Ep. #44 The Chapman-Ripper Theory: w/ R Michael Gordon

[Natalie Severn]

He may well have been living in West India Dock Road in September,October and November 1888,Sam but the likelihood is he was there in Cable Street by then after his five month stint with the Radins.But even just snooping around the Pinchin Street/Cable Street railway arches area and spotting the enormous potential for another type of project in 1889-boy was he pleased to eventually be able to have himself that address . His very own barber shop at 126 Cable Street ,with sink,scissors knives ,wigs hairdyes and all the other accoutrements of the Victorian Barber shop !

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

Whether it was 2nd December or the 13th (you may recall that I found an ad. in the Times that said the PO was still editing the Directory on 13/12/1888), that still allows room for doubt. He could well have been rooted in WI Dock Road until September, October or November 1888, for all we know. He might even have lived there afterwards, using 126 Cable Street as a business address - not inconsistent with his living in Greenfield Street when he worked in the barber shop under the White Hart.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Sam.I have been fed up with it,I really have .
Anyway,yes,you are right,I think Chapman probably did arrive sometime in 1888 and stayed in West India Dock Road, as Mrs Radin testified, for five months in that year. But I doubt somehow he was moving digs on this shifting deadline of yours of December 13th 1888 just before Christmas----I understood the deadline to be December 2nd anyway.
Cheers
Nats
x

[Sam Flynn]

Welcome back, Nats - hope your computer trouble sorts itself out soon!

LEAVING BEFORE THE POST OFFICE DIRECTORY DEADLINE of December 2nd 1888 AT THE VERY LATEST in order for his name alongside his new address at 126 Cable Street to have been included in the Post Office Directory of 1889.

In point of fact, the Post Office Directory was still accepting and amending entries as late as December 13th 1888.

traditionally, he is believed to have arrived in the UK sometime in 1887 .

As I pointed out above, Nats, the best information at the disposal of the Solicitor General at his trial was that Kłosowski had arrived in England "sometime in 1888".

[Natalie Severn]

I have been really put out lately as I still havent been able to listen to the podcast -to date- as my computer has been playing up-being in North Wales and not London at the moment is not helping either!The computer times out as it downloads after ten minutes or so at the moment.

Point of Information:
The deposition of Ethel Radin of 14 January1903, at Southwark Police Court:
In this Ethel Radin states under oath at Chapman"s trial for murder that he stayed with her at 70 West India Dock Road for "about five months".
Mrs Radin must have been living at West India Dock Road before December 2nd 1887.This is because the Post Office Directory did not accept anyone for their 1888 Directory of addresses who had not been living at that address before December 2nd 1887. We know she was no longer living at that address in 1889 so Severin Klosowski must have stayed with her for a period of five months sometime between December 1887 and December 2nd 1888 LEAVING BEFORE THE POST OFFICE DIRECTORY DEADLINE of December 2nd 1888 AT THE VERY LATEST in order for his name alongside his new address at 126 Cable Street to have been included in the Post Office Directory of 1889.
The Post Office Directory of 1889 gives his address as 126 Cable Street and traditionally, he is believed to have arrived in the UK sometime in 1887 .

[protohistorian]

Might be worth having a read through this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jUu-vIcaAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

It disagrees with some profilers ideas about organised vs disorganised and says there can be a mixture of both behaviours, which is what we see in the Whitechapel murders. Have a look at page 97 under "Cognitive Element" where it says that posing the victims body, retaining trophies etc suggests the murder is secondary to possessing the victims body. This sounds like JTR to me, but it does not sound like Chapman whose focus seemed to be on the murder itself.

It is not a matter of organized and disorganized being binary opposites. It is a matter of cognitive state that leads to each class of behaviors. Since behavior is not static, we should expect a mingling of features. Motivations regarding behaviors is poorly understood, with the bulk of evidence coming from post capture interviews. There are elements of both in JtR I would contend because his psychology was rapidly changing. Respectfully Dave

[GordonH]

Might be worth having a read through this:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=V3jUu-vIcaAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

It disagrees with some profilers ideas about organised vs disorganised and says there can be a mixture of both behaviours, which is what we see in the Whitechapel murders. Have a look at page 97 under "Cognitive Element" where it says that posing the victims body, retaining trophies etc suggests the murder is secondary to possessing the victims body. This sounds like JTR to me, but it does not sound like Chapman whose focus seemed to be on the murder itself.

[Steelysama]

Then there is the issue of the taking of the body parts from ripper victims which suggests a fetishistic motive not present in the Chapman poisonings. If the ripper did change his method of killing it is unlikely he would stop the fetishistic aspect of it which was probably one of his reasons for killing in the first place.

Yes, that is what I am getting at.

EDIT:

It seems to me that in order to properly examine the idea of Chapman as a suspect, we need to answer to things:

1) Why did The Ripper carry out mutilations and the taking of organs in the first place?

2) What would cause him to stop?

I do not believe that fear of being caught or associated with the previous crimes would satisfy number 2.

[Sam Flynn]

Since Abberline, Godley and Neil all believed that Chapman could have been the Ripper, I would assume that that is one piece of information that they would have obtained and verifed before reaching any conclusion.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to have done so, CD. Very little specific information about his arrival was unearthed during the trial, the records of which are minutely detailed - in fact, they're very thorough indeed. The best the Solicitor General at Kłosowski's trial could manage was that Kłosowski arrived in London "sometime in 1888". (Thanks to Wolf Vanderlinden for pointing that out.)

As to opinions, Abberline's thoughts on Kłosowski were remarkably inaccurate, and I'm not so sure that Godley actually went into writing saying that Kłosowski was the Ripper (I'll have to check). Neil, writing in the 1930s, made the familiar blunder of assuming that the Ripper somehow "had" to have been medically qualified. That, and the fact that Neil wasn't involved in the Ripper case, ought to give us pause for thought when assessing the value of his opinions.

On a tangential point, it looks like we might have to break out into various Kłosowski-specific threads on this one! There's life in the old Pole yet

[Malcolm X]

he was almost definitely in Whitechapel at the time, Chapman is a very strong suspect indeed, regardless of what his critics say

[c.d.]

Hi Gordon,Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

Hi Sam,

Since Abberline, Godley and Neil all believed that Chapman could have been the Ripper, I would assume that that is one piece of information that they would have obtained and verifed before reaching any conclusion.

c.d.

[GordonH]

Hi Gordon,Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

For that reason I think of him as being a little like James Kelly - sounds more possible than Druitt or Kosminsky, but not enough evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

if i am not mistaken was not Chapman only twenty three years old in 1888? Is there any reason to believe that the Whitechapel murderer was that young?

There's no reason to suppose that he wasn't, Rich. Many, if not most, crimes are perpetrated by men in their 20s or 30s.

Glad you enjoyed the podcast.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gordon,

For that reason alone I would rule out Chapman, but he is clearly a very strong candidate on circumstantial evidence.

Central to which is the question of whether he was actually in Whitechapel itself at the time of the murders. It's only by conjecture that we can place him there at all.

[GordonH]

Then there is the issue of the taking of the body parts from ripper victims which suggests a fetishistic motive not present in the Chapman poisonings. If the ripper did change his method of killing it is unlikely he would stop the fetishistic aspect of it which was probably one of his reasons for killing in the first place.

For that reason alone I would rule out Chapman, but he is clearly a very strong candidate on circumstantial evidence.