Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[Amanda Sumner]

Chapman didn't go to the USA till 1891, so IF he picked up an American accent - which I would have thought unlikely as he was only there for a year - he would not have had one in 1888.

Yes, I too am appalled at Arthur Fowler Neil..... and Gosling, Buddle, RM Gordon, Fabian, Adam, Thurgood, Eddleston... I'm not saying my book is perfect, but I have, at least, tried to trace back the source of every assertion before I present it as a fact.

My cat is particularly shocked by Eddleston.

Helena

My thoughts exactly. I can't remember where I had read about the American accent but, as you say, he did not go to America until 1891. He did insist that he was born in America though after his arrest.
I can't comment on all the authors, as I have not read most of them but I have read Adam's which I found very interesting, especially the trial. Gordon's book I have heard about, and that was enough for me to decide not to read his, but did not Eddleston put the whole Chapman saga in Islington? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that he had got the whole location wrong.

[Amanda Sumner]

[QUOTE

I guess Amanda is more logical/scientific and less emotional/superstitious than me!

Helena[/QUOTE]

Am I abnormal then? I just don't believe in bad blood, certainly of any that get's passed down. Nor do I believe in the sins of the Father....etc.

Everyone is different, I suppose, so it's a good thing that no one is likely to find out about their connection to JtR.

[Amanda Sumner]

I initially started this thread to discuss Chapman and his crimes and also the newly published book on that very subject by Helena Wojtczak. We deviated from the initial topic and covered a variety of subjects, which was great, but what has come across, quite forcefully, is that any discussion of Chapman invariably leads to an in-depth discussion of Jack the Ripper and his crimes. I know, that if it was not for the fact that Abberline thought he had finally found his man, Chapman may well have disappeared into obscurity after a few years. However I feel that Chapman's story is an interesting one in its own right, whether he is a strong suspect or not. When I first discovered that my grandmother's cousin was a poison victim of Chapman's, I searched to find out more about it all and have only been able to read about his crimes in his relation to being a Ripper suspect. Not one publication wrote just about Chapman and his victims, or went into depth about the people involved, unless it supported or unsupported the Ripper claim. That in itself caused confusion, in my opinion, because facts got added or omitted to support those claims. When I came across Helena's book on Amazon, soon to be published, I bought one of her books, 'Women of Victorian Sussex', and I was impressed with how well it was written and the research that must have gone into it. Now I am hoping to find out more about Maud who I know next to nothing about. It will also be interesting to find out what her stance is on Chapman being the Ripper because, presumably, even she could not escape his connection to the Whitechapel fiend.
I wish her every success with her new book.
Thank you for all your comments on this thread, and I am sure some of my observations may have come across as rather naive, but I am new on here, and although I have always been intrigued with the Whitechapel murders, I am no expert Ripperologist!
For what it's worth, I've always felt that Jacob Levy was a good a suspect as any...

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thanks Amanda for your nice comments :-)

You're right, - Abberline "created" Chapman as a suspect. Apparently "some policemen" (unnamed) thought it, and this is what prompted a newspaper to interview Abberline. When the reporter spoke to Abberline, it turned out he'd already been thinking the same thing.

So, he may not have been the first to think it, but it was Abberline who was the first to put his "famous name" to the theory.

Plenty have come after him. Most recently, Norma Buddle and RM Gordon (who wrote FOUR books on the subject) seem pretty convinced.

Helena

[Abby Normal]

Many thanks Abby. Have you ordered one yet?



You seem to be saying that, whoever the Ripper was, he MUST have been one of the blokes that one of the eyewitnesses saw, and, ergo, that if a suspect does not fit ANY of their descriptions, he cannot have been the Ripper.

My take on this is that the Ripper could have been, and almost certainly was, someone that none of the witnesses saw.

Helena

http://s1130.photobucket.com/user/helena1958/slideshow/

Hi Helena
Thank you for the respone and your explanation.

I have not ordered yet but most certainly will, probably when the paperback is available and after the holidays. Very much looking forward to it.

[HelenaWojtczak]

That's great Abby, and I really hope you'll write a review on Amazon.

Cheers

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

[Mayerling]

I initially started this thread to discuss Chapman and his crimes and also the newly published book on that very subject by Helena Wojtczak. We deviated from the initial topic and covered a variety of subjects, which was great, but what has come across, quite forcefully, is that any discussion of Chapman invariably leads to an in-depth discussion of Jack the Ripper and his crimes. I know, that if it was not for the fact that Abberline thought he had finally found his man, Chapman may well have disappeared into obscurity after a few years. However I feel that Chapman's story is an interesting one in its own right, whether he is a strong suspect or not. When I first discovered that my grandmother's cousin was a poison victim of Chapman's, I searched to find out more about it all and have only been able to read about his crimes in his relation to being a Ripper suspect. ...

I have been fascinated by historical continuities and family connections for decades, and occasionally on this website I have commented on possible odd connections. As I was reading Amanda's comments about Maud and her connection to her, I was thinking of how in recent years some of the descendants of the Ripper's victims (Annie Chapman's for instance) have reappeared. And not only the victims. Recently a book has been published by a descendant of "H.H.Holmes" as well.

It is inevitable that such contacts happen to exist. When I was at college I met a young woman who was descended from one of the Salem "witches". A close personal friend of mine had an ancestor killed in Pennsylvania in the 1820s. And in public school ("sixth grade" in the U.S.) I knew the grandson of President Venustiano Carranza of Mexico, who was assassinated in 1920.

