Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?.

[Batman]

I wouldn't have thought that someone with Jack the ripper's motivation could change that driving force. An MO can change but I would think not the motivation. Chapman appears to have killed to get partners out of the way. Jack killed as he got a thrill from evisceration, two totally different motives and different victims.

Pat.............

Chapman's motive is elusive in the contemporary period and no reason was found. By today's standards, he would be seen as someone who was trying to be clever and went about things in a very sneaky way. He would be emotionally immature and selfish. Most importantly he was never their boyfriend or partner and he was lying to them behind a facade. They were women his misogynistic streak could inflict pain on. These aren't traits in disagreement with JtR. What's in disagreement is how he murdered them. So the MO barrier was erected in the past. I think it's gone by today's forensic psychology standards.

MO/Signature changes don't indicate a permanent break from the prior MO. The new MO could be because of environmental pressures. When those pressures are gone, there is no reason why they couldn't go back to their old MO. So the only thing preventing Chapman from carrying on as JtR was whatever had changed since the end of the Whitechapel murders that prevented him from carrying on.

We see this with BTK. His MO change was so different, he wasn't even killing people to get his fix. He was a compliance officer destroying women's lives. However, Dennis Rader claims he was always planning to kill again. Whether he could or not at his age (age/health/athletic ability is a reason for MO changes.), is another matter, but the urge was always still there for him.

When it comes to MO changes I see the modern view as being you take a list of all the way serial killers have murdered people down one column, then you duplicate it for another column and randomly scramble that duplicate column with the only rule that a row can't be the same. Those are all the MO changes that can happen.

There seems to be no golden rule that serial homicidal maniacs can't de-escalate, or commit other crimes, regardless of what their original MO and signatures were. All you need is for a pause in the first MO, followed by a second wave of crime with MO and signatures different to the first, but the first MO is just paused throughout. It need not disappear. It isn't de-facto replaced. It is no more replaced that if a Serial Killer went on a burglary spree or raped and didn't his targets.

It looks like Ex-Officer Joseph James Deangelo stopped murdering people completely. For 32 years. Worked in a warehouse home depot type place when he was caught. Believe he was a truck mechanic or something. However is that a stop, or one big pause? Would he kill again? BTK seems to suggest that yes, he very well could have.

Basically, I don't see anything in the professional literature today that suggests evisceration is something special in the list that can't be interchanged with another crime of any sort for a while. It seems to say "MOs can change" is just that.

[Paddy]

I had always thought that the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something) was just how they done it and yes Jack could kill in a different way if circumstances dictated. I just dont think the reason can change as it is like an itch that must be scratched.

I was under the impression that the women that Chapman killed were his partners? He used them and treated them badly but the reason he poisoned them was to get them out of the way to improve his finances or keep them quite,or move on to the next. Not so impulsive more planned.

I think Jack had an impulse to eviscerate, either to obliterate their womanhood or just had a morbid fascination of inner organs. Just like the Yorkshire Ripper had an impulse to smash poor women over the head. This is said to be because of his hatred of prostitutes caused by parental conflicts.
Chapman and Jack just dont seem the same kind of animal...
Who is BTK is he American only I am in England and cant think who he is ? I would like to read up on him...thanks
Pat.....

[c.d.]

Hello Paddy,

Here is info on the BTK kiler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader

c.d.

[Batman]

I had always thought that the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something) was just how they done it and yes Jack could kill in a different way if circumstances dictated. I just dont think the reason can change as it is like an itch that must be scratched.

MO is the means to the end, which is the signature. MO can become ritualistic so between MO and signature you can hold provisionally that it's the same offender. MOs can change but signatures were thought to stay the same and were immutable because this is how the offender achieves emotional satisfaction. However, it seems the modern view is that such emotional satisfaction can be put on hold, paused, stopped, or even replaced. So both MO and Signature can change. Almost 50% of SKs have experimented with both MO and signature which makes sense because they are learning it.

I was under the impression that the women that Chapman killed were his partners? He used them and treated them badly but the reason he poisoned them was to get them out of the way to improve his finances or keep them quite,or move on to the next. Not so impulsive more planned.

So was I but it turns out that the motive of finance isn't there and that he stood to gain nothing except 500 pounds from Spink.

I think Jack had an impulse to eviscerate, either to obliterate their womanhood or just had a morbid fascination of inner organs. Just like the Yorkshire Ripper had an impulse to smash poor women over the head. This is said to be because of his hatred of prostitutes caused by parental conflicts.
Chapman and Jack just dont seem the same kind of animal...

