Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[Cogidubnus]

George Chapman

Hi Pinkmoon

You're quite correct in stating that far too many alleged suspects have been identified on the basis of flimsy evidence...some on none at all...there are entire chapters in the new Whittington Egan book dedicated to demonstrating just this...and I'm afraid even Druitt could perhaps fall into this category!

However, in the case of Chapman, without even having seen the book yet, I'm pretty confident this scenario doesn't arise: so how am I able to make such an assertion? Easy -

(1) Having read this author's previous major work (Railwaywomen) I have a huge respect for her meticulous standards of research - this will be an honest and thorough account of Chapman's life.

(2) David Green has favourably reviewed the work...and he's someone whose views I respect.

(3) Like many other Casebook followers I've followed many of Helena's queries over the past few years and seen for myself the degree to which she's been prepared to go...

(4) There's a question mark at the end of the title (one apparently, if I remember correctly, suggested by no less than Stewart Evans)...someone less scrupulous would've omitted this...

It goes without saying I'm really looking forward to getting my copy! (And no I've never even met the author).

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon

You're quite correct in stating that far too many alleged suspects have been identified on the basis of flimsy evidence...some on none at all...there are entire chapters in the new Whittington Egan book dedicated to demonstrating just this...and I'm afraid even Druitt could perhaps fall into this category!

However, in the case of Chapman, without even having seen the book yet, I'm pretty confident this scenario doesn't arise: so how am I able to make such an assertion? Easy -

(1) Having read this author's previous major work (Railwaywomen) I have a huge respect for her meticulous standards of research - this will be an honest and thorough account of Chapman's life.

(2) David Green has favourably reviewed the work...and he's someone whose views I respect.

(3) Like many other Casebook followers I've followed many of Helena's queries over the past few years and seen for myself the degree to which she's been prepared to go...

(4) There's a question mark at the end of the title (one apparently, if I remember correctly, suggested by no less than Stewart Evans)...someone less scrupulous would've omitted this...

It goes without saying I'm really looking forward to getting my copy! (And no I've never even met the author).

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave I shall be buying it when available on the kindle also I will be buying the Whittington Egan book as well and I have no doubt the Chapman book will be well written and researched but I do think Chapman is just another bad suspect out of a bunch of bad suspects however he certainly was evil there is no doubt about that then again my mother in law is evil but it dosnt make her jack the ripper!!!!

[Amanda Sumner]

Well we don't want the name of your mother in law added to the list of suspects, pinkmoon, there are too many of them as it is! Is she even old enough?
It is feasible that none of the known suspects are our Jack. Far more probable that he was a complete unknown and, I agree, that he was probably not local either. Why run the risk of being recognised? I am interested in the stories you have heard that have been passed down through your family..You may well have written about it elsewhere on here but I'm a new member so I have not come across it yet, if you have.
Cogidubnus, I have read Helena's ' Women of Victorian Sussex ', an excellent book so agree with you that she is a thorough researcher. I think that the focus of this book, by reading the blurb and other things written, that it concentrates on Chapman's own life and crimes which is a fascinating story in itself. For my own personal reasons , I can't wait to read it!
Bridewell, you are correct. I am wrong to assume that all suspects were nasty pieces of work, some were, some were not. Generally many have been embroiled simply because they were alive at the time and often on, as already stated, the flimsiest of evidence.

[pinkmoon]

Well we don't want the name of your mother in law added to the list of suspects, pinkmoon, there are too many of them as it is! Is she even old enough?
It is feasible that none of the known suspects are our Jack. Far more probable that he was a complete unknown and, I agree, that he was probably not local either. Why run the risk of being recognised? I am interested in the stories you have heard that have been passed down through your family..You may well have written about it elsewhere on here but I'm a new member so I have not come across it yet, if you have.
Cogidubnus, I have read Helena's ' Women of Victorian Sussex ', an excellent book so agree with you that she is a thorough researcher. I think that the focus of this book, by reading the blurb and other things written, that it concentrates on Chapman's own life and crimes which is a fascinating story in itself. For my own personal reasons , I can't wait to read it!
Bridewell, you are correct. I am wrong to assume that all suspects were nasty pieces of work, some were, some were not. Generally many have been embroiled simply because they were alive at the time and often on, as already stated, the flimsiest of evidence.

