Jack the Ripper discussion

65 views
The Complete History of Jack the Ripper

Comments Showing 1-50 of 60 (60 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Meaghan (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:20PM) (new)

Meaghan (meggilyweggily) | 1 comments It's the best Ripper book EVER. I think we need more Ripper books written by historians like Philip Sugden, instead of journalists and true crime buffs with no formal training in research and analysis.


message 2: by Terry (last edited Aug 25, 2016 01:20PM) (new)

Terry (tbosky) | 5 comments Mod
I agree. It was nice reading a book which didn't have an agenda. I don't think I've read the updated version yet.


message 3: by Rick (new)

Rick (RickMattix) | 8 comments Sugden's is the best of them all for sure. Objective analysis of the case from the known facts of the time and also some nice debunking of the theoretical behavior patterns of serial killers. I like the way Sugden went back to the bare essentials of the case and also corrected some common historical errors along the way. It's a much more sensible approach than than picking out a suspect and constructing a case against him as most authors do.

While not strictly a Ripper book, Judith Walkowitz's City of Dreadful Delight is another one worth checking out.


message 4: by Terry (new)

Terry (tbosky) | 5 comments Mod
Wow, activity. Sorry I'm such a crappy moderator.

I'll have to check City of Dreadful Delight out.


message 5: by Rick (new)

Rick (RickMattix) | 8 comments I just found the group the other day. The Ripper has always fascinated me and does make for some lively discussion.

First book on the case I read -- as a young and impressionable teenager -- was Tom Cullen's When London Walked in Terror back in the '60s. It was a good book for its time (and scared hell out of me at the time!). Cullen was a helluva researcher when one considers the lack of publicly available info then but of course we know today that much of what he wrote was wrong.


message 6: by Rick (new)

Rick (RickMattix) | 8 comments Rumbelow's book is great. He was a true pioneer in Ripper research and combined a cop's insight with great research and historical objectivity. My last updated edition is from the 1980s. If he was to rewrite it today I'd buy one for sure.


message 7: by Rick (new)


message 8: by Terry (new)

Terry (tbosky) | 5 comments Mod
Interesting! Thanks for posting the link.


message 9: by Selby (last edited Jun 12, 2008 12:56PM) (new)

Selby Parker (goodreadcomprofileselbyparker) | 2 comments Let me offer my "twist" of the murders from Scopophilia: On James K. Stephen as the suspect. Summary pg: Word of the blackmail scheme by the whores were related to Stephen by Netley. The five whores were identified and their lodgings recorded by Netley. The plan was to kill all the whores on Fri, Sat and Sunday in the early morning hours. A specially designed hearst was to be used, the same hearst Stephen transported Prince Albert Victor to Cleveland Street's homosexual brothel for entertainment to avoid scrutiny. The whores were chloroformed one by one and taken to a warehouse near the London Hospital by Netley for Stephen's mutilation and later returned to Whitechapel in canvas slings and laid out for public inspection for Stephen hated whores and even wrote a poem on the subject according to his memoirs. Fact: Stephen, Prince Albert Victor and Netley were all just 28 years old, both Stephen and PA died in a mental hospital, Netley was reportedly run over by his own horse drawn carriage and died. According to the Woolf's memoirs, Stephen, raped his cousin, V. Woolf. She committed suicide by drowning. Stephen father, a well known Judge, died in a mental institution as well. The entire family was unstable according to history.
Open for comment and discussion:


message 10: by Robert (new)

Robert Kratky (bolorkay) | 3 comments Besides the Sugen's book, are there any other superior books on the Ripper (fiction / non-fiction) short stories or novel length that are worthwhile?

I've read many mixed reviews of the Cornwell book. Any thoughts on the newly-released, "I Ripper" ?


message 11: by Diane (new)

Diane Madsen | 3 comments Check out this article from Paul Jones at Radio Times http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-1...


message 12: by Diane (new)

Diane Madsen | 3 comments Here is the book trailer for The Conan Doyle Notes: The Secret of Jack the Ripper which won Honorable Mention at the London Book Festival.
https://youtu.be/k7M5F-GPihw


message 14: by Doug (new)

Doug Lamoreux (douglamoreux) | 4 comments My introduction to Ripperology was Cullen's When London Walked in Terror, as well. Stuck with me for a long time. I loved the Rumbelow book. And, like most, I've worn the Sugden book out. His, more than any other, inspired me to finally attempt a fictional account of my own. Cornwell made a stronger case than I would have believed she might.


message 15: by Douglas (last edited Dec 29, 2019 07:27AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments                     George Chapman/Severin Klosowski (both the same guy)  was almost without a doubt Jack-the-Ripper. Inspector Frederick Abberline knew it over a hundred years ago, and every "ripperologist" who looks objectively at the evidence today should know it also. In 1903 Klosowski would (as George Chapman) become notorious as the 'Borough wife poisoner'. But 15 years earlier, in 1888, when he lived on George Yard Road in the heart of London's East End, his disgustingly sneaky and insanely brutal manner of going after what he wanted would lead him (as Jack-the-Ripper) to achieve far more notoriety than he would have ever imagined.

                 It all began when Klosowski first heard of an American who was then in London, who was contacting various London medical schools, offering £20 apiece for uterus left over from hysterectomy procedures. (£20 was quite a large sum in 1888)  Naturally, the staff at these medical schools had outright refused this unidentified American, but it seems that Klosowski (who had been trained in Poland as a 'surgical-barber') wanted the money, and was more obliging..... in his own unhinged way. As unlikely as that all may sound now, it was known throughout the medical community of London at that time that an American had made this highly unusual £20 offer. The coroner at the Annie Chapman inquest knew about it (Annie had been one of Jack-the-Rippers early victims), and had brought it up as the probable motive for the current Whitechapel murders of 1888. The American had even specified how he had wanted the organs to be preserved during their shipment to the States. (You can read about this in the inquest transcript, published in Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner's book, 'The Ultimate Jack-the-Ripper Companion', pgs. 102-107. More importantly, read the 1903 interview by the 'Pall Mall Gazette' with inspector Frederick Abberline, conducted as "Chapman" was on trial for murdering his 3 "wives"; the interview is the 'Rosetta Stone' of ripperology. It's also in Philip Sugden's  'The Complete History Of Jack-the-Ripper'.)
           

                  It appears that the reason the Ripper had mutilated the face of one of his final victims was to disguise his motive of killing that woman; Catherine Eddowes, for her uterus. Those now famously grotesque cuts on Ms Eddowes face were originally intended to divert the attention of investigators from noticing that the uterus was missing. And on both of the two corpses' which had missing uterus (Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes) the Ripper had done something on each of those bodies in an attempt to lead investigators attention away from that clue. Most every cut on each of the Ripper victims had been necessary to either kill the woman or to extract her uterus; except for that grisly slicing on Catherine Eddowes face, which had only been done to take police attention from his 'uterus motive'. And on the attack of Annie Chapman, done one week after he had failed to obtain the uterus of Polly Nicholls; witness statements indicate that the Ripper had waited on Hanbury Street until the break of dawn to strike on that attack, in order to have some twilight to better see what he was doing so that he could locate and extract her womb more quickly. And he was successful: Annie Chapman was his first successful uterus extraction (although he also made-off with Annie's cheap brass rings, hoping investigators might then believe that it was robbery, not possession of the uterus, that had been the motivation, and his goal, in these awful slaughters of his fellow human beings).


            After it had been printed in the 1888 newspapers that the uterus of Annie Chapman had been so expertly removed and taken, the coroner reported that he had:
-"received an urgent communication from the sub-curator of one of London's great medical schools; that they had information which might have a distinct bearing on our case. Some months previous an American had called on him and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the same organ (uterus) that was now missing in our deceased woman. The American stated his willingness to give £20 apiece for each specimen. He was told his request was impossible to be complied with, but he still urged his request"......
-"And it was known that this request was repeated at other institutions of similar character.".......
-"Isn't it likely that the knowledge of this demand might have incited some 'abandoned wretch' to possess himself of a specimen?".....
       (excerpts from the Annie Chapman inquest report, 1888.)

            It is not known why the American 'needed' the organs. Dr Baxter said it had something to do with a "publication" of the American's......whatever.  Perhaps he was simply some unbalanced transexual who was resentful that he'd been born without female organs.*  Regardless, coroner Baxter had explained all this to the jurists in Annie Chapman's inquest, and much of what he said was repeated by Frederick Abberline in his 1903 interview. Both men seemed certain that the Ripper had come into contact with this American at some point before the attacks.

            (* After I first wrote this I became aware of a likely candidate for this American who wanted the female organs [see Phillip Sugden's introduction to the revised edition of his 'Ripper' book, pg. xxvi] . There is a relatively recent Ripper-suspect; an American named Francis Tumblety [see wikipedia]. He being Jack-the-Ripper is unlikely; he was 58 years old, homosexual, tall,  and he basically didn't match any witnesses descriptions. [FBI profilers are adamant that the Ripper would not be homosexual] However, it seems he was fascinated with collecting female organs.  Not only that, but Tumblety was in the East End during the time of the Ripper and could have easily come into contact with Klosowski before the Ripper attacks began, and made him the same offer that coroner Baxter related to the inquest jurists. It's likely that Klosowski [who had reportedly sought out employment at London Hospital] also made the rounds in some of those same medical schools, perhaps looking for employment in some surgical-teaching capacity.  Also, C.A. Dunham, an American Lawyer who knew Tumblety, recalled in 1888 having once seen Tumblety's 'anatomical museum'. It included, he said, "a dozen or more jars containing ...the matrices [wombs] of every class of woman."     
     I have even wondered if Tumblety (who was reportedly lodging just around the corner from Berner St ; on Batty St.), was that 2nd man who was with the Ripper, seen by Israel Schwartz on Berner Street the night Liz Stride was killed there.        Same height;  5'11''.       "LIPSKI!" )

            And at that same inquest, both the coroner; Dr. Wynne Baxter, and the police-surgeon; Dr. George Bagster Phillips, stated that:
"The abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera (uterus) was the object" of the murders, and that:
"The difficulty in believing that the purpose of the murderer was the possession of the missing abdominal organ was natural, as it is abhorrent to our feelings that a life would be taken for so slight an object"
        (both quotes from the transcript of the Annie Chapman inquest, Sept 1888)
-This "difficulty in believing the purpose of the murderer", by investigators, was a major source of the Rippers incredible luck, and one reason why he was never caught. It blinded the investigators then, and it blinds us today.

            I don't know if Klosowski (a convicted serial killer of women, who was tried and executed in 1903) had any preference either way about the method he used to kill women. He was, allegedly, carving up prostitutes, quickly, to procure women's organs in order to obtain money from an American who wanted them. Then nearly ten years later he would begin killing his "wives" by poison, slowly, to rid himself of the obstacle that was standing between himself and his next female conquest. And he couldn't have carved his "wives" up, right? How would he have explained to police that all three of his "wives" were cut to shreds? Some 'Ripperologists' can't believe that a killer who would later go on to watch women slowly suffer and die by poison would also, 15 years earlier, have used a knife to kill prostitutes. But FBI profiler John Douglas knows that some serial killers take up new methods of killing as time passes. When motive changes, so does the means.

            Severin Klosowski arrived in East London from Poland about April 1887;  less than a year before the Whitechapel murders began,  -(there was another set of murders, of 5 women being dumped into the Thames, which began about one month after he 1st arrived in England)- and when he moved to New York for a year, -(he left London for NYC two months after the final Ripper murder, that of Francis Coles)- similar murders started happening in N.Y. also.-(And after returning from New York in the summer of 1892 he never went by the name Severin Klosowski again, and he wouldn't ever admit to even knowing anything about "that fellow", after returning to London in the wake of the Whitechapel murders, even when asked under oath in 1902!)- If you check out all the "coincedences" that occur in these series of murders; the dates, the places Klosowski lived in Whitechapel, -(It is known that he was living on George Yard Road when the 1st Ripper murder happened on this very block; that of Martha Tabrum.  Later, in 1987, while on a TV show about the Ripper, FBI profiler John Douglas had predicted that, going by his profile of serial killers: "when Jack-the-Ripper commit his very 1st murder, he was most likely living or working within just a couple blocks of this first attack!" Douglas was surprisingly adamant about this; he felt that if they wanted to learn the Ripper's real identity, they should try to check any and all census records on that immediate area at the precise time of the 1st murder)- then add to everything else the fact that Klosowski had been trained as a surgeon in Poland!  So he knew more about cutting people up than he did poisoning them. But if you added up all of these "coincidences" and entered them into a computer spreadsheet, the odds would be about a-billion-to-one that Klosowski was the Ripper I bet. And now, the only thing preventing the 'Whitechapel Murders' from ever being officially solved is the so called "Ripperologists" themselves, the very people who claim to be interested in solving them. Ironic, right? But it is so easy to doubt & ridicule the "Chapman-theory", especially when you get into the £20 offer for uteruses. But consider the source of where we know about the offer from; from Coroner Wynne Baxter, who did the autopsy on Annie Chapman. Consider who it was who agreed with him; inspector Frederick Abberline , probably the greatest, most respected officer to have worked on the Ripper case. Abberline believed that Klosowski was the Ripper until his dying day. Personally, I find Abberline a lot more credible in regard to all this than I do the Ripperologists, (or anybody else).

        Also; witnesses at a couple of the Ripper killings have described seeing a suspect matching Chapman/Klosowski in almost every detail: foreign accent and appearance, handlebar mustache,  the type of clothes and hat Klosowski usually wore, his same height: approx 5' 5''.....etc etc. The only difference was that they said he was older, Klosowski was 23, but one of the witnesses said the person they saw was in his 30s. Remember though, these old-world Slavic types from East Europe often appear to be older than they really are, especially to people unfamiliar with them. Also, wouldn't a man, being looked for by everybody in the city, wouldn't -


message 16: by Douglas (last edited Nov 01, 2018 07:16PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments it seem likely that this person would do something to alter his appearance?  I bring this up because it is the witnesses statements that the suspect they saw was in his 30's that some ripperologists (i.e. Martin Fido & Paul Begg,) use to 'prove' that these few witnesses must have seen someone other than Klosowski. So stubborn are they in this 'belief' that they almost totally ignore the fact that the witnesses identified Klosowski in about five out of six details! Yet only the age discrepancy, that's all Fido & Begg notice. Age is the most common thing for a witness to get wrong, ESPECIALLY in the pitch-dark....and fog.