Who is BTK is he American only I am in England and cant think who he is ? I would like to read up on him...thanks
Pat.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader

He went from serial killing with strangulation and bondage as his signature to being a compliance officer from hell targetting women at work and in the area he monitored to make their lives miserable.

Going from one thing to another is probably a wrong description. It is more likely he hasn't left the original thing and may one day do it again, but in the meantime is doing this new other thing.

This could very be the way to look at Chapman. He hasn't given up being JtR. It is just on pause until the heat dies down. In the meantime, he thinks he can safely off his partners and nobody will be the wiser. Also, he may have been killing like JtR. Abroad, etc. Possibly the only thing preventing his return to JtR was the gallows for poisoning his partners.

Changing MO and signature doesn't mean Chapman is JtR. It just means the claim JtR wouldn't become a poisoner is probably an invention of our disbelief that it can happen, rather than the possibility it very well could happen.

[Sam Flynn]

I had always thought that the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something) was just how they done it and yes Jack could kill in a different way if circumstances dictated.

Possibly, but if Klosowski was Jack, then he changed his method of killing from instant death by throat-cutting to slowly poisoning a victim to death over a period of months.

The crucial thing is that Jack then went on to disembowel and eviscerate his victims, and I am pretty certain that these acts consituted key components of his pathology. Simply poisoning a woman over several months and then doing nothing at all to the body except wait for it to be buried is just too far removed from Jack's shtick to make any sense to me.

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

But what if he came to the realization that throat cutting was over all too quickly whereas a slow death by poisoning allowed him to see a woman in pain every day?

Not saying that that became his motivation only that trying to get a glimpse into a serial killer's mind is extremely difficult.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Sam,

But what if he came to the realization that throat cutting was over all too quickly whereas a slow death by poisoning allowed him to see a woman in pain every day?

Not saying that that became his motivation only that trying to get a glimpse into a serial killer's mind is extremely difficult.

c.d.

As Sam pointed out cd, the killer known as Jack the Ripper "ripped" his victims open, even after the throat cut. Cutting, blood, and even stripping bones was his nirvana. A slow poisoning death would be like watching paint dry for that guy.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam,

But what if he came to the realization that throat cutting was over all too quickly whereas a slow death by poisoning allowed him to see a woman in pain every day?

It very much appears that JTR cut throats as a means to finish off his victims as quickly as possible, so that he could crack on with his real "thang", which was slitting open their bellies to remove organs. Given the speed of his chosen method of dispatch, it strikes me that JTR didn't particularly want to see a woman in pain at all; anymore than a butcher "wants" to see an animal suffer.

[J6123]

Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?

The short answer is, no he can't.

[Batman]

The short answer is, no he can't.

That's like saying, they can't go from serial killing with a signature of suffocation and strangling to just being a compliance officer who annoys women by stealing their dogs and offing them at the local dog shelter by letting a vet destroy them. Where is the emotional satisfaction of getting his hands around someone's neck in that?

Why should this string of crimes be any different than someone who harvests body parts and poisons some other people? It seems to me this idea that a barrier exists preventing Chapman from committing any other crimes as he so dares himself to do, including murder, is a myth not supported by forensic psychology today.

Also it seems that the claim he can't do this, was never the original conjecture, but that it seems unlikely that JtR would do this. Sure, it is unlikely, but certainly possible.

I would love to see modern evidence of this barrier and why someone who rips gets special treatment. Dennis Rader, BTK, broke the mold and that was in 2005. It's 2018 now.

[Batman]

Also, there is still the open question if the ripper was trying to obtain uteruses for sale. Which would mean these claims he enjoyed a rooting around may be true, but not to the degree suggested if this was done for potential profit.

Also what if he was extremely delusional for a spell and actually believed he was carrying out some mission that got accomplished?

There are many angles to why the organs were harvested and none of it may be related to some massive inner urge to be rooting around inside a dead woman for the sake of a cheap thrill.

[Fisherman]

It very much appears that JTR cut throats as a means to finish off his victims as quickly as possible, so that he could crack on with his real "thang", which was slitting open their bellies to remove organs. Given the speed of his chosen method of dispatch, it strikes me that JTR didn't particularly want to see a woman in pain at all; anymore than a butcher "wants" to see an animal suffer.

