Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[HelenaWojtczak]

Congratulations Helena

It looks as good as (vide Ripperologist) it sounds...

I've every confidence it'll be a huge success for you, justifying the incredible amount of research I'm sure you've put in...

All the best

Dave

Aww thanks Dave!I have over 40 pre-orders for the hardback now. The proof copy has finally reached the UK - it's now at the UPS depot at Barking!

I should get in Monday.

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

I wonder what women saw in him? Perhaps he was good looking by Victorian standards, although that hairy moustache would put me right off!

When my boyfriend grew a moustache for "Movember" he was a dead ringer for Chapman. When I found out Chapman's height and weight, they match him almost exactly (boyfriend being 2 inches taller but the same weight). It occurred to me that, if a musical were ever made of George C (along the lines of Sweeney Todd) my fella could play the leading role.

it does make one wonder why some people kill and others do not. Mental illness, of course, can run in families. I wonder how descendants would feel if it was proved who Jack the Ripper was? Surely, they will become instant celebrities?

OMG you raise a good point here. Do current day "Ripper Hunters" ever think about how devastating it would be for the descendents if anyone were ever proved to be Jack the Ripper?

Eliza Marsh, by the way, was my great,great aunt. Harriet, her sister, was my great grandmother.

Ahhh thanks for clearing that up. And thanks also for your positive comments and compliments!

Helena

[Cogidubnus]

Congratulations Helena

It looks as good as (vide Ripperologist) it sounds...

I've every confidence it'll be a huge success for you, justifying the incredible amount of research I'm sure you've put in...

All the best

Dave

[Amanda Sumner]

Congratulations Helena, it looks good. I do like the picture of Chapman on the front cover. I've not seen that picture of him before.... I wonder what women saw in him? Perhaps he was good looking by Victorian standards, although that hairy moustache would put me right off!
You raise an interesting point in your previous post. Are murderous tendencies inherited? Unlikely, I would have thought, but it does make one wonder why some people kill and others do not. Mental illness, of course, can run in families. I wonder how descendants would feel if it was proved who Jack the Ripper was? Surely, they will become instant celebrities?
Eliza Marsh, by the way, was my great,great aunt. Harriet, her sister, was my great grandmother. I have actually got a photo of Sarah, their mother, who was Maud's grandmother. Fortunately, for her, she died in 1901 so missed the murder of Maud and the trial.
Really looking forward to reading what you have discovered during your research.

Amanda

[HelenaWojtczak]

The printer has produced one proof copy of my book and it's in the post coming to me as I write. Soon as I have checked it, we can go ahead with the whole print run.

The printer snapped a pic of #1 and emailed it to me!

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Amanda

"Maud was first cousin to my grandmother. Their mothers were sisters."

Ah, so your great-grandmother was Eliza Marsh? I hope I got that right.

"I don't quite understand his descendants feeling horrified discovering that they were related to him."

Perhaps it's the thought that the blood that courses through your body is his blood, and that maybe one has some kind of "murdering trait" in one's DNA? A suspicion that some of that evil has been genetically inherited?

"managed to get herself murdered and create a scandalous trial"

Always blame the woman for what a man did to her? Hmm.. where have I heard that before?

"I read your book recently on 'Women of Victorian Sussex'"

Thanks for buying it and for your kind comments. A review is always welcome, of course - have to have one eye on sales

The Chapman books will be with me in a couple of weeks. I just have to "sign off" the proof that is on its way to me right now.

Helena

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Helena,
Maud was first cousin to my grandmother. Their mothers were sisters.
You ask how it feels to be related by blood, well, I find it an interesting part of my family history. It was weird reading Adam's book on the trial and reading the testimonials of Eliza Marsh and thinking that she was a great,great aunt of mine. I felt empathy and sadness reading about Maud's suffering and quite upsetting as I've got a daughter the same age as she was then. All the women suffered terribly, Chapman was certainly evil.
I don't quite understand his descendants feeling horrified discovering that they were related to him. Descendants can hardly feel guilty about crimes that they were not responsible for, after all, it happened a long time ago. Doing my own family tree I came across quite a few scandals, mainly illegitimacy and one convict that was sent to Australia.
Sadly, it seems that the Marsh's were ostracised from certain members of our family after this particular scandal because Maud had been 'living in sin' and managed to get herself murdered and create a scandalous trial that was well reported at the time. Several generations down the line I just find this all very intriguing and interesting. I'm looking forward to what you have discovered and put in your new book about them all. I read your book recently on 'Women of Victorian Sussex' which is excellent and I found much of it amusing as well as educational. It is very well written, I thought, and I have yet to do a review on it on Amazon.

Amanda

[HelenaWojtczak]

I'm also hoping to read what Helena has found out about Maud, Chapman's last victim, because she was an ancestor of mine.

Hello Amanda

As Maud had no children, I am guessing you are related to one of her sister's children.