           Something else that Begg and Fido don't like about this theory is that they can't believe that a serial killer would use a knife to butcher prostitutes in one instance, and then ten years later start killing his "wives" by poison. They don't believe its possible for a serial killing ghoul like Klosowski to do both. But Klosowski was killing with a knife much earlier, at a much younger age. Also, he was using the knife to cut up prostitutes for a specific, premeditated purpose: he needed to cut out their reproductive organs.  He didn't need to do that anymore by the time he was killing his "wives". But he didn't only learn about anatomy when he was trained as a surgeon, and a cunning egomaniac like Klosowski would probably want to put all his skills to use if he could. He had learned a little about medicine and poisons also,.... except he didn't know as much as he thought. Or maybe he simply forgot that the poison he bought to kill his "wives" would also preserve their corpses, making it obvious to investigators, if they ever exhumed the bodies, what had killed them. This is what got Klosowski hanged. He had gotten away with so much, for so long, that he became over-confident. He probably began to believe he could never be caught. But he was arrested by Inspector George Godley, who had been involved with Abberline in investigating the Ripper killings 15 years earlier. And Godley was certain that "Chapman" was the Ripper also, and he kept Abberline appraised of his progress during his (Godley's) investigation, prior to "George Chapman's" trial. Abberline had retired from Scotland Yard by that time, but was in charge of the European branch of the Pinkerton Detective Agency.

            The only other 'problem' these Ripperologists have brought up with the 'Klosowski theory' goes something like this: "He would have been a valid suspect, except that there is simply NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE we can find linking Klosowski to the murders".     There is no 'concrete evidence' linking ANY of the 'suspects' to the Ripper murders!!!      Right?     But that sure doesn't stop these two Ripperologists from nominating certain OTHER 'suspects' as 'strong candidates'; suspects who have far less evidence against them than Klosowski does!     Some Ripperologist's entire careers have been built upon the Ripper mystery, do they feel they need to keep it a mystery? Why else are they always so prejudice against Klosowski, who has so much circumstantial evidence pointing squarely at him, while at the same time promote suspects who barely have any?   
      (And the only reason there is no concrete evidence against Klosowski is because he was extremely cunning, and had repeatedly eluded detection. You can't find "concrete evidence" retroactively; you can only find 'circumstantial evidence' for a crime as old as this one. Concrete evidence needed to be found in 1888. Abberline might have had a shot at finding it in 1903, after learning of Klosowski's newest murders, but after Klosowski was hanged it seems police just dropped it for the time being; they felt it was over.)

            But let's not overlook the motive of the police either, (I am speaking most specifically about Sir Norville Macnaghten). In a famous 1894 report, Macnaghten wrote that: "Jack-the-Ripper had five victims, and five victims only". Now, how can he possibly make this statement, and state it as if it were the Gospel Truth?? What evidence does he have, for instance, that Martha Tabram was not killed by the Ripper? ...NONE!   But London police were facing the most severe criticism they had ever faced because of not capturing The Ripper, they were ridiculed about it. Any time the subject of the Ripper came up, Magnaghten felt he was being made the butt of a rude joke. The N.Y. Times was calling Scotland Yard the "stupidest police force on the planet". Magnaghten wanted to diminish the successes that the Ripper had had against his police force; he probably would have claimed that the Ripper had only killed TWO women if he thought people might have believed it. Also, Doctors were under a cloud of suspicion, due to the fact that coroner Baxter had correctly pointed out that the Ripper could not have found those sexual organs he was so specifically seeking; extracted them; have done it so quick and nicely, unless he had received some training as a surgeon. Later, Dr. Thomas Bond would attempt to downplay this theory, saying that even a butcher could find the uterus in a woman and be able to extract it so expertly. But who could blame him for being so defensive? There was a mania at work, and East End citizens were out to lynch doctors nearly. This defensiveness of Doctors, Police, Jews, immigrants, etc, ended up compromising the investigation.
            

                 It is absolutely ASTOUNDING that although Klosowski was an exact match to so many witness statements, and that he had both worked AND resided within short walking distance from each of the Ripper attacks.... that he had been trained as a surgeon, and had migrated from Poland only months before the Ripper attacks began.......etc.....etc...etc,  yet he was never so much as QUESTIONED by the London Police! His name appears on NO POLICE REPORT, prior to his arrest as a serial murderer in 1902! It's appalling! ...... Scotland Yard, who supposedly questioned every man in Whitechapel during the Ripper manhunt, seems to have had no clue that Severin Klosowski even existed in 1888! I mean, the guy was working right under their noses, at the very epicenter of the killing-zone, right on Whitechapel High St., at that archway into George Yard, right under the 'White Hart' pub. He must have been LAUGHING as police would pass by!

             Yet even today, 'Ripperologists' (eg.Fido)  downplay the 'Chapman theory', and they use the weakest of logic to make their argument, in the face of, by far, the strongest evidence that has ever been compiled about any other Ripper suspect! And they keep offering up the most unlikely suspects imaginable (Kosminski, Gull, Druitt, etc), while rolling their eyes in condescending derision when you mention Klosowski. It is bizarre!

                  How many people in Victorian England do you suppose there were who had been trained to protect human life as a surgeon, but had also been a known serial killer of women? In my entire life I have heard of only two;   Severin Klosovski/ George Chapman is one. Jack the Ripper is the other. And "BOTH" 'just happened' to be living in the heart of Whitechaple in 1888!   "Both" were also on tiny George Yard Road the night Martha Tabrum was killed and mutilated there.  I mean, what are the odds?? And out of all the many popular 'suspects' that are ever accused of being Jack-the-Ripper, only ONE of them is a known perpetrator of homicide:  Severin Klosovski, ... A.K.A. George Chapman , ... A.K.A  'Borough poisoner', ......  A.K.A JACK-THE-RIPPER!


message 17: by Douglas (last edited Feb 20, 2019 04:50PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments                  The Ripper attempted to obscure his 'uterus motive' with those nasty cuts on the victims faces because he knew that he could be tracked down if police knew his motive. The Ripper (Klosowski) would have worried that the police may have heard about the offer to those London medical Schools by the 'American', and if they had they could have then tracked the American, interrogated him, and gotten the American to tell them about everything he knew, which would mean even about 'Severn Klosowski' also!  Klosowski was cunning, and this obscuring of the motive is an example of it, and shows how he could have been successful in avoiding detection.

               And when Klosowski stopped the Ripper-type murders (it looks as though sometime close to when he returned to London from America, in the summer of 1892. He came to the realization that if he continued in that manner, he would soon be exposed) he stuck to it. If he had ever again been connected to ANY new murder - (done with a knife in some bloody fashion) - he knew he would then also likely be connected to those Whitechapel murders that he had done. It must have weighed on his mind. (this is also why he changed the 'Klosowski' name he was using in 1888, and would never admit now to even knowing who Severin Klosowski was, once he had returned to London. He would have learned, while in New York, that Scotland Yard was still trying to question Tumblety. If they made Tumblety talk, Tumblety could have given up the name of Severin Klosowski. But Tumblety would not know Klosowski by the name of George Chapman. So of course Klosowski is going to deny any knowledge of his true name after having changed it to George Chapman.) Killing his "wife" by poison, and making it look like 'natural causes', this would not arouse suspicion to anybody wondering about the Ripper murders. Even if it had got out that they had been poisoned, the public would not link that to the Ripper killings. People would say "serial killers don't alter their methods". This is another example of his animal cunning that so many people don't believe he has. Its not genius on his part, simply a survival mechanism he has developed and learned to trust in. Killing his "wives" by poison also gave him the opportunity to showcase a different "skill" of his, something that seemed important to this maladjusted egomaniac. 

                            *                            *                            *                            *                            *


             Francis Tumblety, I believe, was the 'American' referred to by Coroner Wynn Baxter at Annie Chapman's inquest;  he is the "American agent" who Klosowski was procuring uterus for, as referred to by Inspector Abberline in his 1903 'Pall Mall Gazette' interview. But Tumblety was not the Ripper (as has been suggested in some books recently). Many of those who knew Tumblety said he was a coward. The Ripper was many things, but he was no coward. You can't be a coward and also calmly dissect women within mere feet and inches of bystanders who are ready and willing to lynch you at the first opportunity, as so many East End Londoner's were ready, willing, and able to do to the Ripper. There are many other reasons to suggest that Tumblety was not the Ripper, and I have stated the most obvious reasons previously already. Tumblety knew Klosowski was the Ripper I believe, he was a big reason Klosowski WAS the Ripper, and he continued to exert influence over Klosowski during the entire murder spree.  I also believe that the reason Klosowski went to New York at the beginning of the 1890s was to meet up with Tumblety again. But Klosowski was the actual Ripper, the man getting the disgusting work done. Tumblety was the man who gave the Ripper his commission, as stated by Abberline in 1903. ( I have no idea if Abberline suspected Tumblety of being the "American" who wanted the uterus's, we will never know about that for certain, but he certainly believed Klosowski was the Ripper.)

        Abberline was one of the best experienced detectives in England, and he had interviewed all the suspects, including Tumblety. (inspectors McNaughton,  Littlechild,  Robert Anderson, etc; during the Whitechapel Murders those guys were all paper-pushers. Abberline was the real deal, and was out there on the same streets the Ripper was.) He knew the suspects were all false leads, all of them except Klosowski. He said so. And Tumblety was in police custody when Mary Kelly was murdered, so he couldn't be the Ripper. Klosowski was in close proximity to each victim during every single murder (He HAD to be, he DID them all), and he was in New York the night Carrie Brown was murdered Ripper-style in the Bowery . He was given his incentive by Tumblety I believe, (Tumblety was a collector of human uterus. Also, it is reported that Klosowski admired America and Americans, and Tumblety, it is said, could be a very charismatic American) but Klosowski was the actual Ripper. Coincidentally, both men died in 1903, but it was Klosowski who was executed by the hangman's knot, not Tumblety. Tumblety was a free man when he died.


                            *                            *                            *                            *                            * 


                 In November of 1888, Tumblety had been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders. The exact, precise date of his arrest is unclear, but it was earlier the same week as the murder of Marie Kelly on Dorset Street. (The final 'official' Ripper murder) Remember, it has been put forward that Severin Klosowski was committing these murders to obtain uterus for Tumblety, and that Tumblety had been 'the American' that coroner Baxter was referring to, during the inquest of Annie Chapman.


                 So how did Tumblety ever come to be suspected by the London Police in the Whitechapel Murder Case in the first place? Scotland Yard was checking up on his every move, but why? Some writers have speculated it was because it had become known that Tumblety hated women, especially prostitutes. I would think if the police were following every man in London who hated women, if that's all it took to have the kind of police manpower used that they had used on Tumblety, then there would be no police left over to do anything else, and England's jails would have been filled to capacity twice over with men who hated women! It seems doubtful that he would have received the amount of suspicion he did simply because he had somehow made it known that he hated women; to the point that the police would have arrested him, and years later, tell a writer that Tumblety had been the most likely suspect in the Whitechapel Murders! And the only evidence they had on him was that he hated women? This does not make sense.
            
             Was it instead because the police had learned that Tumblety had been the "American" who had made the twenty pound offer for uterus to the London medical schools? This, to my way of thinking, would seem far more plausible, and there is good reason to conclude that the curator at the medical school would have contacted the police, after having already contacted the coroner. At that late stage in the Ripper murders, Scotland Yard wasn't sharing much information with anybody, especially the British press. If they had, they felt it could only be used to tip off The Ripper himself. So we don't know much about what the London Police thought about Tumblety when they arrested him, or if they had been contacted by the curator beforehand. But remember, the curator had contacted coroner Baxter after reading that the Ripper-victim (Annie Chapman) was missing the very same organ that the "American ' had offered to pay him twenty pounds apiece for, so it would seem a pretty safe bet that he would also be contacting the Police next, if he hadn't done it already. If the curator were worried enough about this "American" to contact the coroner, I think it likely that he would also contact the police next. (and if the curator didn't contact the police about it, the coroner certainly would have. After all, he felt it important enough to have told the jurists of the inquest all about it!) Think about it, Tumblety had told the staff at the medical school exactly how he wanted the female organs to be preserved for their shipment to the States, so he must have also provided them with his name, address, etc. so that they could know exactly where to send them. Tumblety had no knowledge, back at the time when the curator said he had been contacted by him, that he would soon be involved in the most notorious murders of modern times. The only thing he had to hide at that point was his sexual preference; which the police would soon be using as an excuse to hold him on while they investigated into whether he was Jack-the-Ripper or not. But Tumblety had no reason not to give his name to the medical schools, not at that early date. I think that the curator would feel it his duty to contact police and provide them with the name of the "American". Police wouldn't have arrested Tumblety simply because they had heard he hated prostitutes, there had to be something else. (offering to pay 20 pounds apiece for the same organ that was the motive for these women having been killed is definitely something else!). It wouldn't have been till after police did some extensive investigating that they would have learned about Tumblety's sexuality, his young 'male escorts',and the mischief he was getting himself into, all of which was a crime in the 1880s, a crime police could detain him for, and bring charges against him on, while they investigated the claims made by the medical school.   
  Can you imagine Klosowski's panic when he heard Tumblety was in police custody?  He had to DO something about this! Tumblety, Klosowski knew, would be made to talk, and soon the whole WORLD might know the identity of Jack-the-Ripper! The murder of Marie Kelly.... the way it soon went down, it seemed to capture the mood and the state of mind Klosowski must have been in at the time. 


                    Tumblety was still in custody the night that Mary Kelly was  brutally murdered, maimed, and mutilated. He would bail himself out in less than a week. Is it possible that the only reason that Marie Kelly was murdered on that night was because Klosowski, who knew Tumblety had been arrested, was out to exonerate him, mainly so that Tumblety would not talk? The Ripper had not struck in well over a month by that time, which had been by far the biggest gap in the murders, and its possible that after the Ripper obtained that second uterus, that of Catherine Eddowes, that those two organs were all that Tumblety had wanted, and the Ripper murders were over and done with at that point. If so, then why was Mary Kelly murdered, and murdered far more violently than anybody else in the entire series?


