Was Carrie Brown A Ripper Victim?

[protohistorian]

hmmmmmm.......sounds loke experimentation to me!

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Carrie Brown was a desperately poor, white, 55 year old alcoholic part-time prostitute. This would fit with the victimology of the Whitechapel murders. She was last seen alive at 11:00 p.m., Thursday, 23 April, when she and her killer went up to room 31 on the top floor of the East River Hotel. Her body was found at around 9:30 a.m. the next morning lying on the bed of her room (although open to question, there is evidence that she was killed between midnight and 2:00 a.m. on the Friday).

The autopsy revealed that Brown had been struck on the side of the head, manually strangled and then had some of her undergarments wrapped around her neck and head (covering her face) so tightly that the Coroner had to cut them off. It seems that strangulation was the probable cause of death and the mutilations to the body followed shortly after (as stated at both the inquest and the trial of Ameer Ben Ali) although there were opinions that she had died from a combination of strangulation and haemorrhage (death certificate).

Her body was mutilated with cuts to the lower abdomen, a deep one on the left side allowing her intestines to protrude, a series of cuts that ran from the lower abdomen back between her legs and ending just above and to the right of the coccyx. The majority of wounds consisted of a series of light scratches and abrasions to her legs and buttocks. On the bed were found two pieces of intestine and the left ovary (it seems unlikely that the ovary was purposefully removed and was probably detached from the body when the deep cut to the left side of the abdomen was made). Her throat was not cut. The weapon used was a dull, broken 4 in. table-knife which was left at the scene.

Many elements of the Ripper’s MO can be seen mirrored in the murder of Carrie Brown however there are several key differences to keep in mind. She was not murdered in the East End of London but on the Lower East Side of New York. She was not murdered during the “Autumn of Terror” but almost 30 months later. The knife used was dissimilar to the one used in London. Her throat was not cut (this fact alone caused the London police to reject her as a possible Ripper victim) . The murderer of Carrie Brown allowed himself to be seen.

There are also elements of the Ripper’s signature evident in the New York murder. There was the same sexual focus to the violence committed against Brown. There seems to be the same blitz method of attack used to quickly subdue and control the victim through blows to the head and strangulation. Evidence of picquerism.

However, there are also dissimilarities as well. “Overkill” is not evident in the Brown murder. Brown’s body was not displayed in the typical fashion of the London victims – lying on their backs, legs splayed, clothing hiked up to expose the genitals. The Brown murder was not an escalation in violence as seen in the Whitechapel murders and, although the murder took place in relative privacy, the majority of the cuts to the body were shallow with some being described as mere scratches. The Brown murder shows signs of disorganization with a valuable clue, the murder weapon, left at the scene.

It is hard to see why the Whitechapel murderer would lay low for almost 30 months after the murder of Mary Kelly then travel to New York in order to kill one woman and then disappear for good.

Wolf.

This is one of the most perfect descriptions of an diorganized serial expeimenting with different actions within the crime, in a vain attempt to reachieve the thrill of early victim's. If we postulate that The extent of violence in the Kelly crime would be another attempt to achieve this fantasy, and in his mind, is found unsatisfactory and relecting a need for him to keep experimenting. Hence another phase of expiremntation was needed. This in concert with profit motive would also explain later crime scenarios wich we know unfolded wth Chapman. Well, it's an idea anyway. Fire away. Yes I'm saying she could plausibly be a ripper victim under the above descibed scenario anf also fit the current data as I see it. Make it quick you beautiful bastards!! .

[Christine]

This is one of the most perfect descriptions of an diorganized serial expeimenting with different actions within the crime, in a vain attempt to reachieve the thrill of early victim's. If we postulate that The extent of violence in the Kelly crime would be another attempt to achieve this fantasy, and in his mind, is found unsatisfactory and relecting a need for him to keep experimenting. Hence another phase of expiremntation was needed. This in concert with profit motive would also explain later crime scenarios wich we know unfolded wth Chapman. Well, it's an idea anyway. Fire away. Yes I'm saying she could plausibly be a ripper victim under the above descibed scenario anf also fit the current data as I see it. Make it quick you beautiful bastards!! .