Hi Amanda,she's not old enough but she's certainly cruel enough.The story that comes through my family from great grandparents who were children living in Whitechapel during the autumn of terror thus relayed to my grandparents then onto my father and his sister's who were born in Shoreditch is that shortly after the women was killed in the room the killer drowned himself .Can you imagine my joy when I started reading books about the subject I came across druitt case solved!If our killer had been local on the night of the double event the fact he was nearly caught with stride must have given him a shock now why didn't he just run of home and try his luck the next night instead of taking a much bigger risk by killing again in same night.I think the answer to this could be that he wasn't local and would not be able to get to the area for a while so he took a very big risk.

[Amanda Sumner]

Pinkmoon: I've never really considered Druit to be a serious suspect. Mainly because there is nothing, really, to make him one. As Bridewell pointed out, quite rightly,that unless he was our killer he was just a barrister and schoolmaster who, in my opinion, had quite a few problems of his own! I'm not sure why anyone thought up that he could be our Jack, perhaps because of the timing of his suicide? He left a note to say that he was worried about going mad, and there was mental illness in his family, so it is feasible that he ended his life because of that. In those days mental illness was greatly feared because no one understood it and his mother was in an asylum at the time. If he was, indeed, a homosexual then that would have further convinced him that he was depraved. The rumours your family heard may have stemmed from this incident or it was just a rumour that had circulated as, I'm sure, there were a lot of rumours then about who Jack the Ripper was , as there is now.
Chapman, on the other-hand, is a much stronger suspect, although I don't think he was our killer either. He did live locally, he was 'a nasty piece of work', had some medical training and quite capable of killing women, as he proved later on his life. Levy is another strong suspect and in my opinion, a better one but proving it was him, or anyone is impossible!
This is one of the reasons why I am looking forward to reading Helena's book, apart from my own personal ones, she is a historian and will only deal with facts. I'm sure that she may form her own opinions while researching those facts but at least she will not go into flights of fantasy as some books that have been written, do.

[Amanda Sumner]

Further to your mention of the attack on Stride. Jack may have lived locally or further away but, to him, being interrupted was unfinished business. I think the attacks were sexually motivated and therefore he was not satiated enough so attacked again. In other words he was in mid frenzy so whether he was local or had a train to catch mattered not a jot, in my opinion, but you may be right that if he lived further away, it may not have been possible to return the following night. We will never know, but one thing, for sure, he was not afraid of risk or being seen, particularly, when one considers that some victims were found just minutes after they were killed.

[Wickerman]

George Chapman was only 23 years old in 1888.

Only if we believe that not one single witness truly saw the killer, not Mrs Long, not Lawende, not Schwartz, can we begin to accept that a young 23 year old killer was on the loose.
Which then begs the question, why bother trying to find parallels between any witness sighting and George Chapman - they are all irrelevant.

Kozminski suffers from the same problem, in my opinion, he was also only 23 years old in 1888.

For those who prefer to accept that age can be deceptive it may be of consequence to note that when the victims were found and still lay unidentified they were all assumed to look younger than they actually were.
Yes, age was deceptive, but in the wrong direction.

If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger.
To accept otherwise is to adopt a view which contradicts the only examples we are able to use as a measure.

Call me a party pooper.

[Amanda Sumner]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;
If all the witnesses saw a suspect who looked variously between 28 and about 40 yrs old, then judging by the erroneous estimates of the victims, the killer was likely older than he appeared, not younger[/QUOTE]


I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see. Especially men with facial hair that hides part of the face. From a distance one would not have seen age lines or wrinkles and, of course, some witness's only got a glimpse.
As for the victims, before they were identified, were dead so facial muscles would have been relaxed and therefore looked younger than they actually were. If one sees anyone asleep, they generally look younger for the same reason.
Whatever else witness statements said, I think the given ages were only estimates and not to be taken as seriously as hair colour, build and what clothes they wore, in my opinion.

