Jack the Ripper At Last? by Helena Wojtczak

[HelenaWojtczak]

Helena
You have already misunderstood me .

None of my posts suggest that !

You wrote: "If he wanted to kill as you suggest..."

So that means that YOU think that I am suggesting he "meant to kill" them. And this comment seems to imply that you do not hold the same view as me, therefore, you must think that he did not mean to kill them.

Why don't you just explain what you mean instead of just telling me I have misunderstood? In fact, as you are an experienced writer I would have thought you could express yourself in a way that could not be misinterpreted.

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

Helena
You have already misunderstood me .

None of my posts suggest that !

[HelenaWojtczak]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Its called removing incriminating evidence so that it doesn't to come back to haunt you !!!!!!!!

If you decide to poison someone and administer that poison with a view t killing them how are you to know how long it will take to take effect and what doses are needed to finalize the task.

Clearly if you administer a substance and it does not have the desired effect as quick as you want you top it up until it does. Isnt that what he did?

He had no choice other than to watch the pain and suffering. If he wanted to kill as you suggest and he was the ripper why didn't he simply cut the throats and be done with it quickly.

[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

[Chris]

an uncorroborated opinion of an ageing police officer in later years

There's a lot of it about.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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