I'm wondering how that feels, knowing that you are related by blood to someone who was killed by someone who has been written and talked about so much, and to someone whose name was in so many newspaper court reports, in books and online, Old Bailey, etc.

I'm in touch with two of Chapman's actual descendants, and they only recently found out they were descended from him, and in the most shocking way. It was only because they became curious about their family history, and found that their dad had changed their Polish surname to an English one about 50 years ago. Researching that Polish name on Ancestry (I think) they were led to Chapman's daughter, Cecilia, who is their grandma. From there the link to and story of Chapman's horrendous crimes unfolded.

They are still in shock.

Helena
PS Thanks for the book order. I have two copies mentally put aside for you!

[Amanda Sumner]

I've been reading the posts on here with much interest. I agree that Chapman has a place on the list of suspects, as he has more reason to be on it than some of the others! However, it will be interesting to read Helena's book and learn of her own conclusions. Chapman was, no doubt, a sadist and I agree with Helena that he had the knowledge to know how to administer poison. Personally, I think he had a completely different temperament to Jack the Ripper but who knows? I'm open to any suggestion, but I am looking forward to reading about Chapman himself and about his known life and crimes. I know there have been other books written about him but I am interested in reading from a historian's point of view. I'm also hoping to read what Helena has found out about Maud, Chapman's last victim, because she was an ancestor of mine.

[HelenaWojtczak]

did he know how much poison it would take to accomplish that task or did he simply want to make them ill and then have them die thinking that no one would suspect they had been poisoned if they had been under a doctor ?

Ahhh... thanks for clearing that up! Now I see what you are getting at.

I think he had (a) enough medical knowledge (b) enough medical books and (c) a big poison label with the maximum safe dose warning to know that they would die from the amounts he was administering.

And yes, he definitely seems to have thought that nobody would realise they had been deliberately poisoned. In fact he said when arrested that they could not have been poisoned, cause if they had been they would have died quickly. But he didn't really think that.

Helena

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it reads as though you think he killed all three women accidentally. Perhaps you could clarify if this is what you are suggesting. I would not want to misunderstand you.

Helena

Clearly he meant to kill them you wouldn't give poison to several people if that was not your ultimate goal.

But the question was did he know how much poison it would take to accomplish that task or did he simply want to make them ill and then have them die thinking that no one would suspect they had been poisoned if they had been under a doctor ?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Nemo, I'd like to add that when Bessie did die, and Miss Painter called round later that day, and asked how Bessie was, Chapman said she was "much the same" as when Painter had last seen her! This was in the presence of the nurse who had been with Bessie when she died, and it fell to the poor nurse to break the tragic news.

Helena

[Nemo]

Chapman has always seemed cold-hearted to me and fits a stereotypical image I have in mind of a jocular Ripper, particularly with the following anecdote in mind...

"Mrs. Painter visited her friend almost every day during her illness, and was more than once the butt of many a cold joke from George Chapman. On more than one occasion, when she would enter the house and inquire as to Bessie's health, Chapman would reply, "Your friend is dead." Painter would run upstairs, already grieving the loss, only to find her still alive in the bed. When Mrs. Painter visited on the 15th, Chapman told her that Bessie was "much about the same." To her indignation, Mrs. Painter later learned she had died the previous day"

That's quite a cruel type of humour

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Michael

I can help you with a couple of points here.

One wonders what motive he may have had for killing the women in 1888, since it seems his motives for poisoning were in part at least for personal gain.

Chapman had nothing to gain (i.e. money, property, which is what I think you are suggesting) by killing any of his three poison victims.

The Ripper murders are alleged to be committed by someone who had a mental illness of some variety, and that illness allowed or enabled him to do things that were very illegal, and socially and morally repugnant.

Chapman must have had a mental illness. Would you, or any sane individual, be able to kill three people in cold blood, watch them suffering and slowly dying, and remain completely unmoved, unrepentant and feel no guilt, shame, remorse etc? And having done it once, do the same thing to another two innocent women? Where was his normal human conscience and guilt? (My goodness, as a woman of 50 I wept when I had to have my pet rat put down humanely!)

His poison crimes were most certainly illegal, and socially and morally repugnant.

Helena

[Michael W Richards]

One wonders what motive he may have had for killing the women in 1888, since it seems his motives for poisoning were in part at least for personal gain.

Also...the claim is that the women were not known to the killer in 1888...again, a glitch in the Killer Profile category for Chapman.

Killers who kill strangers do so for all sorts of reasons, when they continue to kill, they do so for the same reasons they killed in the first place. Unless the murder is to deal with a witness. But when people kill people in their own lives, not only is the risk of discovery far greater, but also the Motive for the killing is often somewhat easier to determine.

The Ripper murders are alleged to be committed by someone who had a mental illness of some variety, and that illness allowed or enabled him to do things that were very illegal, and socially and morally repugnant. That theory presupposes that all the Canonical Victims died because of the killers illness.

The fact is that the jury is still out on that.

Cheers