[pinkmoon]

I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see. Especially men with facial hair that hides part of the face. From a distance one would not have seen age lines or wrinkles and, of course, some witness's only got a glimpse.
As for the victims, before they were identified, were dead so facial muscles would have been relaxed and therefore looked younger than they actually were. If one sees anyone asleep, they generally look younger for the same reason.
Whatever else witness statements said, I think the given ages were only estimates and not to be taken as seriously as hair colour, build and what clothes they wore, in my opinion.

Evening Amanda,I personally have never taken any of the so called eyewitnesses seriously when we consider the lighting conditions and fleeting glimpses and doubts if the right people were been observed we can't take any of them seriously.I'm not saying that no one saw our killer I think someone must have but didn't come forward.

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon: I've never really considered Druit to be a serious suspect. Mainly because there is nothing, really, to make him one. As Bridewell pointed out, quite rightly,that unless he was our killer he was just a barrister and schoolmaster who, in my opinion, had quite a few problems of his own! I'm not sure why anyone thought up that he could be our Jack, perhaps because of the timing of his suicide? He left a note to say that he was worried about going mad, and there was mental illness in his family, so it is feasible that he ended his life because of that. In those days mental illness was greatly feared because no one understood it and his mother was in an asylum at the time. If he was, indeed, a homosexual then that would have further convinced him that he was depraved. The rumours your family heard may have stemmed from this incident or it was just a rumour that had circulated as, I'm sure, there were a lot of rumours then about who Jack the Ripper was , as there is now.
Chapman, on the other-hand, is a much stronger suspect, although I don't think he was our killer either. He did live locally, he was 'a nasty piece of work', had some medical training and quite capable of killing women, as he proved later on his life. Levy is another strong suspect and in my opinion, a better one but proving it was him, or anyone is impossible!
This is one of the reasons why I am looking forward to reading Helena's book, apart from my own personal ones, she is a historian and will only deal with facts. I'm sure that she may form her own opinions while researching those facts but at least she will not go into flights of fantasy as some books that have been written, do.

The most puzzling thing about druitt is macnaughton who named him.Mr Mac seems to be a descent well respected high ranking police officer for him to name druitt without any sort of proof seems strange.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure that I agree with you there, Wickerman, because, if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial. I think it must have been very difficult to give an age anyway, late at night with only street light to see.

What you prefer to believe, apparently, is that in gaslight women looked younger, but men looked older?
OK

Hurray for gaslight then.

[Sam Flynn]

if we are talking about Chapman, as an example, his looks did not change much between 1888 and 1903, according to witness testimony at his trial.

Whilst he overall appearance may not have changed, Amanda, the witness was probably not commenting about how old he looked in 1888.

[Hunter]

Call me a party pooper.

You're a party pooper.

If Francis Tumblety can be Jack the Ripper, despite witness statements and the caveats that have been well noted, anybody can. Throw the witness statements out, or minimalize them, or make excuses... whatever's necessary unless your suspect might fit in. Then go for it whole hog. Or even better, make the witness out as Jack the Ripper. That's how Ripperology works.

Just make a freakin' murderer out of somebody.

[Amanda Sumner]

What you prefer to believe, apparently, is that in gaslight women looked younger, but men looked older?
OK

Hurray for gaslight then.

Did I say that? I said it would be difficult to say, precisely, how old someone was at night, by gas light, seen briefly from any distance and one could only guess at someone's age in that situation. Someone of 23 could look older as well as someone described to be around 40 could actually be in his 30's..
Anyone who has died often looks younger than their years because the facial muscles relax. At least the victims were studied and seen in daylight, but as you, yourself, say the ages were still estimated wrongly.
I think it's more important to note that Chapman does not fit with most of the descriptions witness's gave. Of course, there is no certainty that anyone actually saw Jack the Ripper. It's all a matter of opinion, really.

Pinkmoon: I read that your high ranking policeman got his information either from the family or the rumour started because of the timing of his suicide. I can't think why the family would do that, so I think it had more to do with the latter, but as you say it is odd.

[Observer]

I think that there are many plausible candidates for Jack the Ripper, some more than others, but proving that any of them was him is the problem. I agree that the families can be confident that that is not going to happen but it would be interesting to find out what their reactions would be if ever it did.

Hi Amanda. That of course open to speculation. How would you react?

Observer