New Edition of "Naming Jack the Ripper" by Russell Edwards

[Lewis C]

I disagree Lewis C. Chapman's vastly different M.O. is a major problem. Especially when you consider there is Bury with a similar M.O. Another point is that Chapman may have been considered a suspect at the time purely for being a serial murderer. In the late 1800's they didn't understand that Serial Killers rarely change M.O. and if they do its not as radical as changing from a strangulation and knife mutilation to poisoning.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Chapman being a serial killer wasn't Abberline's only reason for suspecting him. His other reasons included Chapman's medical knowledge, his moving to the immediate area of the murders shortly before they began and moving away shortly after they ended, and that he thought Chapman was a close match to the witness descriptions.

Serial killers do change their M.O., it's just a question of whether the change from strangler/throat cutter to poisoner is too extreme a change. We see the question of how much of a change in the M.O. is too much of a change to be believable arise on other occasions in this case. Must Chapman have been killed before dawn when all of the Ripper's other victims were killed before dawn? Can we assume that BS man can't have been the Ripper because he assaulted a woman in front of 2 witnesses, something that the ripper never did on any other occasion? MJK is considered a Ripper victim by most people even though all other Ripper victims were killed outside, and none mutilated to the extent that MJK was.

It's arguable that going from strangulation/throat cutting to poisoning is a more extreme change than any of the examples that I gave above. If Chapman committed some of the Whitechapel murders and later poisoned, the 2 closest parallels to that that I know of are Belle Gunness and Carl Eugene Watts. Gunness seems to have used arson, poisoning, and bludgeoning as means of murder. Watts used bludgeoning, strangulation, stabbing, and drowning. If anyone knows of a closer parallel than these two, I'd be interested to hear it.

[c.d.]

Unless changing from strangling to poisoning somehow violates the laws of physics it can't be ruled out even if rare.

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

Chapman being a serial killer wasn't Abberline's only reason for suspecting him. His other reasons included Chapman's medical knowledge, his moving to the immediate area of the murders shortly before they began and moving away shortly after they ended, and that he thought Chapman was a close match to the witness descriptions.

Serial killers do change their M.O., it's just a question of whether the change from strangler/throat cutter to poisoner is too extreme a change. We see the question of how much of a change in the M.O. is too much of a change to be believable arise on other occasions in this case. Must Chapman have been killed before dawn when all of the Ripper's other victims were killed before dawn? Can we assume that BS man can't have been the Ripper because he assaulted a woman in front of 2 witnesses, something that the ripper never did on any other occasion? MJK is considered a Ripper victim by most people even though all other Ripper victims were killed outside, and none mutilated to the extent that MJK was.

It's arguable that going from strangulation/throat cutting to poisoning is a more extreme change than any of the examples that I gave above. If Chapman committed some of the Whitechapel murders and later poisoned, the 2 closest parallels to that that I know of are Belle Gunness and Carl Eugene Watts. Gunness seems to have used arson, poisoning, and bludgeoning as means of murder. Watts used bludgeoning, strangulation, stabbing, and drowning. If anyone knows of a closer parallel than these two, I'd be interested to hear it.

Hi Lewis C

I still think Chapman's vastly different M.O. is a major problem for him as a suspect though.

Cheers John

[Jason]

Think I’ll be giving this a swerve

[caz]

Hi John,

Chapman being a serial killer wasn't Abberline's only reason for suspecting him. His other reasons included Chapman's medical knowledge, his moving to the immediate area of the murders shortly before they began and moving away shortly after they ended, and that he thought Chapman was a close match to the witness descriptions.

Serial killers do change their M.O., it's just a question of whether the change from strangler/throat cutter to poisoner is too extreme a change. We see the question of how much of a change in the M.O. is too much of a change to be believable arise on other occasions in this case. Must Chapman have been killed before dawn when all of the Ripper's other victims were killed before dawn? Can we assume that BS man can't have been the Ripper because he assaulted a woman in front of 2 witnesses, something that the ripper never did on any other occasion? MJK is considered a Ripper victim by most people even though all other Ripper victims were killed outside, and none mutilated to the extent that MJK was.

It's arguable that going from strangulation/throat cutting to poisoning is a more extreme change than any of the examples that I gave above. If Chapman committed some of the Whitechapel murders and later poisoned, the 2 closest parallels to that that I know of are Belle Gunness and Carl Eugene Watts. Gunness seems to have used arson, poisoning, and bludgeoning as means of murder. Watts used bludgeoning, strangulation, stabbing, and drowning. If anyone knows of a closer parallel than these two, I'd be interested to hear it.