        The evidence suggests that Klosovski was extremely angry when he hunted Kelly down. (make no mistake about it, to Klosowski this WAS a hunt, and a sport! But I don't think he was in a sporting mood on the night he butchered Mary Kelly) Klosowski had the perfect opportunity to procure the uterus of Mary Kelly that night, it was indoors, he had plenty of time. But he did not do it. It is obvious from the murder scene that Klosowski was in a maniacal rage that night. And he went totally ape-sh*t; completely berzerk. It is possible that the reason he did not take her uterus was because this murder had a different motive for him than the other murders in the series: that being to exonerate Tumblety of any involvement in the Whitechapel murders, for which both Klosowski and Tumblety knew that Tumblety was being suspected of. If another Ripper-killing, the worst one yet, happened while Tumblety was safe behind bars, then Tumblety COULDN'T be the Ripper! The police would be forced to


message 18: by Douglas (last edited Dec 09, 2018 06:35AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments let him go, this is what Klosowski would have likely reasoned. 'Coincedently',  one week later, Tumblety would skip out on the bail that he himself had put up on himself (Tumblety was fairly well off financially), go back to New York and never return to England again. (I get the feeling though that the London police were not too surprised when it turned out that Tumblety was not the Ripper. But they still believed he was connected to the killings in some way) 
        
                In a couple years Klosowski and his then-new 'wife' (Lucy Baderski) would follow Tumblety to New York, though both he and she would eventually return to London, separately; she pregnant and frightened for her life, after Klosowski repeatedly attempted murder on her, once with a very long knife.   During that attack, when Lucy had tried to scream, Klosowski pushed his head up against her face, covering her mouth with his forehead so she could neither scream nor breathe,(like this were a move he was used to), using his arms and hands to hold hers down. The only thing that saved Lucy was that a customer to their bar came in right as this was happening, and Klosowsky got up to tend to him. Lucy was nearly unconscious from lack of oxygen, but as Klosowski got up to deal with the customer, Lucy was able to hide the knife he had been ready to use on her. Later, a more composed and friendly Klosowski would calmly assure Lucy that, had it not been for the customer, he would have surely cut her head off. He then showed her where he had planned to bury her dead body, as if he were letting her in on a good joke he had once heard.

                    Is it possible that Tumblety, the women-hating homosexual Entrepreneur, and Klosowski, the creepy secretive Barber/Surgeon/Publican, were, in their own way, in love with one another? Is it possible that the two of them blamed the very prostitutes that they were butchering for the fact that Tumblety had been arrested and jailed?  I feel Klosowski might have been secretly bi-sexual , while Tumblety was known to have been gay. (Klosowski was a womanizer- to put it mildly. It has long been noted that many 'womanizers' go from woman to woman as a subconscious attempt to prove to themselves that they are not in reality homosexual.) There is something about Klosowski that suggests that, even though he had an animal magnetism that attracted certain women to him, he himself was contemptuous of women, and could far more easily be swayed by a man. I think he may have been ashamed about it, (he was proud of his 'macho' self image of himself) and probably did his best to stay away from most men because of it. I think it might be possible that Klosowski blamed women for the awful feelings which this all produced in him, and I think that this might account for his bloodthirsty rage towards them. Maybe he blamed women for standing in the way of what he really wanted. Klowsowski looked up to men. And I think that the 20 pound commission from Tumblety provided Klosowski with all the justification he needed to keep this one close male attraction/relationship ongoing. (I just get the feeling somehow that Tumblety possessed characteristics that Klosowski felt attracted to. Klosowski looked up to Americans, and he admired wealth and success; Tumblety represented all of that. Klosowski also seemed to admire ultra right-wing politics, as did Tumblety.  (Klosowski lost business in his pub due to his vocal support of the Boers, arguing with patrons about the war)   I also think that Klosovski and Tumblety, together,  had planned out the Jew-baiting "Lipski" comment on Berner street, and the "Juwes" message on Goulston St, not to mention the "Lusk" letter, which was sent to a largely Jewish vigilance organization, [and the "Lusk" letter, due to its syntax, is believed by many to have been written by an Irishman, and Tumblety was born in Ireland]. - and remember that Stride's murder was purposely staged on the premises  of a Jewish socialist club. Incidentally, all of these incidence, intended to bring suspicion for the murders upon the Jews, were connected to the night of the 'double event', the night that the Ripper was seen on Berner Street with a second man who stood 5'11'' in height  - same height as Tumblety.   Berner Street is just around the corner from Batty street, the street that Tumblety was reported to have been living on)        But as with everything else in his life, only for a short time would it remain ongoing. Largely because of the Slavic, male-oriented culture he was raised in, Klosowski would try his best to maintain the charade of female relations afterward. But from what we know of his future, and about why he ended up getting caught, we see it did not turn out very well, not for anyone.   

(for a good portrait of and better understanding for Klosowski's personality, read the introduction (and entire text for that matter) to the 1930 book 'The Trial Of George Chapman'   by  H. L. Adam. It is a relatively rare book, (especially considering its being the only first hand account of who was actually Jack-the-Ripper that was ever written)  . 


            The biggest surprise regarding Tumblety is the fact that he had been virtually forgotten for a hundred years before having been rediscovered in the 1990's.  Back in 1889, his name had been mentioned in American Newspapers from New York to San Francisco in connection with the Ripper murders as a possible suspect, beginning the very week after the murder of Mary Kelly. He was well known by anybody interested in the case back then. By the time the first real book on the Ripper was written, in the late 1920s by Leonard Matters, it had been almost 40 years, and Tumblety didn't fit into Matter's version of events I guess.  These books all built upon each other as the decades passed, and "ripperologists" only seemed to know the "facts" from what they had shared with one another, it was like a club. They completely had lost touch with that part of the Ripper story.  This was up untill Phillip Sugden came along, he set the new standard for research into the case, and for the need to be objective also. He turned the tide (although he missed Tumblety too!). It is STILL surprising that nobody learned about Tumblety through going back and looking at the old newspaper articles; perhaps nobody was looking at any of the American newspapers from the era, only the British ones maybe. It was in a letter from police officer Littlechild, sold in auction, where Tumblety's name was finally rediscovered.


 


                                *                            *                            *                             *                            *




                  The whole inspiration for me writing this essay,  in the first place, was in retaliation over the fact that so many "ripperologists" had been calling the single most logical and likely theory of them all, 'stupid', as if they were personally threatened by the Klosowski theory. And it wasn't my theory at that point, but I could see that there was something rotten about what they were doing, something phony. There you have it. Just go and look at what Stewart Evans said about the "Chapman Theory" in his 'Ripper' book about Tumblety: 'JTR, First American Serial Killer' , and this was after Phillip Sugden had pointed out that Klosowski was the only suspect, out of all of the suspects, that could not be eliminated - (He successfully eliminated all of the other so-called "suspects" that the Ripperologists have debated on over the years). But Evans, in his book about Tumblety, "eliminates" Klosowski so quickly that it could make your head spin. The trouble is that the only reason he "eliminated" him so quickly was because if he had spent more time doing it, it would have only more clearly exposed the fact that he had nothing of any substance to eliminate Klosowski on; but he simply wanted his readers to believe that Tumblety was the Ripper instead, because it was he himself who had rediscovered Tumblety, for which he deserves credit. Fido and Begg called George Chapman an "alleged" Ripper-suspect, but they didn't use any such negative prefix when calling the far less likely Kosminski, or Druitt "SUSPECTS", in their 'Jack-the-Ripper A thru Z' book! Martin Fido has gone on TV and stated "Anybody suggesting that Montegue Druitt is Jack-the-Ripper can do so knowing he has made a serious, respectable choice" or some such nonsense, yet he reprimands anybody who seriously makes his vote for George Chapman / Severin Klosowski, as if he and his friends know so much better than Abberline himself did, or Phillip Sugden even. It just gets to me that these people set themselves up as the 'Grand Ol' Men of Ripperology', and then passive-aggressively twist the facts in order to support their own personal views of events, and go on TV speaking so condescendingly and patronizingly towards anybody with a different idea, no matter how sound that idea may be
     
            And remember, Inspector Abberline was the only man from the original investigation who had integrity enough to admit what had really happened, no matter how bad it may have made him and the rest of Scotland yard appear, and no matter how angry it might have made the public at him. This was largely due to him having retired from the force and working for an independent agency at the time. But that only adds to his credibility. He never wrote any books on the case in later years, as so many of his peers were doing, he was only interested in finding what had happened, never with his own 'reputation and image', as so many others from the original investigation were.(he never had his photo taken!) And now, Ripperologists have even put words in his mouth, and have told lies saying that he changed his mind about 'Chapman' in later years- which was all based on that book by Donald McCormick, 'The Identity Of Jack The Ripper', which, instead of simply telling us the truth, that Klosowski was the Ripper, for some reason made the preposterous and bizarre allegation that Klosowski had a 'secret Russian double' who was the 'actual' Ripper, (and was also a Russian spy sent over by Rasputin to boot! - I mean, at that early date, how would Rasputin have even known about Klosowski to go looking for a 'double' to put in his place?) and that Abberline changed his mind about Klosowski being the Ripper when he learned it was the 'double' who was the 'true' Ripper! Can you imagine the great Abberline ever believing such an outrageous, preposterous thing!? It is libelous to even suggest that he believed something so ludicrous in print!......... Klosowski simply had all the same traits, and was just coincidentally a surgeon, and had lived in all the right places...etc etc etc. Sure thing Bud. The fact of the matter is that Abberline's comments indicate that he himself didn't even know about Klosowski until 1902! He did not suspect him until the trial of "George Chapman"! (this was pointed out in Phillip Sugden's remarkable book)
                
          And Abberline never changed his mind about 'Chapman' either, certainly never on record. So any suggestion that he did is putting words in his mouth after he had died, which also demonstrates how low these people will stoop in discrediting this important theory. The only reason to do that is because it is correctly acknowledged that Abberline's opinion is THE most significant of all.  (Even Paul Begg, in his 'Jack the Ripper; the Facts', stated that Abberline ' 'might have' changed his mind [regarding Chapman being the Ripper] in later years' , Yet he provided no proof of where he might have heard this, and no other details, which tells me that he was probably just embarrassed to admit that he had gotten it from  Donald McCormick's book) 
And it was Abberline's opinion that Klosowski was the Ripper! There is ZERO evidence that his opinion ever changed.
           
            


message 19: by Leslie (new)

Leslie | 6 comments Excellent reading. A lot of research obviously went into it. You may like to have a read of my "Whitechapel Nights", available on Kindle for 99p. All the actual 'Ripper' murders are factually correct, taken from witness statements, police records and coroner's reports. Chapters in between concern an ordinary, Victorian middle-aged couple. However, there is a link. The book contains several twists and offers an explanation to the ending of the murders in Whitechapel. Would like to hear your views.


message 20: by Doug (new)

Doug Lamoreux (douglamoreux) | 4 comments Only Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly were left with mutilated faces. Only Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes had their uteruses taken away. I fail to see the unmistakable pattern pointing only to Chapman. And while Abberline did indeed consider him the Ripper. Many other contemporary police officials held many other opinions. You may be right. You may be far afield. The debate goes on.

It's all fun for me, as I write Fiction.

Saucy Jacky The Whitechapel Murders As Told By Jack The Ripper by Doug Lamoreux


message 21: by Douglas (last edited Dec 11, 2018 07:01AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments I already addressed my thoughts about those other "contemporary police officials", and their "opinions" also, especially Macnaghten. (see message 16)

Yes, out of five 'official' victims, Klosowski was only successful in obtaining the uterus twice. (can you imagine, though, how difficult it must be to perform such an extraction out on the cold, wet, very dark streets in the middle of the night, or even if under ideal conditions? And also having to worry about possibly getting caught while doing it?! It would take a couple tries to get it right, at least, even for a first-class surgeon) But as I reported, I don't believe that he was trying to get Marie Kelly's uterus, her murder had a different motive. So he only really FAILED twice. (actually he also failed on Martha Tabrum too, but he was, understandably, very nervous during those first two attacks on Tabrum & Nichols, still only a novice in that early stage of the murder spree; he would get better, and more relaxed, by the time of the Hanbury Street backyard) . In Liz Stride's case, the killer was obviously interrupted, the only wound Stride received was the throat having been slashed; the cut inflicting death (attempting to guess what happened, in the case of Stride, is futile. Maybe the Ripper had been interrupted, maybe he had intended only to murder her as a means to lay the murders on the doorstep of Jewish socialists [her body was left on the site of a Jewish socialist club], and to further obscure his motive. After all, directly following the murder of Stride, a number of things happened this same night that make it appear he was planning on 'framing' the Jews and making them scapegoats: the 'Lipski' comment happened as Stride was murdered [Israel Lipski, another Polish poisoner; well known in his trial as a Jew, had famously been arrested on Batty Street in 1887, see Wikipedia] , the Goulston St. 'Jewes' message was later that night, the 'Kidney letter' to the largely Jewish vigilance club was in connection with this night. I believe he hit upon the idea of implicating the local Jews after the newspaper's 'Leather Apron' incident a little earlier....cunning! It would also have been typical of Klosowski to attempt to blame an innocent party; for he would encourage innocent people to be falsely arrested and jailed for criminal acts that he was responsible for on at least a couple of known instances) So it is really only with the first woman, Polly Nichols, where the darkness and the time-limit prevented him from being uterus-successful (but from the nature of Polly Nichols' abdominal mutilations, we can see that he was working on getting the uterus). But he was still learning the ropes. This is my feeling anyway.


As for Eddowes face being the only one with the grotesque face-cuts, it was only after newspaper accounts telling of Annie Chapman's missing organs that Klosowski came upon that idea of attempting to take attention away from the missing uterus by means of shocking facial mutilation (nose cut-off, v's cut into her cheeks, eyelids slit, etc.). The uterus is so well hidden in a body, and so tiny, that the Ripper had probably been counting on investigators not noticing that it was missing; until he had read in the papers that they had noticed it. (but as for Mary Kelly's face being cut up, so was her entire body. This had no connection to obscuring any motive, as he did not even attempt to take her uterus, and her abdominal area had not been the focus of the attack so much, as in most of the other four cases. Kelly's murder had an entirely different motive besides, and he purposely left the uterus intact in an attempt to prove to police that taking the uterus had never been his motive. He just wanted police to make no mistake that this murder of Kelley definitely was a Ripper murder, so that they would know that the recently incarcerated Tumblety could not have been Jack-the-Ripper, and they would be forced to set bail for him [which, of course, Tumblety would skip-out on the next week.] In my view, his attempt here was successful, and it exonerated Tumblety, - but actually this murder of Kelly served two purposes, and it also helped to further obscure the 'uterus motive') Again, this is only my theory.

But Klosowski's being the Ripper is NOT only my theory, that was Inspectior Abberline's theory. And I really trust him a lot, he and Phllip Sugden are ALL I trust when it comes to this case, and I trust them both more than I trust myself even. (Abberline was a different sort of officer from the likes of Magnaughten, Anderson, Swanson, Littlechild, etc., which is why his remarkable expertise was needed on the streets, not behind a desk) I also believe that Abberline suspected Tumblety of being the 'American', but he did not have enough evidence to openly speak of it to the newspapers.

