him forward as our killer but the fact he was capable of murder does make him stand out from some of the truely awfully suspects we have been offerd over the years.It's certainly more plausible then a diary discoverd by a drunk in Liverpool also we don't have to suffer a royal coach again!.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, I know he was a poisoner and yes it is a big if to put him forward as our killer but the fact he was capable of murder does make him stand out from some of the truely awfully suspects we have been offerd over the years.It's certainly more plausible then a diary discoverd by a drunk in Liverpool also we don't have to suffer a royal coach again!.

Not enough to make him a suspect simply another person of interest based on what is currently known.

Its time people woke up and realized exactly what is needed for someone to be classed as a suspect.

[pinkmoon]

Not enough to make him a suspect simply another person of interest based on what is currently known.

Its time people woke up and realized exactly what is needed for someone to be classed as a suspect.

I think we can sum him up as perhaps one of the best out of a bad bunch of suspects

[Trevor Marriott]

I think we can sum him up as perhaps one of the best out of a bad bunch of suspects

Totally disagree he only get a mention via Abberline and that is simply an uncorroborated opinion of an ageing police officer in later years. Not one scrap of evidence up until that point.

Un corroborated opinions do not make the person mentioned a prime suspect

Its only ripper researchers with vested interests in him who have elevated him to prime suspect over the years.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo!

I agree with Mr. Marriot. Yet disagree. If a serial type case such as this was/had occuring/ed and Trevor said, " Hey, this fellow just might be our fellow." I would take it under serious consideration. A seasoned fella with a feeling is not to be dismissed. That's their business. It does NOT result in perfect results, but if you want some milk a cow isn't the worst place to start. If ya dig?

[Nick Spring]

Not enough to make him a suspect simply another person of interest based on what is currently known.

Its time people woke up and realized exactly what is needed for someone to be classed as a suspect.

Hi Trevor,

Yes I agree, there is a great difference in someone who is of interest and someone who could be classified as a suspect.

The line gets blurred here and i'm not sure what the criteria is for a suspect based on what we know, not wishing to go off thread here either.

Best

Nick

[HelenaWojtczak]

But in 1888 he had not killed

His later murders were as a passive poisoner.

Can someone change from being a serial mutilator to being a passive poisoner I think not.

What on earth is a "passive poisoner"?

The man tortured three innocent women by slipping a deadly substance repeatedly into their food and drink, deliberately and without the slightest conscience or guilt or shame, inflicted horrendous, painful and agonising illness upon them, over a period of weeks. He was a nasty sadist who not only enjoyed seeing them suffer, but gained pleasure and satisfaction from driving their relations and their doctors to their wits' end trying to work out why they were ill.

"Passive"? I think not!


Helena

[Trevor Marriott]

Lesson to be learnt !!!!!!!!

What on earth is a "passive poisoner"?

The man tortured three innocent women by slipping a deadly substance repeatedly into their food and drink, deliberately and without the slightest conscience or guilt or shame, inflicted horrendous, painful and agonising illness upon them, over a period of weeks. He was a nasty sadist who not only enjoyed seeing them suffer, but gained pleasure and satisfaction from driving their relations and their doctors to their wits' end trying to work out why they were ill.

"Passive"? I think not!

A person who kills by poisoning his victims in what can be described as domestics murders is not necessarily a sadist. He wants to kill for a specific purpose i.e to get rid of them, not to inflict pain and suffering on them although that may be the end result. He may not even know when administering the poison what the effects will be.

All to do with a state of mind.



Helena

[Chris]

an uncorroborated opinion of an ageing police officer in later years

There's a lot of it about.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Lesson to be learnt !!!!!!!!

Trevor has quoted me as writing the following, which are in fact his own words, not mine.

A person who kills by poisoning his victims in what can be described as domestics murders is not necessarily a sadist. He wants to kill for a specific purpose i.e to get rid of them, not to inflict pain and suffering on them although that may be the end result. He may not even know when administering the poison what the effects will be. All to do with a state of mind.

I'd like to take issue with two issues Trevor raises here:

1. "He may not even know when administering the poison what the effects will be."

This man repeatedly dosed a woman time and time again, and saw the effects first hand, up close and over a period of time. Having seen that he made that woman seriously, desperately ill for many weeks, and watching her die from his actions, he then did the same with two more women.

How, then, can you say "He may not even know when administering the poison what the effects will be."?

2. There is no evidence that Chapman poisoned his victims in order to "get rid of them", as Trevor suggests. He wasn't married to any of them, so he could have simply left them, or chucked them out.

Helena