The problem with this argument is that it's essentially circular. It's fairly easy to imagine the Ripper doing all sorts of clever things, like moving to Australia and opening a hat shop, which would be consistent with the Ripper wanting to move to Australia and open a hat shop. But if we want to know whether Brown was a ripper victim--then no, she lacks certain salient features not found in the acknowledged ripper victims. Obviously, it is not impossible, at least for certain suspects. But neither is the hat shop scenario impossible, it's just arbitrary and doesn't rely on other known facts.

[protohistorian]

The problem with this argument is that it's essentially circular. It's fairly easy to imagine the Ripper doing all sorts of clever things, like moving to Australia and opening a hat shop, which would be consistent with the Ripper wanting to move to Australia and open a hat shop. But if we want to know whether Brown was a ripper victim--then no, she lacks certain salient features not found in the acknowledged ripper victims. Obviously, it is not impossible, at least for certain suspects. But neither is the hat shop scenario impossible, it's just arbitrary and doesn't rely on other known facts.

That is correct. In the terms of an analytical appraoch, their is no reason to suspect she is. In terms of my flimsy attempts to work through Chapman's pathology, she fits and very well could be a Chapman victim. From what we know of his pathology, a case could be made for her inclusion. I accept that this methodolgy will not "prove chapman killed Ms. Brown or indeed the others, it will only lend a plausible scenario through known facts of his life married with the little we now know regarding psycho-pathological progression among disorganized serials.

[protohistorian]

The problem with this argument is that it's essentially circular. It's fairly easy to imagine the Ripper doing all sorts of clever things, like moving to Australia and opening a hat shop, which would be consistent with the Ripper wanting to move to Australia and open a hat shop. But if we want to know whether Brown was a ripper victim--then no, she lacks certain salient features not found in the acknowledged ripper victims. Obviously, it is not impossible, at least for certain suspects. But neither is the hat shop scenario impossible, it's just arbitrary and doesn't rely on other known facts.

It is not circular by intent, I am merely asserting that if we say Chapman was undergoing a phase of fantasy instability, the consequential result would be experimentation. We see in the Brown crime a marked departure from previous methodologies ( assuming Chapman to be JtR). This fits with what would be expected, and should not come as a surprise.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Howard and protohistorian

It seems as if you have "bought" the arguments of R. Michael Gordon as to George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) having been Jack the Ripper, and the Thames Torso Killer as well, which is similar to Ms. Cornwell's argument about all the murders that she attributed to painter Walter Sickert.

The plain fact is that, as we have discussed here in the past Mr. Gordon "over-eggs" or "over-lards" his theory, conveniently accepting some facts and ignoring others that don't fit with Chapman having been the killer.

Chapman seems no more than an outsider for having been Jack the Ripper. As with Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, his modus operandi was that he was a poisoner not a knife murderer or mutilator.

Moreover, Jack's public display of his victims, women who were probably unknown to him before the night of their murder, screams that he wanted people to know about his crimes which is opposite to the way Chapman operated in dispatching his common-law wives. Chapman was a stealthy silent killer, using a secretive method rather than the public method of murder that Jack used.

Chris

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

In terms of my flimsy attempts to work through Chapman's pathology, she fits and very well could be a Chapman victim.

...except that Chapman was still in London on the night that Carrie Brown was murdered.

Wolf.

[protohistorian]

...except that Chapman was still in London on the night that Carrie Brown was murdered.

Wolf.

On what evidence can that be said? Thanks, Wolf that would be a tremendous problem!

[Christine]

If Chapman were the ripper...
and if he arrived in New York earlier than reported...
and if he killed Carrie Brown...

...then we have a series of murders committed by a man who seemed to enjoy changing his M.O., and who seemed to get some sort of pleasure out of various kinds of sadism and depravity, without being compelled to follow any particular patterns.

The problem is that you've got three ifs there, and that any none, two, or all three could be true, but that the bulk of the evidence points to none of the above. When you start allowing three implausible ifs into your calculations, you've got all sorts of possible scenarios, including ones like Walter Sickert racing all over England and France ala Cornwell, as Chris George rightly points out. So while it surely isn't impossible, it's just a little dot on the huge map of possibilities that allow for so many implausible assumptions. That's why I say it's circular, the only reason any one would take this seriously is that they were seriously considering Chapman as a ripper candidate.