(and there had been no intended element of 'masonic ritual' in the fact that the victims, beginning with Annie Chapman, had their intestine 'tossed over their shoulder', as has been suggested by Stephen Knight. The uterus is directly under the lower intestine as he is cutting, he had to tear out the lower intestine to get at this organ that was the object of his goal, that's all, as quickly as possible, it's packed with human filth. He was just getting it out of his way, as quickly as possible, he didn't have time to be neat about it, did he? Rip-bam-splat, he got it over with and was out of there as quickly as he possibly could have been; he was long gone the second after the uterus was out of the body and inside his black leather bag.)


I believe that Klosowski had MANY victims that were not part of the so-called "canonical murders". I believe that what distinguishes those five particular murders was that they were the murders in which the Ripper was motivated by this 'uterus motive' of Tumblety's (except in Mary Kelly's case), and on those instances the abdomen is far more mutilated than on his other victims.

If we look more closely at those five 'canonical' murders, (besides Mary Kelly), we should first ask ourselves what possible sexual thrill can there be in butchering a 50 year old, gin-soaked, toothless old hag (or pretty close to it), and doing it in under 5 minutes, all the while knowing that you better get out of there as fast as you can or else be captured and pummeled (to say the least) by one of the most frenzied mobs that had ever been set loose on anybody else in history, and afterwards hanged by the police? Does this sound the least bit erotic to anybody? No, these crimes were done for material gain, that's all, people will only subject themselves to that degree of risk for money; and only if they are hard-up for cash in the 1st place. And by noticing that the old women's uterus are usually missing, and had been taken in record-time, (and also noting that twenty pounds apiece had earlier been offered, in London, for this same organ) we know what the goal of the crimes is, just as the coroner knew it in 1888. The killer, in choosing his victims, was looking for 'expendable' women, women he could kill and take their uterus with nobody missing them; drunk women who were already feeling no pain, that was his goal. At least it was his goal as far as these 'canonical' murders were concerned. This was not about any sexual thrill, none of the women had been raped. It was something else entirely. If more people could have recognized the motive, it would have been a lot easier to solve. They keep thinking in terms of sexual thrill-killing. For this killer, women were pretty much just human garbage, to be disposed of as soon as he was done with them, just as Klosowski dispatched with his 'wives' later on. And THAT is the most distinctive aspect of the ripper's profile. What is so awful about first seeing the photos of these women is seeing the un-Godly, disrespectful state they had been left by the killer, just like somebody might leave a bag of dog-poop they had just cleaned-up on the street after their pet. These women were human beings, yet the only thing that they had represented to Klosowski at the time was the 20 pound note he would receive for cutting out their uterus and handing it over to Tumblety. And it would be with this same lack of empathy that Klosowski would kill his 'wives' later on, but killing them slowly, unemotionally and indifferently, caring not one bit that they were suffering greatly, and for such a prolonged period of time. The guy was a monster, especially where women were concerned, and his distinct fingerprint is there to be seen on every murder he commit throughout his 15 years of savage but detached cruelty.

But we also need to look at the fact that, for the first couple of years after arriving in England from Poland, Klosowski was flat-broke almost, living in places no better than where these prostitutes themselves lived. He was hard-up for money, very much. Because he was so broke he was living by himself (for the final time in his life, until he went to jail). Being flat broke, and alone, and at heart a cruel brute who had also been trained as a surgeon; he thus had time, opportunity, and the motivation and training to get himself into any and all kind of trouble. Not only that, but there were aspects of this type of 'trouble' that Klosowski actually enjoyed very much. When Klosowski had 1st come to England he harbored dreams of advancement in life, and of personal wealth. Hearing of this offer of money for uterus, this would have been the answer to the prayers of a flat-broke, hungry thug with training in surgery, who was looking desperately for more work; which describes Klosowski's situation at the time perfectly. Klosowski was to become a fairly successful publican, the 'Crown' pub would become fairly famous, and it was on the money made from these murders that his success had originally been built. These murders, and Francis Tumblety, would help establish Klosowski as the successful businessman that he would soon become .

-( By the way, and I don't like to speak of it because I am afraid that people will accuse me of getting totally carried away with Klosowski's guilt, but I also believe that Klosowski was responsible for the "Thames Torso Killings" that began the month after he 1st arrived in England from Poland. (5 female victims over a period of 14 years, the bodies having been surgically dissected and dumped in the River Thames ). I mean, if he was, he is still far behind the murder total of Ted Bundy in 20th century United States, so its not all that unbelievable. And I am not alone in believing this about him. But even if he is not, his known crimes are so reprehensible that it is not going to hurt his feelings too much if I were wrong about this accusation. But again, the timing is just too 'coincidental' for my believing it was not him, and it's just too much for me to believe that there just happened to be another similar serial killer working the same area at the same time, stopping right when Klosowski is executed. Klosowski lived in London from 1887 till his execution in 1903, and just look at all the ghastly murder that was going down in East London at that time, starting up his 1st year there and ending right before he was eradicated. Serial killing is not some contagious disease. And a 'copycat killer' could not have simply 'copied' Klosovski's ability to slyly evade capture also, or his animal-like cunning. No one has ever been held responsible for any of the murders that happened during this time in East London. With all of the police manpower that was being used on these killings, it seems almost impossible that someone else could get away with this also, at the same time; let alone someone who would resort to being a copycat. A copycat by definition is not very imaginative or clever, which is why he needs to copy what other people do. Right? Besides, the 'Torso Killings' began 1st, so it would have been the Ripper himself who was the copycat.)


message 22: by Douglas (last edited Nov 24, 2018 07:20AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments I want to read your piece on the Whitechapel Murders Leslie, please give me a little time. I am really still unsophisticated about 'kindel' books, but I need to bring myself up with the times. I have always been sort of an 'old books' snob, but there is no reason for it. But thank you, your words offer encouragement> I would like to get back to you sometime. Also, one thing that I was off on in my essay was the date that Klosowski returned from New York to London. I believe I have him returning a year early. It doesn't affect anything, but I need to change it. It was an accident, and in no instance did I purposely alter anything so that it would fit into my account. I was not interested in 'my account' I was only interested in reporting what I believed actually happened, because I myself wanted to KNOW what really happened. When I first wrote that, I was not thinking of anybody else even seeing it. I wanted to have it for myself. I have edited it many times since then, but never did I change it in order to make it seem more interesting.(it was written in two parts, and part two begins at the beginning of message #17. The second part was written a little bit later, and is more subjective than the first part [-and now the 3rd part begins with your 1st comment; message #19.] ) But I believe that what I wrote is the truth of the matter. The fact that nothing can actually be proven really allows many writers to write anything that they like about it. THIS is why I felt I needed to write my own account; in order to have something in which I myself felt was written only in order to report what I felt had actually happened


message 23: by Leslie (last edited Nov 02, 2018 03:48PM) (new)

Leslie | 6 comments And you did right, my friend. Be true to yourself and what you believe. What I have written is mostly fiction based on facts. The beauty of fiction writing is that you can embellish the truth to suit your own ends. What you have done is to present the facts as they are. Well done to you.
Like you, I was a 'hard copy' book enthusiast. I was bought a Kindle for a stay in hospital as I could read whatever book took my fancy and the Kindle is small enough to slip into your pocket. I am now converted and wouldn't do without it.
When you have read "Whitechapel Nights", I would appreciate your thoughts on it. I am told it can be downloaded to a phone from Amazon. Unfortunately, I am a bit behind the times with technology so am not certain. Keep up the good work. Best wishes. P.s. Don't hesitate to visit my Facebook page :- L P Gibbs Author


message 24: by Douglas (last edited Dec 09, 2018 07:15AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Incidentally, something I left out: Francis Tumblety was also a fairly close physical match to the description given by Miss Emily Marsh , in Oct of 1888, of a man who came into her shop inquiring about the address of George Lusk, just prior to the time that Lusk received the famous 'kidney letter'. ( She was displaying a reward poster of Lusk's in her window, and the man inquired about Lusk's address.) Lusk received the 'Kidney-letter' the very next day, addressed exactly as Miss Marsh had given it to this man, with no house number.
Miss Marsh stated that this mysterious man stood approx. 6 foot tall, was slim; ostentatious; dark moustache and beard; sallow; spoke with what to her sounded like Irish brogue; and seemed to act suspicious, or'furtive', so much so that she asked her assistant to follow the Man as he left. She said she thought he was around 45. Tumblety was 56. But I do not put too much stock in witness guesses at age anymore, not at all. Height, sure; eye and hair color, yes; type of clothes, of course. But age can be very deceiving. I do put put stock in what my gut tells me though, and my gut feeling is that Miss Marsh's story is significant. The thing that really stands out about it for me is that she describes the man having worn a 'Prussian clerical' collar, turned up, along with very long single-brested dark overcoat. This is not only quite unusual, but describes Tumblety's dress habits to a tee, he is almost always described dressing in this manner, wearing that military style look, representing many older European nations, even though he was American. He seemed to be proud of an extensive knowledge of military history, and would also greatly exaggerate his participation in the American Civil War and his "friendships" with important people, such as Lincoln, Robert E Lee, etc. If any of these people were even aware of him, it is likely they viewed him as a pest, although he had made quite a lot of money with a purported 'pimple cream' for young people, and would spend it on lavish dinners in an attempt to ingratiate himself to some of these major figures.


(Getting back to the 'ripperologists' ; one of the few things that I believe the late Stephen Knight got right in his 'Final Solution', was that the 'From Hell / kidney-letter', that was sent to George Lusk, had been the ONLY letter, purported to be from the Ripper (out of hundreds sent), that was genuine. (He said all the others were fakes). There was a time when I thought that Mr. Knight had been correct about most everything he wrote in that book of his. It had been his book which first introduced me to the Ripper story, many years ago, (1987?) in a Australian TV special about his 'Final Solution'. Looking back at his book now, I am suprised at having been so "Gullible". I was taken in, hook line & sinker, by the entire book (Freemasons and all). It really was a fascinating theory to me, (I had WANTED it to be true, and that, I think, was my mistake) but many years later, while trying to prove to myself that it was true beyond any doubt, I only succeeded, in my mind, in proving that Stephen Knight had been totally incorrect, for it was right then (just last year in fact, late 2017) that I first came upon 'George Chapman', and the more closely I looked at Mr. Severin Klosowski (as well as the statements made by the coroner at Annie Chapman's inquest, & the 1903 PMG interview with Abberline), the more difficult it became for me to deny that Klosowski had been the man who murdered those five unfortunate women in Whitechapel, and many more besides. But initially I did not want to believe that Klosowski was the Ripper either, just like so many others still don't. As much as we want to know what happened; we also do not want the hunt to be over. Right?....Lets put it this way, if Klosowski wasn't the Ripper, he sure was doing his utmost to make it appear he was, with an unbelievable amount of foresight, being trained as a surgeon far in advance, moving, ahead of time, to each and every place the Ripper would soon be striking. This is only scratching the surface of things we can point out about Klosowski being the Ripper, as has already been pointed out above. And if he was going to all that trouble and then not doing the murders, why not? Its not as if he had any morale resistance to commiting murder, right? Why would anyone think he wouldn't be the Ripper?! After all, he soon would be involved in homicides to the extant that he would one day be hanged for it.) No, I'm afraid that for me, the debate has ended. There is no more debate about it. For years 'ripperologists have been making people feel silly for believing Klosowski was the Ripper. But what is in fact silly is that there are still people who have spent years studying this case who are making the argument that he is not.


message 25: by Doug (new)

Doug Lamoreux (douglamoreux) | 4 comments Ignoring the 'facts' stretched out of proportion to fit your theory (as some ripperologists have been known to do), I quote two sentences that damage the credibility of your argument.

'Why would anyone think he wouldn't be the Ripper?!'

and

'But what is in fact silly is that there are still people who have spent years studying this case who are making the argument that he is not.'

How could anybody disagree with me?! - no matter how many exclamation points are employed - is not an argument.

And 'silliness' by definition is not a matter of 'fact'. It is a matter of opinion. One man's silly is another's deadly serious. Your claim the debate has ended for you is legitimate. You know (or have faith without proof) and are satisfied. Fair enough. Your insistence the debate for everyone else should reasonably be ended as well is, to me, silly. You've offered many points to be considered. You have offered NO proofs. History prevents you.

There is more to making a case than simply shouting until everyone else leaves the room. You make valid points for Chapman. Others make valid points for other suspects. A valid theory could be made for the killer (or killers) being completely unknown, never considered, individual(s). The debate continues.


message 26: by Douglas (last edited Mar 18, 2019 02:29PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Believe me, I completely understand that probably 95% of 'ripperologists' do not agree with this theory, and I am 100% used to it. It means so much to them, they NEVER want the "mystery" to be solved and ended . I get it. Nothing will ever change that. It is almost comic sometimes, especially considering the stature that some of these people have attained. But I was once in the same boat, and I did not want it to end. That was the point of my last comment, thats all.

I have offered no proof? Tell me though, what "proof" do you ever envision anybody ever offering you that would satisfy? A film of the Ripper butchering Marie Kelly maybe? For him to come back from the dead and give a full confession? I think that even if either of these things were possible, even that would not satisfy the ripperologists. It would take away their meal ticket, maybe thats another reason. "Proof" is never possible for you, and you know it, and this is why you ask for "proof". It is the aim of "ripperologists" to forever go 'round in circles, no matter how obvious to a reasonable thinking adult it is that the killer has been exposed, and was exposed as far back as 1903. Some people simply do not want it to be solved, and thats something else that Inspector Abberline discovered, and accepted.

But I too have a right to give my opinion on a case that I have spent much of my time looking into, can we at least agree on that? Also, people who believe that Klosowski is the ripper have seen their belief ridiculed in books about the Ripper for generations, and now I am being accused of "shouting"? Maybe I was provoked into "shouting", and exclamation points also!!!

Ripperologists, for years now, have been saying things in their books designed to make people who disagree with them about Klosowski feel intimidated about expressing their beliefs about him. And when we finally do, we get accused of being bullies almost.