Forgive me if I've missed something, Lewis C, but I thought the main issue with Chapman as a ripper suspect was that nobody had been able to place him in 'the immediate area of the murders' when they began. Has there been a development, proving he was in the Whitechapel area by the second half of 1888? If so, could you point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Love,

Caz
X

[Lewis C]

Forgive me if I've missed something, Lewis C, but I thought the main issue with Chapman as a ripper suspect was that nobody had been able to place him in 'the immediate area of the murders' when they began. Has there been a development, proving he was in the Whitechapel area by the second half of 1888? If so, could you point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Here's a paragraph from Norma Buddle's article about Chapman in Ripperologist No. 102 (May 2008):

My interest in him grew considerably when I had worked out that he must have had his shop at 126 Cable Street registered before the deadline—the beginning of December 1888—for inclusion in the Post Office Directory of 1889. This led me to the statement of Mrs Radan, his first landlady, at his trial for murder on 14th January 1903, regarding the length of his stay at her home at 70 West India Dock Road that she said was about five months. The 1888 Post Office Directory lists him at 70 West India Dock Road. What is significant here is that in order for him to be included in the 1888 Post Office Directory, Severin Klosowski (aka George Chapman) would have had to be already living at 70 West India Dock Road before the beginning of December 1887. So, if we use Mrs Radan’s sworn testimony, we have him leaving her premises about five months after his arrival in the UK, which must have been before the beginning of December 1887.

It is presumed that he moved to his Cable Street address when moving away from the W India Dock Road address, which would have been no later than the end of April 1888.

[caz]

Thanks Lewis.

This is from 2008, and I had it in the back of my mind that Norma's research had been updated and challenged since then, but I may be wrong.

No doubt someone can put us both straight if there is more recent information available on Chapman's precise whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 - on a Chapman thread if possible!

That said, I have no problem with the concept of a serial murderer changing the method to suit their individual circumstances and chosen victim. The callous lack of empathy for human life in general may be the only common denominator required.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

Here's a paragraph from Norma Buddle's article about Chapman in Ripperologist No. 102 (May 2008):

My interest in him grew considerably when I had worked out that he must have had his shop at 126 Cable Street registered before the deadline—the beginning of December 1888—for inclusion in the Post Office Directory of 1889. This led me to the statement of Mrs Radan, his first landlady, at his trial for murder on 14th January 1903, regarding the length of his stay at her home at 70 West India Dock Road that she said was about five months. The 1888 Post Office Directory lists him at 70 West India Dock Road. What is significant here is that in order for him to be included in the 1888 Post Office Directory, Severin Klosowski (aka George Chapman) would have had to be already living at 70 West India Dock Road before the beginning of December 1887. So, if we use Mrs Radan’s sworn testimony, we have him leaving her premises about five months after his arrival in the UK, which must have been before the beginning of December 1887.

It is presumed that he moved to his Cable Street address when moving away from the W India Dock Road address, which would have been no later than the end of April 1888.

i beleive sugden also definitively showed that he was there at least prior to fall of 88 and probably even a year prior.

[Lewis C]

Thanks Lewis.

This is from 2008, and I had it in the back of my mind that Norma's research had been updated and challenged since then, but I may be wrong.

No doubt someone can put us both straight if there is more recent information available on Chapman's precise whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 - on a Chapman thread if possible!

That said, I have no problem with the concept of a serial murderer changing the method to suit their individual circumstances and chosen victim. The callous lack of empathy for human life in general may be the only common denominator required.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree with the last paragraph. Change in method sometimes happens, even if it usually doesn't happen to this degree. With Chapman, we at least know that he was willing to murder, which we can't say about most of the suspects in this case. The only other known murderers that I would consider serious suspects are Bury, Kelly, and Deeming.

[caz]

i beleive sugden also definitively showed that he was there at least prior to fall of 88 and probably even a year prior.

But not in the epicentre of the ripper murders, Abby?

Like Bury, but without the fluent English and familiarity with the wider neighbourhood.

That said, both make reasonable suspects in my humble opinion because of their well documented, murderous contempt for women.

Back to Russell Edwards?

Love,

Caz
X