I could certainly be wrong about this, but so far as I know, no one is on record mentioning Carrie Brown in connection with Chapman at the time of his arrest and trial, with or without the Ripper connection. Certainly Chapman was named as a possible Ripper, as was just about every other depraved murderer caught later who was anywhere near Whitechapel at the time. This makes me suspect that someone brought Brown up and someone else pointed out that Chapman was definitively still in London, which ended that discussion.

[protohistorian]

Hello Howard and protohistorian

It seems as if you have "bought" the arguments of R. Michael Gordon as to George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) having been Jack the Ripper, and the Thames Torso Killer as well, which is similar to Ms. Cornwell's argument about all the murders that she attributed to painter Walter Sickert.

The plain fact is that, as we have discussed here in the past Mr. Gordon "over-eggs" or "over-lards" his theory, conveniently accepting some facts and ignoring others that don't fit with Chapman having been the killer.

Chapman seems no more than an outsider for having been Jack the Ripper. As with Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, his modus operandi was that he was a poisoner not a knife murderer or mutilator.

Moreover, Jack's public display of his victims, women who were probably unknown to him before the night of their murder, screams that he wanted people to know about his crimes which is opposite to the way Chapman operated in dispatching his common-law wives. Chapman was a stealthy silent killer, using a secretive method rather than the public method of murder that Jack used.

Chris

Have not yet read Gordan, I am opporating on the assumption that a killer in the condition of the one I suspect, would be very likely to take another victim, for the purpose of experimentation . If I am correct, a killer in the openly exploratory phase is on a hunt to recapture an earlier feeling he had and killing itself, nor crimes like the ones he hsd in the past are fitting his goal. In his mind, more experimentation is required. He views the recaturing of this earlier feeling as a possibility, and believes that experimentation is the most effective methodology he can employ in his quest. I was under the impression that George was in America at the time.

[protohistorian]

If Chapman were the ripper...
and if he arrived in New York earlier than reported...
and if he killed Carrie Brown...

...then we have a series of murders committed by a man who seemed to enjoy changing his M.O., and who seemed to get some sort of pleasure out of various kinds of sadism and depravity, without being compelled to follow any particular patterns.

The problem is that you've got three ifs there, and that any none, two, or all three could be true, but that the bulk of the evidence points to none of the above. When you start allowing three implausible ifs into your calculations, you've got all sorts of possible scenarios, including ones like Walter Sickert racing all over England and France ala Cornwell, as Chris George rightly points out. So while it surely isn't impossible, it's just a little dot on the huge map of possibilities that allow for so many implausible assumptions. That's why I say it's circular, the only reason any one would take this seriously is that they were seriously considering Chapman as a ripper candidate.

I could certainly be wrong about this, but so far as I know, no one is on record mentioning Carrie Brown in connection with Chapman at the time of his arrest and trial, with or without the Ripper connection. Certainly Chapman was named as a possible Ripper, as was just about every other depraved murderer caught later who was anywhere near Whitechapel at the time. This makes me suspect that someone brought Brown up and someone else pointed out that Chapman was definitively still in London, which ended that discussion.

I am reviewind the data on Chapman's arrival in America now. I am not asserting that this WAS the series of events that unfolded, merely that a plausible scenario is to be had in the suspecthood of Chapman. Brown's victim hood fits the pathology well, I never asserted it fit historical fact well.

[Supe]

Christine,

If Chapman were the ripper...
and if he arrived in New York earlier than reported...
and if he killed Carrie Brown...

You are quite right. Enough conditionals there to, as the say is possible in the Bronx, indict a ham sandwich for murder. Or, as the old refrain goes "If I only had some bread I'd make a ham sandwich if I only had some ham." Same sort of circularity.

To paraphrase an old bit of wisdom Protohistorian, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your textbooks." However much you try to fit Klosowski into your schematic in the end it doesn't work if for no other reason than, as Wolf succinctly points out, Severin had not yet severed his ties to Emgland.