I will say this in my defense; at least I never put words in anybody's mouth, after they had died, in an attempt to "prove" my case, as 'ripperologists' have done with Abberline, in their attempt to "prove' the illegitimacy of Klosowski (see end of message #18). The only reason anybody would ever do that would be because they felt it was necessary; because there is no HONEST way to show that Klosowski wasn't the Ripper. Maybe I don't have absolute proof, but I do have honesty. Another thing, I have never heard anybody 'prove' that Klosowski is NOT the Ripper either! As opposed as many are against this theory, you would think if he were not the Ripper, somebody could have proved that by now. Phillip Sugden pretty well proved the other 'suspects' couldn't have been. But despite all his best research, he could not do the same for Klosowski. Now how 'bout that!


message 27: by Doug (new)

Doug Lamoreux (douglamoreux) | 4 comments I clearly said History prevents ANYBODY proving his (or her) theory. You cannot satisfy me that you are right. Neither can anyone else, regardless of their theory. That's neither here nor there to me. My interest in the Whitechapel murders was never 'who dunnit'. My bread and butter does not depend on the answer to that question.
Their is no debate that a final solution, regardless of its makeup, would take away the meal ticket of many ripperologists. Absolutely agreed. And they might fight your theory on those grounds. I, on the other hand, am doing no such thing. I am a fiction writer. I wrote my fictional account, but that is what it is; a fictional account.
Your theory has interesting points. (As do others.) It also has big holes that can't be explained away. Go with your theory, why not. Defend it, if you think it necessary. But, frankly, when the case cannot be proved - and it cannot - it's a waste of time calling others names if they disagree with you. And it stains your argument, whether you think so or not.


message 28: by Douglas (last edited Mar 18, 2019 03:39PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments well congradulations, you will never be satisfied, by anybody. I, however, am satisfied, 100%. And it was Inspector Abberline who convinced me.

By the way, what "holes" do you see in the theory? You told me already about having a problem with only 2 uteruses missing, and about the facial wounds on only Eddowes. Those were not holes, in fact they end-up supporting the theory more strongly, as I feel that I demonstrated already in message #21. What other holes? Or was that all you got? That is your "big holes"?
I like the way you complain about "holes" in the theory without offering any evidence of it. Its something you 'ripperologists' seem to love doing.

Or maybe it is a "hole" that inspector Abberline changed his mind about Klosowski, except that he changed his mind only after having died first? No, that is not a "hole". That is a flat-out LIE


I just can never figure out, considering all of the circumstantial evidence pointing at Klosowski, and considering the fact that that nobody can find any evidence that would prove that he couldn't be the Ripper (evidence such as that which HAS been found in the cases of all other 'suspects'), and considering also the only thing that makes people believe that he couldn't be the Ripper is because he murdered his wives (that he did not Marry) in a different manner than the 'Canonical' victims had been murdered 15 years before, considering ALL that, why are these people so touchy about Klosowski, and become so condescending towards you if you bring him up as a possible suspect? It does not make sense to me. If they would at least say, "Why yes, he certainly could have been the Ripper, no doubt about that. He is the most likely one there is. It just bothers me that this obviously sexual lunatic would alter his method of killing, and change it in a way that makes him look like he is not really a sexual lunatic at all. This is what bothers me, thats all" If they would say that, instead of act like it is ridiculous to believe that somebody with so much evidence against him was guilty, then I would not have a problem with it. But instead, I DO have a problem with it.


message 29: by Douglas (last edited Nov 06, 2018 07:59AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments incidentally, maybe you could simply write a good fictional account of the Ripper where Klosowski and Tumblety are the main protagonists. I would be seriously interested in reading that. It could BASED on mostly fact, as most good fiction is based. I can think of all kinds of mischief to get those two characters into if I tried.

But in all seriousness Doug, I would like to thank you for pointing out certain things in my account that perhaps needed some clarification by me


message 30: by Leslie (new)

Leslie | 6 comments I can't fault your commitment and wholeheartedly defend your right to say what you think. Maybe your conclusion is correct; I don't know and, as you say, we will never actually know for certain 100%. We can only speculate. I feel you are also correct about 'Ripperologists'. There would be no need for them if the problem was solved. As for myself, I can only offer my completely fictional ending for Jack The Ripper, a figment of my over-enthusiastic imagination. Fortunately, it has proved popular if a little far-fetched.


message 31: by Douglas (last edited Jan 21, 2019 08:30PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments "Why he took to poisoning his women victims on his 2nd visit to this country can only be ascribed to his diabolical cunning, or some insane idea or urge to satisfy his inordinate vanity"
- ex-Police Superintendent Arthur Neil, 1932

Had Severin Klosowski not ever been caught murdering his "wives" by poison, he would almost surely have ended up, right now, being the number one favorite suspect for nearly every "ripperologist" who there is, due to the evidence alone: the fact that he arrived in the East End just before the murders began, that he had been trained in surgery, that he had been such a close match to so many witness descriptions, that the murders stopped right when he left for America, and that similar murders began in America right after he arrived there, etc etc etc. The evidence against Klosowski is just so much far greater than any 'evidence' that might exist against any of the other favorite 'suspects' (ie Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, etc etc) It is only the fact that he would, ten years later, use another method, that he had also learned about while being trained as a 'barber/surgeon in Poland, to kill his 'wives', that seems to eliminate him as a serious choice for suspect in their minds. It is only due to the fact that he, out of necessity and cunning (and a different motive for the murders), later changed his modus operandi. Can you imagine? Out of all the seriously considered popular 'suspects' in the ripper killings, he is the only one to be a proven killer of women, yet it is this same fact that excludes him from being a legitimate suspect in their opinions! How did they EXPECT him to kill these 'wives' then? To butcher them also? Did they think that this cunning murderer who had never been caught would be so foolhardy as to butcher these three women that he had such close ties to? If the theory that the Whitechaple murders were done in order to procure uterus for the American who had offered money for them is correct (and I believe it is), if Klosowski had taken up the American on his offer, what reason would there be for him to kill his "wives", nine years later, by the same means he had needed to use in killing women for their sexual organs? If Klosowski had not been the overachieving murderer that he was, he would have likely been accepted as being the Ripper long ago in the minds of most Ripperologists. Now isn't that ironic?

Klosowski, as well as being a serial killer of women, was also a devoted womanizer. It has long been the position of many in the field of psychiatry that many womanizers go from woman to woman only as a desperate attempt to prove  their masculinity; often to prove to themselves that they are not bisexual. I have already stated that I believe that Klosowski and Tumblety might have been secretly in love with one-another. (what attracted Tumblety about Klosowski? Tumblety may have hated women, but he was an AMATEUR compared to 'Chapman'. Klosowski could treat women like garbage. I feel certain this both amused and attracted Tumblety, while Klosowski was attracted to Tumblety's being an American, highly successful, charismatic, etc) But I also believe that this 'uterus motive', that while it may have been the obvious motive for the five established Ripper murders, Klosowski had many other victims for whom this motive was not a factor. I believe that the biggest motive for those other murders was a deep seated resentment towards women that he himself was not even fully aware of nor understood in himself, it was compulsive in him, arising unchecked from his subconscious. (it's also why he beat his 'wives') His sexuality was complex, and he had a lot of guilt over it, and shame, especially due to him having originated in such a male oriented 'macho' culture. (A violent culture also, ask any Bosniak) I know a few people from Slavic cultures, this fits. (As proud as he was that women found him desirable, at times he also hated them for finding him desirable.) When you add up the training as a 'barber/surgeon', being exposed to the cutting up of people at such a young age, and whatever unknown trauma he obviously suffered through at some point in his youth, its not difficult to believe that he might go on to do such things as we are suggesting that he did. The more you look into Severin Klosowski, the more it seems doubtfull that anybody else could be more suited, or better qualified, to have been Jack-the-Ripper than he. This, at least, is my opinion.

But lets pretend for a minute that he was not the Ripper. What do you think the odds are, that just by coincidence, another serial killer, of such renown, who fit the profile so perfectly, just happened to be in the same exact places that the "real" ripper was, at the very same times?? We know Klosowski was a serial killer, and we know he was there on those same East London streets in the autumn of 1888, we even know he was living in George Yard Road the night Martha Tabrum was butchered and mutilated there. And we are now going to believe that not only was serial killer Klosowski there, but also another serial killer; the Ripper, who would be killing women in Whitechapel for exactly as long as Klosowski would be living there, and would stop right when Klosowski would leave? Not even in the movies would they expect you to believe that something like that would happen I bet. Yet this is only a fraction of the evidence against him that we have already looked at!

For many sober-thinking people, this adds up as "proof".

And while it may not have been enough proof to get him actually hanged, (for they did not know him back in 1888 as we now know him) his personality and character were such that his being hanged was going to get done no matter how cunning he might have been, no matter how good he might have been at pulling the wool over the police's eyes. For as cunning as he was, he hadn't accounted for the tenacity of officers Godley and Abberline! The 'Ripperologists' may not appreciate what those two men believed and did, but the murdered women of Whitechaple probably would have


message 32: by Douglas (last edited Nov 19, 2018 06:31AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments One other thing I would like to clarify. At no time has it been my intention to suggest that anybody, wanting to write fictional accounts of these murders, shouldn't be encouraged to do so. I would like to offer them my sincerest encouragement. I have enjoyed some of these stories myself, especially in the movies ('Murder By Decree' 'Time after Time' 'The Lodger' etc. I also liked the comic books 'From Hell' that were based largely on Stephen Knight's work. I love this sort of thing- I even wondered if the Pole 'Svengali' may have been a fictionalized account of the Pole Klosowski. Its author, George Du Maurier, had been the top illistrater at 'Pall Mall Gazette' during the Murders, and lived nearby. Maybe he had recieved one of Klosowski's 'Musical haircuts' and had come up with the inspiration for a music teaching serial killer who had a strange control over women! I am half-joking)
But I had felt absolutely driven to try to discover, even if only for myself alone, what had really happened in this case, and I was pleased with my essay. In my personal life, I had no one to share it with, I know nobody who is interested in this case.I had hoped that if I posted it here, that the intelligent readers of this website might like and appreciate it. I had first tried to post it on CASEBOOK.ORG, but was told that I did not have "permission" to post things on their website. I don't know how to get permission, I tried to contact them but never received any reply.
But I see no reason why, if it were proven that Klosowski was the Ripper, why that should deter anybody from writing anything they like. I really wished that my paper would please people who were writing things of their own, and most hopefully of all even inspire them in the future. This was my hope. The only thing that I HAD taken issue with was when certain writers, writers who had reached a position of certain world acclaim, seemed to ridicule the notion of Klosowski being the Ripper. There was no need for them to do so, in my opinion. It got my dander up, as they say. I even attempted to find the Email address for some of these writers to talk to them about it confidentially. I felt they had been in error, and I wanted the matter rectified.
This emotion may have accounted for the weakest parts of my essay, but it also was the inspiration for me writing it in the first place. But I am looking foerward to reading the works of the people who I have shared my paper with on this webpage. Thank you

I would like to add though, that I believe that the true story of Klosowski and Tumblety, re-told in motion picture form, told with all of the incidents I have put down here, could, if filmed by a competent director, make one of the most effective and blood chilling horror films of all time. As long as they kept it real; mysterious and dark, ...not gratuitous, as seems the fashion nowadays


message 33: by Leslie (new)

Leslie | 6 comments It has been a pleasure to read your reports. You write in such an eloquent manner that I would suggest you insert greater details and extend the work into a full-length book. It is expensive to self-publish in hard copy but only costs around £150 to publish to Kindle. You will not make much money from it but for me, the pleasure I get from knowing people enjoy my work is payment enough. I have certainly enjoyed reading yours. Best wishes. L P Gibbs.


message 34: by Douglas (last edited Dec 04, 2018 10:29AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments "THERE was no more authorative voice on the Whitechapel murders than that of Abberline".....

"Recent writers, anxious to promote theories suggested in the writings of Macnaghten or Anderson, have sometimes found it necessary to disparage Abberline's knowledge or contribution to the case"...

-Phillip Sugden, 'The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper' 1994. Chapter 22; 'You've Got Jack the Ripper At Last! : George Chapman'


This 'disparaging' of Abberline that Sugden points out is what most people refer to as a 'hidden-agenda'. Highly subjective reporting, twisting the facts in order to 'prove' a pet theory of the authors, disregarding what is then being done to the reputation of one who had deserved to be treated so much better than this by us. Unfortunately, it is common practice in the history of 'ripperology', particularly in regards to Frederick Abberline.

I find it incredible that nobody has yet written a biography of Frederick Abberline. Why is that? So many books have been written on the Ripper, purporting to be true, each more preposterous than the last in many cases. Abberline's story is the one book that could do the world of Ripperology some actual good, and nobody writes it. The research that would need be done for such an account might provide some new information helpful in solving the Ripper case. Knowing something of Abberline myself, I also know that the fact that he was so intimately involved in the Ripper investigation would be only one of many interesting chapters in this remarkable policeman's career. He had twenty-five years working the streets of East London under his belt when the first Ripper attack happened. It is said that if you ever visited East London and had something stolen from you, Abberline would know who had pilfered the merchandise and where to find it, such was his knowledge of the East London streets and underworld. He knew what was going on better than any police informant did. (This reminds me of the detective in the movie 'Pickup On South Street', and the little jewish woman in that same movie, who was saving up money so that when she died her body would not end up in the Potter's field. They both had the same Abberline-like knowledge of the streets, but in 1950s New York instead of Victorian era London.) More than just about anybody else I can think of, the life story of Abberline, and the research that would go into it's telling, could bring into focus what it was like living in the seamy side of foggy, gas lit, horse-drawn Victorian London better than anything since Dickens himself.
This, I feel, is also why, when Abberline said to Inspector Godley, "congradulations, you just caught 'Jack the Ripper' ", that his remark to Godley should be given special consideration by us. Far more consideration than that we give to just about every 'ripperologist' with a new idea that he hopes will be successful in making his next book a bestseller, and far more too than we give to Macnaughtens 1894 report; Abberline had been ten times more involved in the case than Mcnaughten had ever been, Mcnaughten only got involved after it was all over. It blows my mind the lack of credence we give this extraordinarily talented police officer of Victorian era London, while at the same time we grant book authors who were nowhere around at the time expert status on these crimes that Abberline had so thoroughly investigated for so long, and was so certain that he had found the instigator of them finally. It is even harder to believe when you consider the good sense his theory of the crimes makes, and how every detail has been accounted for and fits so nicely in place. ( it is my feeling that the reason so many writers have been unconcerned about possibly being unfair to Abberline is because they believe he should have captured the Ripper in 1888, and he didn't. This would haunt him for the remainder of his career, as it did the entire police force. But Abberline never wrote books later in an attempt to justify his lack of success, as just about all of the others did. He admitted his shortcoming openly when interviewed, and he had nothing to hide about it.)
Only Phillip Sugden, only he seems equally believable, also without ulterior motive. Sugden stopped short in naming anybody as being the Ripper, he knew the backlash it could cause, and he was perfectly aware that Ripperologists would forever disparage him from then on if he did. But he certainly gave good reasons for eliminating every serious 'ripper suspect' that had previously been named up to the point of his book (Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog, etc). The only one he could not eliminate is Klosowski. It was from Sugdens own book that I first became aware of 'George Chapman', even though he claimed he could not name Klosowski as the Ripper with any degree of certainty. But I sure got the feeling that he believed Klosowski was guilty, even though he couldn't offer proof that would stand up to the Ripperologists protests that he knew were sure to follow if he did name him! (But in fact Sugden DID point the finger of guilt directly at Klosowski, he pointed at Klosowski at LEAST as strongly as Mcnaughten had pointed out Kosminski or Druitt in his 1894 report, and he devoted the entire closing chapter of his book to it. And Sugden also included reams of evidence against Klosowski, while Mcnaughten provided almost none, on anybody; only implication.)


message 35: by Douglas (last edited Dec 04, 2018 11:04AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments "The Chapman theory, while given additional credibility by being advanced by no less an authority than Abberline, suffers from one fundamental flaw: why would Jack-the-Ripper have SUDDENLY changed from throat cutting to poisoning?"