You have to keep in mind that everyone who ever lived (that we are aware of) lived on this planet. So such contacts are inevitable.

Recently I attended a reading of a screenplay regarding the massacres and murders of Jews in the Ukraine in 1918-1920 when that country was trying to gain and keep it's independence from the Soviet Union. I mentioned to the author of the play (who was an old high school friend of mine) that my cousin's grandfather was murdered in the Ukraine in 1919, apparently robbed by some unknowns who might have been Cossacks, or soldiers (of which side?), or just thieves. But it happened in that very area that his screenplay was dealing iwith.

Jeff

[curious]

My take on this is that the Ripper could have been, and almost certainly was, someone that none of the witnesses saw.

Helena

Hi, Helena,
There are times that I suspect the same thing. I would love to hear how you arrived at that conclusion – if you don't mind sharing.

curious

[Amanda Sumner]

You seem to lead an interesting life, Mayerling, and have met lots of interesting people over the years.
Certainly these connections to famous, or infamous, people will crop up at times, I suppose. Earlier in this thread we were discussing the possible reactions of one who finds out that they are related to JtR, if the case should ever be solved.
How do you think you would feel?

[Mayerling]

You seem to lead an interesting life, Mayerling, and have met lots of interesting people over the years.
Certainly these connections to famous, or infamous, people will crop up at times, I suppose. Earlier in this thread we were discussing the possible reactions of one who finds out that they are related to JtR, if the case should ever be solved.
How do you think you would feel?

Hi Amanda,

Actually I would probably be appalled by such a connection, but have to accept it. More than likely (this is my opinion) the Ripper probably never married, as he would have worried what if his wife and in-laws discovered his secret. But he might have had collateral relatives through siblings or cousins - much like the actor Joseph Cotten in Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt", who is known as "good old Uncle Charlie" to his sister's family when he visits them, but is actually a serial killer of wealthy women. And notice that when his niece (Theresa Wright) finds out, he plans to cause her "accidental" death.

I had ancestors who were British, from Birmingham, but my mother's grandfather left England in 1885-87 and settled in New York City. He and his wife married during the Blizzard of 1888 here, so I don't think he was the Ripper.

On the other hand I might be related to an earlier killer who I have noticed had a similar last name to my father's family name, and who (in some pictures of him) looks a bit like me. If so, he was not someone to be proud of. I will leave it at that.

Jeff

[Amanda Sumner]

Hi Amanda,

Actually I would probably be appalled by such a connection, but have to accept it. More than likely (this is my opinion) the Ripper probably never married, as he would have worried what if his wife and in-laws discovered his secret. But he might have had collateral relatives through siblings or cousins - much like the actor Joseph Cotten in Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt", who is known as "good old Uncle Charlie" to his sister's family when he visits them, but is actually a serial killer of wealthy women. And notice that when his niece (Theresa Wright) finds out, he plans to cause her "accidental" death.

I had ancestors who were British, from Birmingham, but my mother's grandfather left England in 1885-87 and settled in New York City. He and his wife married during the Blizzard of 1888 here, so I don't think he was the Ripper.

On the other hand I might be related to an earlier killer who I have noticed had a similar last name to my father's family name, and who (in some pictures of him) looks a bit like me. If so, he was not someone to be proud of. I will leave it at that.

Jeff

I agree that there is less likely to be direct descendants related to the Ripper running around although it's not impossible that he had a wife and family.
Your comment about you possibly being related to an earlier killer is interesting and that is where you and I are different because I would have to find out, if, indeed there was any suggestion like that in my family.
I've done my family tree, by no means complete, but some of it goes back to 1762. I've disabused the notion that we were ever related to THE Stephenson family, which was a rumour passed down the generations, or a connection to the Royal family, which was another one. I did find out our connection to unfortunate Maud and a connection to a convict that was sent to Australia. I have yet to find out what his crime was. I've also come across some colourful characters, like my x2 grandmother who managed to have 5 illegitimate children and then finally married later on in her life.
Do we have to be proud of our ancestors? I am already appalled by JtR's crimes, as I am of Chapman's, both were evil in their own ways, one driven by power and the other, possibly by madness or hatred but neither of those traits change how future descendants have led their lives since. It's a myth, IMO, and illogical to believe that bad blood is passed down.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi, Helena,
There are times that I suspect the same thing. I would love to hear how you arrived at that conclusion – if you don't mind sharing.

curious

No great academic insight, Curious, I'm just sayin'....

[curious]

No great academic insight, Curious, I'm just sayin'....

Thanks, Helena,

Because I knew of your research, I had hoped it might be something tangible I would like to know about. I (and probably lots of folks) have lots of the other "insights", "feelings" or beliefs that are cumulative from everything.

curious

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thanks, Helena,

Because I knew of your research, I had hoped it might be something tangible I would like to know about. I (and probably lots of folks) have lots of the other "insights", "feelings" or beliefs that are cumulative from everything.

curious

Well I DO suggest two more Ripper suspects that nobody seems to have suggested before, but not in a zealous way.

But what I really meant was, sometimes on this board people seem to be assuming that the Ripper MUST have been someone who was described by an eyewitness. They seem to forget that the Ripper may well not have been seen by anyone who gave a description to the police.

Helena