Exactly so! There seems to have been no sadism at all involved in what the Ripper did, and just like you said earlier, the cutting of the neck seems but a practical measure allowing the killer to go about his real business, that of cutting away at will and - occasionally - taking organs out. He wasn“t getting back at women, he wasn“t teaching them a lesson, getting revenge for a bad childhood, avenging bad experiences with prostitutes or anything like that - he was procuring bodies, end of.

Chapman is nothing at all like that, not an inch of it. They were two extremes on the scale, one of them choosing the most physical of approaches, digging in to the bodies of what will have been women unknown to him and making sure that they were killed as soon as possible. I very much doubt that the killing as such gave him any other joy than the anticipation of soon being able to cut away - the sooner the better! And all of this whereas Chapman killed would-be spouses (or so they thought, anyway) over the longest periods of time, cooly and calculatingly. If he was the Ripper, I cannot for a second accept how he would let the dead body of a woman be taken away for burial instead of cutting it open.

If there was any likeness at all, it lies in the total disregard for another human beings“ right to live. Nothing else is in accordance, and I can only echo what J6123 says: No, Chapman cannot have been the Ripper, not unless he went through a total metamorphosis inbetween the series and forgot all about his true driving force. I consider any argumentation for a shared identity a complete and utter waste of time.

[MrBarnett]

It very much appears that JTR cut throats as a means to finish off his victims as quickly as possible, so that he could crack on with his real "thang", which was slitting open their bellies to remove organs. Given the speed of his chosen method of dispatch, it strikes me that JTR didn't particularly want to see a woman in pain at all; anymore than a butcher "wants" to see an animal suffer.

But of course, it would have been totally impractical for him to torture his victims in the open street in a densly packed neighbourhood with policeman never more than a few minutes away. So the fact that he didn't doesn't prove he might not have enjoyed the experience.

[Batman]

I pointed out back three days ago that JtR wasn't torturing them and that therefore claims that JtR was more sadistic than Chapman's crimes can be dismissed in terms of inflicting pain on the target. This was in relation to claims to JtR was too sadistic to be Chapman, found on this thread here.

Now it seems there has been a complete 180. Chapman is more sadistic than JtR and therefore can't be JtR

Both JtRs and Chapman's victims demonstrate incapacitation through domination and control. Both sets of victims on display. In JtRs case the women were posed in a sexually provocative staged position to shock Whitechapel. It was an attack on Whitechapel society as much as an attack on the women. In Chapman's case, his partners were displayed in their bedrooms were visiting friends and family would go to see her waste away. Both JtR and Chapman displayed the results of their crimes for others to see. It is interesting to note that JtR murdered MJK while she was lying on a bed. Chapman's wives were bedridden after the poisoning overcame their strength.

The claim Chapman can't be JtR is based on personal highly subjective disbelief, alone. There are no modern forensic psychology papers on SKs with overkill and mutilation traits being unable to commit other crimes, of any nature. This is something that the community advocating a barrier to JtR committing other crimes can't produce. Why not? They can produce modern papers on every other aspect of these crimes. Forensic psychology papers on MO and signature, on poisoners, on mutilators, but nothing presenting a barrier to mutilators involving themselves in other non-mutilation homicides.

We know there won't be either because many SKs have changed MOs and signatures across the historical criminal landscape. Quite simply this view that the 'leap is too big' is simply not a professional opinion and just looks good in an article trying to diminish him as a suspect which it attempts to do in a single sentence - he can't possibly make that leap of a change!

One would think after decades of this excuse that there would be evidence to back it up. All that has happened since is that modern forensic psychology is showing the very opposite. That the more SKs we uncover the more we find this idea of immutable signatures being wrong. This is demonstrated by such notorious serial killers as BTK, EARONS and the ZODIAC. Given JtR was just as notorious it would seem to bet on him not being able to change his signature like the above, would be a rash move.

Just because a criminal goes off and commits another different crime, doesn't mean they still don't enjoy the ones they did before. There is no 'replacement' going on. Just another crime of a different sort.

[Busy Beaver]

Chapman/Klosowski is yet another name to go with other suspects, whom the powers of be think are responsible for being the Ripper. For me, Klosowski hadn't been in Whitechapel long enough to know the ins and outs of the area, which was a big part of why the Ripper never got caught, as he knew where he could flee too. He was also terribly homesick and I doubt he would have been beyond the front door, apart from going to work, in his first few months of him being here. He's just another "fall" guy IMHO, but a murderer all the same.