- 'Jack-the-Ripper; the Definitive Story'     2011 TV documentary  (a good one)

It was nine years between the final 'Ripper murder' of Mary Kelly and the first 'Borough poisoning' of Mary Spink. Since when has nine years been defined as "suddenly"? THIS (above) is how Ripperologists continually try to confuse readers, and it has been working for them pretty well up to now (it will probably continue to work for them). Never have I seen it pointed out that the reason the Ripper stopped using a knife was because he only really needed the knife in the 1st place to cut out the uterus with, and that he did not need the uterus of his "wives",(as Tumblety was out of the picture by that time) and thus there was no reason for him to kill by that method any longer. Klosowski had been trained in medicine and poisons, in addition to surgery. Poison better demonstrated the resourcefulness of this inadequate little egomaniac to himself; it better demonstrated how 'clever' he was. Besides, while these women were not, in fact, his "wives", he lived with them, how could he get away with cutting them up like that? He is going to be the first person the police suspect, and he knows it. The only way for Klosowski to 'outsmart' the police in this instance is for it to be made to seem like natural causes, right?



I mean, when you think about it, why do we even take these 'ripperologists' seriously at all? What breakthroughs in the Ripper-case have ever come via the 'ripperologists''? These writers who tell us who and what to believe, and who have told us that Abberline probably didn't know what he was talking about when he said Klosowski was the Ripper!? Or who have lied to us and told us that Abberline actually changed his mind about Klosowski late in life!? These writers who have come up with absurd suspect after even more absurd suspect!?

This is how inept they are: Francis Tumblety had been one of the main players at the close of the Ripper case in Nov 1888. Everybody who was following the case at all knew about him, he had been followed by detectives from England to America, and many newspapers in America had covered these facts . Not only that, but he is one of the few people actually arrested in connection with the case who is still today spoken seriously as a valid suspect. But during at least sixty years of books on the Ripper, from the late 1920s through the early 1990s, 'Ripperologists' didn't even know who Tumblety was! What were they researching? How did they get information? When Stewart P Evans rediscovered Tumblety in the 1990s, (through a letter he had found in an auction written by officer Littlechild) he didn't deserve the relative acclaim he was given for his discovery, but rather 'ripperologists' should have themselves been ridiculed for a change, for having been so neglectful for so long up to then. (and Evans certainly did not deserve any acclaim for the attempt to market his discovery into being the latest Ripper suspect, especially when you read his theory for the murder of Liz Stride: [Tumblety, who is the Ripper, had just coincidentally passed by the location where somebody else was murdering Stride, one block from Tumblety's lodgings, as he, Tumblety, was returning home from butchering Eddowes! And this other murderer of Stride, why, he was never caught either, in the middle of the largest police manhunt in history almost! The police refuse to catch anybody at ALL it seems!]. He had all the evidence he then needed to have known Tumblety's actual role in the murders. It just seems he was too intent on naming his new discovery the actual Ripper. (I sometimes feel guilty about being critical of someone like Evans, who was working on this for so much longer, and so much harder, than I ever would have. But it is getting at the truth that matters to me, and if anybody can appreciate that, Evans can. My main problem with Evans is that he wants to believe that there were many killers at work in that very limited time frame, when the odds are that only one person would be responsible, and the odds against anyone else being involved are just too great, as is the common sense against it. It seems far more likely that the Ripper was not responsible for LESS than the popular five victims, but rather he did ALL of the bizarre murders that happened in London in 1888 (and probably even more). Evans wants to believe that there were two or three killers, all in that short time frame, all of them cunning enough to evade the largest police manhunt in London's history?! He explains it by suggesting 'copycat killers' had been responsible for some of the murders. But it is difficult enough to believe that the Ripper himself was as lucky as he was, evading the largest police dragnet in the history of London. But now Evans wants us to believe that not only was the Ripper so lucky, but at least one other was cunning enough to get away with bloody serial-killing in this environment also, at the very same time as the Ripper was doing it, and that this other 'copycat' killer never got caught either? )

And these 'Ripperologists' are the people we listen to before we listen to the greatest police officer to have worked the case? We are going to believe THEM before we believe Abberline himself? What is wrong with US then? Thats all we can be left asking ourselves! The answer to the ripper mystery has been right there in front of our very faces since 1903, yet we won't look at it. Why? Because if we do, 'ripperologists' might not be able to sell any more books on the subject, that's how it seems. 'Ripperologists have carefully, and sometimes perhaps subconsciously, been leading people away from the true murderer since 1929; the date of the first real book on the subject, written by the first real 'ripperologist'; Leonard Matters. (1929 had also been 26 years since Abberline had congradulated Godley for having captured the Ripper).

And there had been people who were telling us Klosowski was probably the Ripper since 1903, and they have been pretty-well ridiculed by these same ripperologists since. (the standing-room-only audience that had packed the trial of 'George Chapman' had, for the most part, been sure they had been watching justice being handed down in the Jack-the-Ripper murders; and they almost certainly had been) 'The Pall Mall Gazette' was telling it, so had crime writer H.L. Adam, ex-police Superintendent Arthur Neil. These early writers had to be more diplomatic about it though, because the 'Chapman theory' did not make the London police look good; far from it. People like H.L. Adam had many friends on the police force: Mcnaughten and Robert Anderson being two of his closest friends. Suggesting that the police had let a man slip by them who had been living AND working at the very bulls-eye of the killing zone in the autumn of '88 was not going to make Adam popular with those two men. He had to be careful about what he said while naming Klosowski, and he was.
And there are currently at least two books (by less established publishers, to be sure, but well researched books just the same), by writers R. Michael Gordon and Helena Wojtczak, both about Klosowski's being the Ripper. Yet so few people know about it, and even fewer believe it.

But hundreds of thousands of people know about Ripper suspect William Gull, & his Freemasons; they also know 'Prince Eddy'; painter Walter Sickert ; the Maybrick "Diary", ....etc etc! And lets not omit that Queen Victoria herself has had many people believe that she had been involved also, Oscar Wilde and Aleister Crowley too, even Lewis Carroll! It is names like these that keep books on 'Ripperology' selling in such big numbers, keeping it such a big business. No wonder ripperologists hate the name of the real murderer, the person who, if people believed he was the Ripper, could end it all.
When you take a look at all of the books on Jack-the-Ripper that have been published by any of the major, established book-publishing firms, everybody has been named as being the Ripper EXCEPT Klosowski it seems! (and when he has been mentioned by them, it is usually to ridicule the very idea of him being the Ripper)


message 36: by Douglas (last edited Mar 18, 2019 11:36AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Isn't it convenient how, when somebody begins the story of the Ripper Murders, they usually begin at George Yard Buildings, where the 1st two victims, Emma Smith and Martha Tabrum, were both attacked at the opening of the Whitechapel Murder spree, and where Severin Klosowski, too, was both residing and being employed in a barber shop in the basement under the 'White Hart' pub, at the very same instant that those two attacks took place? Even if the account of the murders does not mention Klosowski by name, it often begins by showing a photo of where he was living at the very time of the first murder in the series; the same place where Martha Tabrum's murder occurred. The story begins with another million-to-one coincidence in a account that is positively riddled with unlikely, bizarre coincidence! [although all this unlikely coincidence is explained quite simply once we understand that Klosowski was the Ripper]
And just consider the number of bizarre coincidence we have looked at. As Sam Spade once said, "Maybe some of them are unimportant, I won't argue that.....but look at the number of them!" Look at the number of them, consider they're significance, and then consider the odds against them all being incorrect. (if only HALF of them were correct it would still be a devastating case against Klosowski.)

(the Emma Smith attack seems to have been, by her own account, a gang-rape, done about four months before the real murder-spree began. I only mention it here because it has often been associated with the Whitechapel murders, and because I feel that its having happened so close to his home, it may have partly inspired Klosowski when he heard about it, or set him off somehow, maybe even in an attempt to top it. On the other hand, many high ranking police believed at the time that Emma had been murdered by the same man as Tabrum and Nicholls had been, and some newspapers were saying so. How could they if it in fact had been a gang that had attacked her? Was there evidence to the contrary of what Emma was saying? It is another mystery. )



But I feel that anybody, any fair-minded thinker, reading these past number of messages, from #15 on down, will come to the conclusion that Severin Klosowski has been proven GUILTY of being the Whitechapel Murderer, beyond any reasonable doubt. I may not have proven his guilt to the extant that most 'Ripperologists' would declare necessary, but I have also proven that the 'Ripperologists' do not really want the case solved at all, which is the reason they have been, for so long now, set so specifically against even naming Klosowski as a suspect,(the single suspect who has had more circumstantial evidence discovered against him than any other, by far), going only so far as to name him an "alleged" suspect, while naming at least five others 'SUSPECTS', who have nowhere near the amount of evidence against them that Klosowski has. All these other "suspects" had, in fact, was that Macnaughten had pointed the finger of suspicion at them in his 1894 report, a report, incidentally, that was written more than 10 years before Klosowski had come to public attention! Macnaughten COULDN'T have named Klosowski in his precious report because he had never even heard of him yet at that time. The reason he had never heard of Klosowski goes back to Klosowski's cunning, and we know how cunning the Ripper was, to have been able to cut up all those women whilst the entire police force was looking in each nook and cranny for him as he was doing it. It's just one more thing, besides the surgery, besides being in the same locations at the same times, etc, that the Ripper and Klosowski have in common (besides sharing the same parents, and the same body): they both share the same identical degree of animal cunning. (yet as cunning as Klosowski might seem, he was also capable of making foolish mistakes. For example, when the police searched his residence after having arrested him in 1902, they discovered among his possessions evidence proving that 'George Chapman' was also Severin Klosowski, something they had been completely unaware of. Chapman would continue to vehemently deny that he was Klosowski. But he had kept records that would go on to implicate him in a number of crimes (for more detail, see 'Trial of George Chapman' by H.L. Adam) It amazed police that he would keep all this evidence. And among the few photographs that exist of Klosowski which had been among his possessions, in one of them he is wearing the same nautical 'peaked' cap that Jack-the-Ripper had been described as wearing by witnesses. It seemed he was so certain he would never be caught that he foolishly kept these things, almost as if he had planned on one day telling his life story to the world at large, and that he was certain they wanted to know every detail about him. He really had a huge Ego! As a criminal/killer it was his one fault it seems. This Ego made him very proud that he had been successful in 'outsmarting' police for so long, but it also convinced him he would never get caught. I believe he was completely aware that his crimes would be very famous, and they made him an important figure in his mind, and that this gave him an enormous sense of pride and satisfaction in himself. Both he and Tumblety were very caught-up in this type of thing, on being 'important'. It was not the killing that made him feel important so much, but the fact that he had outsmarted so many police, and had been the focus of so much newspaper attention. It gave him the sense that he was far more important than the average person. This feeling was something that Tumblety thrived on also. Tumblety took great pride in having important world figures as his 'personal friends', and he even wrote about it. I wonder if, in his mind, Jack-the-Ripper was one of these world figures he was proud of being friendly with?)

Let's return to topic. Since Abberline had pointed the finger of guilt at Klosowski, why doesn't that count as much as Macnaughten's report to these 'ripperologists'? It should count even more! Why does the opinion of Macnaughten , who was not even working the case at the time of the murders, carry so much more weight than the opinion of Abberline, who was running the show during the time of the murders? Such is the threat they see Klosowski posing for them it seems. (And it is interesting to note that Macnaughten did not include Francis Tumblety in his 1894 report. For while Klosowski was unknown to the police at that time, Tumblety was well known to them. Officer Littlechild maintained that Tumblety was the police's main suspect. Yet Macnaughten did not mention Tumblety at all. What's up with that? THIS is why Tumblety had been forgotten all those years. It seems 'Ripperologists' had become blind to everything that was not included in that erroneous report of Macnaughten's; a policeman who had not even been working on the case at the time of the murders!) As Phillip Sugden said; 'the contrasting writings of Macnaughten, Anderson, and Littlechild, and the fact that they agree on almost nothing, only prove that, in the end, the police were only grasping at straws concerning Jack-the-Ripper, and that the police investigation ended in abysmal failure, they were clueless about the Ripper in 1888, and would only continue to remain clueless about it'. Abberline had admitted pretty much the same thing himself, prior to 1903, when he first learned all about Klosowski. (Learning of Klosowski's movements in 1888 clearly answered 15 years of questions for Abberline.) And if police had really suspected the truth, the 'ripperologists' would probably have only cast doubt on them, like they did with Abberline, so that they themselves could continue selling books about their bizarre 'Ripper-theories'.