Don.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Protohistorian. As I posted above, Chapman’s sister in law, Mrs. Stanislaus Rauch, testified at Chapman’s trial in 1903 that her sister and Chapman left England for America the following “Whitsuntide” after she arrived in England from German Poland. Whitsuntide in 1891, the year the couple left for New Jersey, fell on the 17th of May. According to Mrs. Rauch, therefore, the Chapmans left England sometime around the middle of May or almost a month after the murder of Carrie Brown.

This information slipped through the cracks of Ripperology. It was originally assumed that Chapman and his wife left for America in 1890 and so there was no real reason to determine exactly when they left England since, it was thought, he had plenty of time to set up his new life and murder Brown in 1891. However, in a letter to the editor found in Ripperana Magazine (no. 6, October, 1993) researcher Neal Shelden pointed out that the Chapmans were still living in London at 2 Tewkesbury Buildings, Whitechapel, when the 1891 census was taken (on the 5th of April). This information obviously put a strain on the theory that Chapman murdered Brown on the night of the 23/24 April and attempts were then made to try and pin down exactly when the Chapmans sailed for America. Lost in all this was Mrs. Rauch’s testimony which pin points the approximate date they left.

In addition to this, R. J. Palmer discovered that a 27 year old barber named Severin Klasowsky arrived in New York on the 28th of July, 1891, with his wife “Any.” Some believe that this is Chapman (although the name is wrong, the age is wrong, Chapman’s wife’s name was Lucy and the couple arrived from Germany not England). Either way, this individual also arrived in New York after the murder of Carrie Brown.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Christine. Chapman was connected with the Brown murder at the time of his arrest and trial in at least one London newspaper. This theory was given some credence when the Pall Mall Gazette later interviewed the retired Chief Inspector Frederick Abberline in an interview published 24 March, 1903. Abberline stated:
“....there is a coincidence also in the fact that the murders ceased in London when 'Chapman' went to America, while similar murders began to be perpetrated in America after he landed there.”

And:
“It is a remarkable thing...that after the Whitechapel horrors America should have been the place where a similar kind of murder began…”

In a follow-up interview, published on the 31st of March, 1903, Abberline also stated:
“...Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated.”

In actual fact there was no series of Ripper-like murders in the brief period that Chapman lived in the United States. The closest thing was the Brown murder which was actually dissimilar to the Ripper murders in several key ways.

Wolf.

[Christine]

Christine. Chapman was connected with the Brown murder at the time of his arrest and trial in at least one London newspaper. This theory was given some credence when the Pall Mall Gazette later interviewed the retired Chief Inspector Frederick Abberline in an interview published 24 March, 1903. Abberline stated:
“....there is a coincidence also in the fact that the murders ceased in London when 'Chapman' went to America, while similar murders began to be perpetrated in America after he landed there.”

And:
“It is a remarkable thing...that after the Whitechapel horrors America should have been the place where a similar kind of murder began…”

In a follow-up interview, published on the 31st of March, 1903, Abberline also stated:
“...Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated.”

In actual fact there was no series of Ripper-like murders in the brief period that Chapman lived in the United States. The closest thing was the Brown murder which was actually dissimilar to the Ripper murders in several key ways.

Wolf.

Thanks Wolf. It's hard to know what to make of this, if in fact Chapman did not arrive in America until May 1891. If he means Brown's murder, then either he had information we don't, or he was mistaken. On the other hand, this is vague enough so that it could be referring some other crime. As such we are back to the problems I mentioned before. If you allow for enough variations, there were Ripper crimes all over the place.

[Sam Flynn]

In addition to this, R. J. Palmer discovered that a 27 year old barber named Severin Klasowsky arrived in New York on the 28th of July, 1891, with his wife “Any.” Some believe that this is Chapman - although the name is wrong, the age is wrong, Chapman’s wife’s name was Lucy and the couple arrived from Germany not England

I read somewhere (source not immediately available, so forgive me) that it was cheaper to cross the Atlantic by "hopping" from London to a port in continental Europe, and "doubling back" on yourself, than it was to sail from London direct to the USA.