Each day, in almost every nation on the planet, people are sent to serve life sentences in prison having been convicted of murder on less evidence than I have, in these comments above, compiled against our friend Klosowski here. This has been done now, I have no doubt about it. Read it again if you do not believe me, from the beginning on down, see for yourself. I hope you will. And if you believe that you see any "holes" in my argument against Klosowski, please take note, be specific about them, so that I can clarify the misunderstanding for you. Thank you



Dedicated to:

Police-Detective Extraordinaire, Chief-Inspector Frederick G. Abberline
Dr. Wynne E. Baxter
Dr. George Bagster Phillips
Chief-Inspector George Godley
Police Superintendent Arthur Neil
Sir Edward Carson, Solicitor General, 1903
The staff at 'Pall Mall Gazette', circa 1903
Hargrave L. Adam
Phillip Sugden
Keith Skinner
Stewart P. Evans
R. Michael Gordon
Helena Wojtczak

To the memories of:

Annie Millwood, 1850-1888
Martha Tabrum, 1849-1888
Mary Ann Nichols, 1845-1888
Annie Chapman, 1841-1888
Elizabeth Stride, 1843-1888
Cathrine Eddowes, 1842-1888
Mary Jane Kelly, 1863-1888
Rose Mylett, 1863-1888
Alice McCkenzie, 1849-1889
Francis Coles, 1865-1891
Carrie Brown, 1829-1891
Elizabeth Senior, 1819-1892
Mary Spink, 1856-1897
Bessie Taylor, 1865-1901
Mary Ann Austin, 1873-1901
Maud Marsh, 1884-1902
the five anonymous 'torso murder' victims of London, beginning in 1888 and ending 1902(isn't that a coincidence!?)
and any other of his victims that we are unaware of, along with those who most certainly had been murdered prior to 1888, in Poland, Russia, or France

-[note the 5 year break (above) in murders, in-between 1892-1897, between Elizabeth Senior and Mary Spink, when Klosowski had returned from America. This, 'coincidentally' was when Klosowski was trying his 'best' to turn over a new leaf, becoming an (unsuccessful) 'family man, and (successful) proprietor of pubs. (intuition alone tells me that Tumblety may have helped get Klosowski established in his first business: running a 'public house' in New Jersey in 1891- maybe this was the deal they had made at the beginning of their partnership). It seems to me that, after his return to England in 1892, he sincerely tried to stop the murdering, and to take up other pursuits (sailing, cycling, photography), but it always came back down to the stalking of women; the hunt and the killing. It was like an addiction for him it seems. There is no 12-step, 'serial-killers anonymous' meeting for that! (He almost reminds me of that Russian-Count-hunter, 'Zaroff', [played so well by Liverpudlian actor Leslie Banks], who trapped people on his remote island and then hunted them down in the jungle for sport, in the old B&W movie 'The Most Dangerous Game', RKO 1932). If I sound flippant here, I do not mean to be. It is only because the murders occurred over a century ago, and nobody alive now has known any of the people involved.]


message 37: by Douglas (last edited Jan 28, 2019 08:55PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments copied and pasted from the review - comments on Amazon book reviews for the book 'PRISONER 4374' by A J Griffiths-Jones, where, among other places, I had posted the above essay


Tom Wescott 3 months ago

Douglas Barr, it does not reflect well at all on you that you're spamming all the Ripper book review pages with your outdated, flawed theory. If you're so concerned about getting your theory out, then write a book, or submit an article to a journal such as Ripperologist, or create your own web page documenting your theory. Do not SPAM pages devoted to the hard works of others.


message 38: by Douglas (last edited Feb 06, 2019 06:59AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Douglas B Barr 3 months ago

Let me worry about how it reflects on me, OK? And I don't have time or the drive it takes to get it published, its only 10 pages anyway. So how else are people going to be able to find out what really happened unless I post it here? Certainly not from any of these books about the Ripper that you are so touchy about. I got a right to state what I feel are the true facts about it, and anybody with half a brain can see that it is mostly correct. I am not trying to charge money or even ask for any recognition; all recognition should go to Abberline finally.

Another thing, I will "spam", write, copy, cut&paste, etc..... or anything ELSE I see fit to do! If you want to tell people about what they need to do, tell it to someone else. Hard work of others??? Brother! if it is so delicate that it is so easally threatened by what I write, it sure cant be very true.
And tell me something; other than Klosowski, what theory ISN'T flawed? Yours?

I don't know how to make a web page and havn't the patience to learn. I tried to put my piece here up on CASEBOOK.ORG, but I was told that I didn't have "permission" to submit posts on their website. That left Amazon book reviews. Amazon has a surprising amount of courage in comparison to most of these webpages that allow comments to be posted. I put it up on as many Ripper reviews as I could because I wanted people to see it, thats all. It's up to them whether they want to read it or not, after seeing that its there. Believe it or not, some people have actually liked it

"Outdated theory"?! thats good, coming from the latest generation of 'ripperologists'; people whos only real concern is the latest 'trending theories', theories that are currently selling books best.

One more thing: The truth is NEVER "outdated". Judging by what you 'ripperologists' have been writing lately, you wouldn't know much about the truth, or even care. All you care about is selling a few books, and keeping people from actually learning what really happened, because if they did know, the careers of the 'Ripperologists' would likely be over. THIS is why you people try to suppress the Chapman theory! And if you were one fraction as passionate about the Ripper murders as you pretend to be, you would have CONGRATULATED me on the piece!

Sorry if I come off as being angry, but you didn't merely complain about me "spamming", you also ridiculed my thoughts and ideas, I poured my heart into that essay. The whole inspiration for me writing it in the first place was in retaliation over the fact that so many "ripperologists" had been calling the single most logical and likely theory of them all stupid, as if they were personally threatened by the Klosowski theory. And it wasn't my theory at that point, but I could see that there was something rotten about what they were doing, something phony. There you have it. Just go and look at what Stewart Evans said about the "Chapman Theory" in his 'Ripper' book about Tumblety: '1st American serial killer' , and this was after Phillip Sugden had pointed out that Klosowski was the only suspect, out of all of the suspects, that could not be eliminated - (He successfully eliminated all of the other so-called "suspects" that the Ripperologists have debated on over the years). But Evans, in his book about Tumblety, "eliminates" Klosowski so quickly that it could make your head spin. The trouble is that the only reason he "eliminated" him so quickly was because if he had spent more time doing it, it would have only more clearly exposed the fact that he had nothing of any substance to eliminate Klosowski on; but he simply wanted his readers to believe that Tumblety was the Ripper instead, because it was he himself who had rediscovered Tumblety, for which he deserves credit. But how can people like this be in charge of our notions about the truth on Jack-the-Ripper? Fido and Begg called George Chapman an "alleged" Ripper-suspect, but they didn't use any such negative prefix when calling the far less likely Kosminski, or Druitt "SUSPECTS", in their 'Jack-the-Ripper A thru Z' book! Martin Fido has gone on TV and stated "Anybody suggesting that Montegue Druitt is Jack-the-Ripper can do so knowing he has made a serious, respectable choice" or some such nonsense, yet he reprimands anybody who seriously makes his vote for George Chapman / Severin Klosowski, as if he and his friends know so much better than Abberline himself did, or Phillip Sugden even. It just gets to me that these people set themselves up as the 'Grand Ol' Men of Ripperology', and then passive-aggressively twist the facts in order to support their own personal views of events, and go on TV speaking so condescendingly and patronizingly towards anybody with a different idea, no matter how sound that idea may be

And remember, Inspector Abberline was the only man from the original investigation who had integrity enough to admit what had really happened, no matter how bad it may have made him and the rest of Scotland yard appear, no matter how angry it might have made the public at him. This was largely due to him having retired from the force and working for an independent agency at the time. But that only adds to his credibility. He never wrote any books on the case in later years as so many of his peers were doing, he was only interested in finding results, never with his own 'reputation and image', as so many others were. And now, Ripperologists have even put words in his mouth, and told lies that he changed his mind about Chapman in later years- which was all based on that book by Donald McCormick, 'The Identity Of Jack The Ripper', which, instead of simply telling us the truth that Klosowski was the Ripper, for some reason made the preposterous and bizarre allegation that Klosowski had a 'secret Russian double' who was the actual Ripper, (and was also a Russian spy sent over by Rasputin to boot! - I mean, at that early date, how would Rasputin even know about Klosowski to go looking for a 'double' to put in his place?) and that Abberline changed his mind about Klosowski being the Ripper when he learned it was the 'double' who was the 'true' Ripper! Can you imagine the great Abberline ever believing such an outrageous, preposterous thing!? It is libelous to even suggest that he believed something so ludicrous in print!......... Klosowski simply had all the same traits, and was just coincidentally a surgeon, and had lived in all the right places...etc etc etc. Sure thing Bud.

Abberline never changed his mind, certainly never on record. So any suggestion that he did is putting words in his mouth after he had died, which also demonstrates how low these people will stoop in discrediting this important theory. The only reason to do that is because it is correctly acknowledged that Abberline's opinion is THE most significant of all. (Even Paul Begg, in his 'Jack the Ripper; the Facts', stated that Abberline ' 'might have' changed his mind [regarding Chapman being the Ripper] in later years' , Yet he provided no proof of where he might have heard this, and no other details, which tells me that he was probably just embarrassed to admit that he had gotten it from Donald McCormick's book)
And it was Abberline's opinion that Klosowski was the Ripper! There is ZERO evidence that his opinion ever changed.

My so-called "spamming" was in reality an attempt by me to respect and substantiate Inspector Abberilne's opinion, after so many other people have dragged it through the mud.


( I edited this reply and included much of it in the original essay, posted above, in messages #15 on down) D.B.


message 39: by Douglas (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Helena_Wojtczak 3 months ago

As the universally-acknowledged world expert on George Chapman/Seweryn Klosowski (note correct spelling) , I welcome Douglas B Barr's review. My biography of George Chapman is available on Amazon. It's called "JACK THE RIPPER AT LAST?"
Leave a reply


message 40: by Douglas (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Douglas B Barr 3 months ago (Edited)In reply to an earlier postEdit | Delete

Thank you Ms Wojtczak, I had not been aware of this book of yours. I have never seen that cover photo of 'Seweryn' before either. I am looking 4ward to getting your book and reading it


message 41: by Douglas (last edited Apr 19, 2019 08:26PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments One incident that I believe Phillip Sugden might be wrong about, (in his masterwork on the Ripper: 'Jack the Ripper, the Complete History') is that he excludes Ada Wilson as having been an early victim of the Ripper, because the motive for her assault was apparently robbery.

In the chronology of the Ripper attacks, Ada Wilson was an early attack, done almost six months prior to the first 'canonical' murder. In my estimation, Klosowski would have most likely heard about Tumblety's uterus-offer soon after this attack on the Wilson woman. But at the time of Ada Wilson's attack, robbery might well have been a motive for him. Why not? It was Abberline's theory that the Ripper crimes were done for material gain; the sum of £20 that had been the offer for the organs. If Klowsowski was willing to kill for twenty pounds after having met with Tumblety, it seems likely to me that before meeting Tumblety he might have attempted attacking women with robbery as the motive, in fact I would think it was likely that he would have. (see message #21, regarding Klosowski's financial situation at that time) One reason that Tumblety's offer of money to obtain the female sex organs for him could have sounded attractive to Klosowski could have been  because he had been attacking women already, so it wouldn't require much more risk to cut them up afterwords and do some basic 'feldscher' work on some of them. If he had been doing attacks on women already and getting only pennies for it, why not put in this extra effort then, for the then-princely sum of twenty pounds? Maybe he reasoned that it would stop him from getting rusty, surgically speaking. When that offer was first put to Mr Klosowski, I would think the only reason he would consider actually doing it was because he had already done something similar, on his own initiative, to obtain money as one of his motives already. Many criminals, when they are driven to armed robbery out of desperation, usually pick out wealthy looking men as their likely targets. Not so with Klosowski, women are always his targets, and these women always get hurt badly, and are almost always discovered dead afterwards, and left in the most disrespectful condition imaginable . I bring this up only to demonstrate that, if I am correct, material gain was not the only reason he resorted to crime. It was not his most significant or compelling reason either I bet.

He had, almost certainly, both performed minor surgery in Poland AND had now carried out brutal assaults on women in London. And even though he may have had never performed a hysterectomy before (although maybe he had!), he had studied anatomy thoroughly. No mere butcher of cows, pigs, or sheep could have extracted uterus from an elderly woman, outdoors in the cold dark night in the time limit that these assaults were carried out in. But I think Klosowski could have done it, possibly, though he would probably have failed on his first couple tries (and he did). But consider the difficult conditions these attacks were carried-out under: the darkness, the cold, the fog, the apprehension due to bystanders in close proximity, police behind every corner, or the fact that he needs to get it done as quickly as humanly possible or suffer the consequences....etc. And most of these things only increase with each subsequent attack! I find it incredible he had been able to do it successfully (on both Chapman & Eddowes) after a mere two failed attempts (Tabrum & Nicholls). (Again, procuring the uterus, I feel, was not the motive on Kelly, see message #17) At least this is my understanding of the crimes. And if Klosowski couldn't have done it successfully, with his somewhat limited surgical training, who then could have? I believe he is one of the only accused 'suspects' that could have done it. And considering the type of person it would take to keep his nerve during such a ghastly procedure, I believe he is the ONLY one that could have. Consider how he had kept his nerve during the long, drawn-out poisonings of his three 'wives', as friends and relatives first grew suspicious, then suspected and questioned him as the murders were being carried out. And then to continue doing it, one after the other! It is remarkable that those poisonings, that so clearly demonstrate the bone-chilling character and the morbid lack of feeling in this man, continue to be the main reason 'ripperologists' dismiss Klosowski as a legitimate suspect in the Ripper murders! It's because they feel if he had been the Ripper, then he would have butchered his 'wives' like he did the others, not use poison. Even though that would have TOTALLY exposed him, in every way! But this cunning killer was not capable of altering his methods, right? Even though ten years had already passed by that time, and there was no reason for him to use a knife any longer, and even though the killing of these 'wives' had a different motive. There had been an important reason to use the knife ten years previously, and that reason no longer applied anymore by the time he was killing with poison. And he was well-off financially when he decided to remove the obstacle of his 'wives', he did not need to kill for any reasons other than his own insanity by that time.

  That's right, maybe he didn't need money anymore, but as the sociopath he was, he still needed to kill. Having become financially successful in business changes his motive, but it didn't change the fact that he was mentally unbalanced still. He was not particular about the method he used I suppose, only that he could terrorize and dominate women again, thereby striking back at them for whatever reason that he felt his mother (or perhaps some other influential woman who had power over his childhood) was responsible, in his opinion, for damaging his life for him. His anger at women always ends up re-emerging. (if I were forced to guess, I would guess it had been some type of abandonment issue, experienced by him as having been hugely unfair and personal. Something of this type must have been driving him to do what he was doing to women). That was probably the true motive all along. At least this is what the criminal profiler's like to say. I don't think any of those women had been sexually assaulted, right? This was all about a feeling of payback in Klosowski's mind. (perhaps he felt that you can't hurt a prostitute by having sex with her, as she is far to accustomed to it. And there was no time for sex, not with the surgical operation that he needed to perform. He had to hurry and get out of there! Could anybody have become sexually stimulated under all of that pressure?!) Payback is a motive, and in the case of the 'canonical' victims, £20 from 'the American' as well. In the mind of a sociopath, I understand, it does not matter if the woman you are killing is innocent, and is not the actual woman who was responsible for his humiliation. All women are the same, for they all do the same types of things, and they all share a similar power over men. This is the 'reasoning' of a madman I guess.


message 42: by Douglas (last edited Apr 19, 2019 04:46PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments APPENDIX #1

ANNIE CHAPMAN INQUEST TRANSCRIPT
SUMMATION OF THE CORONER:

Day 5, Wednesday, September 26, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, September 27, 1888, Page 2)

Yesterday [26 Sep] afternoon Mr. Wynne Baxter, coroner for East Middlesex, concluded his inquiry, at the Whitechapel Working Lads' Institute, relative to the death of Mrs. Annie Chapman, whose body was found dreadfully cut and mutilated in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, Whitechapel, early on the morning of Saturday, the 8th inst.

The Coroner inquired if there was any further evidence to be adduced.
Inspector Chandler replied in the negative.

The Coroner then addressed the jury. He said: "I congratulate you that your labours are now nearly completed. Although up to the present they have not resulted in the detection of any criminal, I have no doubt that if the perpetrator of this foul murder is eventually discovered, our efforts will not have been useless. The evidence is now on the records of this court, and could be used even if the witnesses were not forthcoming; while the publicity given has already elicited further information, which I shall presently have to mention, and which, I hope I am not sanguine in believing, may perhaps be of the utmost importance. We shall do well to recall the important facts. The deceased was a widow, forty-seven years of age, named Annie Chapman. Her husband was a coachman living at Windsor. For three or four years before his death she had lived apart from her husband, who allowed her 10s a week until his death at Christmas, 1886. Evidently she had lived an immoral life for some time, and her habits and surroundings had become worse since her means had failed. Her relations were no longer visited by her, and her brother had not seen her for five months, when she borrowed a small sum from him. She lived principally in the common lodging houses in the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where such as she herd like cattle, and she showed signs of great deprivation, as if she had been badly fed. The glimpses of life in these dens which the evidence in this case discloses is sufficient to make us feel that there is much in the nineteenth century civilisation of which we have small reason to be proud; but you who are constantly called together to hear the sad tale of starvation, or semi-starvation, of misery, immorality, and wickedness which some of the occupants of the 5,000 beds in this district have every week to relate to coroner's inquests, do not require to be reminded of what life in a Spitalfields lodging-house means. It was in one of these that the older bruises found on the temple and in front of the chest of the deceased were received, in a trumpery quarrel, a week before her death. It was in one of these that she was seen a few hours before her mangled remains were discovered. On the afternoon and evening of Friday, Sept. 7, she divided her time partly in such a place at 35, Dorset- street, and partly in the Ringers public-house, where she spent whatever money she had; so that between one and two on the morning of Saturday, when the money for her bed is demanded, she is obliged to admit that she is without means, and at once turns out into the street to find it. She leaves there at 1.45 a.m., is seen off the premises by the night watchman, and is observed to turn down Little Paternoster-row into Brushfield-street, and not in the more direct route to Hanbury-street. On her wedding finger she was wearing two or three rings, which appear to have been palpably of base metal, as the witnesses are all clear about their material and value. We now lose sight of her for about four hours, but at half-past five, Mrs. Long is in Hanbury-street on her way from home in Church- street, Whitechapel, to Spitalfields Market. She walked on the northern side of the road going westward, and remembers having seen a man and woman standing a few yards from the place where the deceased is afterwards found. And, although she did not know Annie Chapman, she is positive that that woman was the deceased. The two were talking loudly, but not sufficiently so to arouse her suspicions that there was anything wrong. Such words as she overheard were not calculated to do so. The laconic inquiry of the man, "Will you?" and the simple assent of the woman, viewed in the light of subsequent events, can be easily translated and explained. Mrs. Long passed on her way, and neither saw nor heard anything more of her, and this is the last time she is known to have been alive. There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29 Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness. This place is a fair sample of a large number of houses in the neighbourhood. It was built, like hundreds of others, for the Spitalfields weavers, and when hand-looms were driven out by steam and power, these were converted into dwellings for the poor. Its size is about such as a superior artisan would occupy in the country, but its condition is such as would to a certainty leave it without a tenant. In this place seventeen persons were living, from a woman and her son sleeping in a cat's-meat shop on the ground floor to Davis and his wife and their three grown-up sons, all sleeping together in an attic. The street door and the yard door were never locked, and the passage and yard appear to have been constantly used by people who had no legitimate business there. There is little doubt that the deceased knew the place, for it was only 300 or 400 yards from where she lodged. If so, it is quite unnecessary to assume that her companion had any knowledge - in fact, it is easier to believe that he was ignorant both of the nest of living beings by whom he was surrounded, and of their occupations and habits. Some were on the move late at night, some were up long before the sun. A carman, named Thompson, left the house for his work as early as 3.50 a.m.; an hour later John Richardson was paying the house a visit of inspection; shortly after 5.15. Cadosh, who lived in the next house, was in the adjoining yard twice. Davis, the carman, who occupied the third floor front, heard the church clock strike a quarter to six, got up, had a cup of tea, and went into the back yard, and was horrified to find the mangled body of deceased. It was then a little after six a.m. - a very little, for at ten minutes past the hour Inspector Chandler had been informed of the discovery while on duty in Commercial-street. There is nothing to suggest that the deceased was not fully conscious of what she was doing. It is true that she had passed through some stages of intoxication, for although she appeared perfectly sober to her friend who met her in Dorset-street at five o'clock the previous evening, she had been drinking afterwards; and when she left the lodging-house shortly before two o'clock the night watchman noticed that she was the worse for drink, but not badly so, while the deputy asserts that, though she had evidently been drinking, she could walk straight, and it was probably only malt liquor that she had taken, and its effects would pass off quicker than if she had taken spirits. Consequently it is not surprising to find that Mrs. Long saw nothing to make her think that the deceased was the worse for drink. Moreover, it is unlikely that she could have had the opportunity of getting intoxicants. Again the post-mortem examination shows that while the stomach contained a meal of food there was no sign of fluid and no appearance of her having taken alcohol, and Dr. Phillips is convinced that she had not taken any alcohol for some time. The deceased, therefore, entered the yard in full possession of her faculties; although with a very different object from her companion. From the evidence which the condition of the yard affords and the medical examination discloses, it appears that after the two had passed through the passage and opened the swing-door at the end, they descended the three steps into the yard. On their left hand side there was a recess between those steps and the palings. Here a few feet from the house and a less distance from the paling they must have stood. The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation. There is no evidence of any struggle. The clothes are not torn. Even in these preliminaries, the wretch seems to have known how to carry out efficiently his nefarious work. The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back; and although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination, and the injuries to the abdomen commenced. All was done with cool impudence and reckless daring; but, perhaps, nothing is more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with business-like precision in order near her feet. The murder seems, like the Buck's-row case, to have been carried out without any cry. None of the occupants of the houses by which the spot was surrounded heard anything suspicious. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body exposed to the view of the 1st comer. That accorded but little with the trouble taken with the rings, and suggested either that he had at length been disturbed, or that, as daylight broke, a sudden fear told him of the danger of detection that he was running. There were two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and had not since been found, and the uterus had been taken from the abdomen. The body had not been dissected, but the injuries had been made by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There were no meaningless cuts. The organ had been taken by one who knew where to find it, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it or have recognised it when found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations."


message 43: by Douglas (last edited Mar 23, 2019 03:19PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments CONTINUED:


"It must have been some one accustomed to the postmortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing abdominal organ seems overwhelming. If the object were robbery, these injuries were meaningless, for death had previously resulted from the loss of blood at the neck. Moreover, when we find an easily accomplished theft of some paltry brass rings and an internal organ taken, after at least a quarter of an hour's work, and by a skilled person, we are driven to the deduction that the abstraction of the missing portion of abdominal viscera was the object, and the theft of the rings was only a thin-veiled blind, an attempt to prevent the real intention being discovered."

( and the Ripper would deploy a similar type of 'Red Herring' on his next successful uterus extraction, I believe, with those ghastly cuts on Cathrine Eddowes face. I feel that they too were intended to put up a 'smoke screen'; to draw attention from the fact that the uterus was missing again. The fact that the uterus is gone is the clue that should have led to Klosowski's capture, and I am certain that this fact must have worried him. The fact that Annie Chapman's uterus had been taken was big news in the papers. See messages #17 & #21 - D.B.)

"The amount missing would fit into a breakfast cup, and had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character, it might easily have been left unnoticed that any portion of the body had been taken. The difficulty in believing that the purpose of the murderer was the possession of the missing abdominal organ was natural. It is abhorrent to our feelings to conclude that a life should be taken for so slight an object; but, when rightly considered the reasons for most murders are altogether out of proportion to the guilt. It has been suggested that the criminal is a lunatic with morbid feelings. This may or may not be the case; but the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ. To show you this, I must mention a fact which at the same time proves the assistance which publicity and the newspaper press afford in the detection of crime. Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give £20 for each specimen, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of a similar character. Now, is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen? It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but unfortunately our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible. I need hardly say that I at once communicated my information to the Detective Department at Scotland- yard. Of course I do not know what use has been made of it, but I believe that publicity may possibly further elucidate this fact, and, therefore, I have not withheld from you my knowledge. By means of the press some further explanation may be forthcoming from America, if not from here. I have endeavoured to suggest to you the object with which this offence was committed, and the class of person who must have perpetrated it. The greatest deterrent from crime is the conviction that detection and punishment will follow with rapidity and certainty, and it may be that the impunity with which Mary Ann [sic] Smith and Anne[sic] Tabram were murdered suggested the possibility of such horrid crimes as those which you and another jury have been recently considering. It is, therefore, a great misfortune that nearly three weeks have elapsed without the chief actor in this awful tragedy having been discovered. Surely, it is not too much even yet to hope that the ingenuity of our detective force will succeed in unearthing this monster. It is not as if there were no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical knowledge carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at postmortems, or by frequenting the postmortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited. In addition to the former description of the man Mrs. Long saw, they should know that he was a foreigner, of dark complexion, over 30 years of age, slightly taller than the deceased (5' 5'') of shabby genteel appearance, with a brown deerstalker hat on his head and a dark coat on his back. If the jury's views accord with mine, they would then be of the opinion that they were confronted with a murder of no ordinary character, committed not from jealousy, revenge, or robbery, but from motives less adequate than many which still disgrace our civilization, mar our progress, and put a blot on the pages of Christianity."

A verdict of willful murder against a person or persons unknown was then entered.

(this version of the transcript, that I was able to copy & paste from casebook.org, was slightly 'cleaned-up' for the newspapers of 1888. An unedited version can be found in 'The Jack the Ripper Companion' by Evans & Skinner, 2000. Pgs 102-107. It is highly recommended that you check it )


message 44: by Douglas (last edited Mar 13, 2019 08:36PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments In my opinion, one of the most important contributions to 'ripperology' ever made by any 'ripperologist' was the 1987 re-discovery, by Keith Skinner & Martin Howells, of the 1903 'Pall Mall Gazette' interview with Detective-Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, conducted as Klosowski's trial for 'wife' poisoning was in it's final stage. As Ripper-historian Phillip Sugden has noted, the interviews were "more important than those two authors realized." (they were researching for a book they were then writing together; 'The Ripper Legacy- The Life & Death of Jack the Ripper') "Howells and Skinner were primarily interested in (Montague) Druitt. And certainly Abberline's dismissals of Druitt and others were well worth finding. But the central thrust and principal value of the PMG interviews lies in Abberline's indictment of an altogether different suspect- George Chapman, the Polish multiple murderer, hanged in 1903"
-If this interview had not been found by them, my own conclusions about the ripper case would have been impossible, or at least until someone else had uncovered it. (Incidentally, it would be Skinner's other writing partner, Stewart Evans, who would himself rediscover "ripper suspect" Francis Tumblety, in the 1990's).

I call the interviews the 'Rosetta Stone' of Ripperology:


message 45: by Douglas (last edited Mar 27, 2019 06:34AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments APPENDIX #2

The Frederick Abberline/Pall Mall Gazette 1903 interviews
24 March 1903

' Should Severin Klosowski, the wretched man now lying under sentence of death for wife-poisoning, go to the scaffold soon without a last dying speech or confession, a great mystery may forever remain unsolved. But the conviction that "Chapman" and "Jack the Ripper" were one and the same person will not in the least be weakened in the mind of the man who is, perhaps, better qualified than anyone else in this country to express an opinion in this matter. We allude to Mr. F. G. Abberline, formerly Chief Detective Inspector of Scotland Yard, the official who had full charge of the criminal investigations at the time of the terrible murders in Whitechapel.

When a representative of the Pall Mall Gazette called on Mr. Abberline yesterday and asked for his views on the startling theory set up by one of the morning papers, the retired detective said: "What an extra- ordinary thing it is that you should just have called upon me now. I had just commenced, not knowing anything about the report in the newspaper, to write to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. Macnaghten, to say how strongly I was impressed with the opinion that 'Chapman' was also the author of the Whitechapel murders. Your appearance saves me the trouble. I intended to write on Friday, but a fall in the garden, injuring my hand and shoulder, prevented my doing so until today."

Mr. Abberline had already covered a page and a half of foolscap, and was surrounded with a sheaf of documents and newspaper cuttings dealing with the ghastly outrages of 1888.

"I have been so struck with the remarkable coincidences in the two series of murders," he continued, "that I have not been able to think of anything else for several days past--not, in fact, since the Attorney- General made his opening statement at the recent trial, and traced the antecedents of Chapman before he came to this country in 1888. Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago."

"My interest in the Ripper cases was especially deep. I had for fourteen years previously been an inspector of police in Whitechapel, but when the murders began I was at the Central Office at Scotland Yard. On the application of Superintendent Arnold I went back to the East End just before Annie Chapman was found mutilated, and as chief of the detective corps I gave myself up to the study of the cases. Many a time, even after we had carried our inquiries as far as we could-- and we made out no fewer than 1,600 sets of papers respecting our investigations--instead of going home when I was off duty, I used to patrol the district until four or five o'clock in the morning, and, while keeping my eyes wide open for clues of any kind, have many and many a time given those wretched, homeless women, who were Jack the Ripper's special prey, fourpence or sixpence for a shelter to get them away from the streets and out of harm's way."

"As I say," went on the criminal expert, "there are a score of things which make one believe that Chapman is the man; and you must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind. For instance, the date of the arrival in England coincides with the beginning of the series of murders in Whitechapel; 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. The fact that he studied medicine and surgery in Russia before he came here is well established, and it is curious to note that the first series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, while the recent poisoning cases were proved to be done by a man with more than an elementary knowledge of medicine. The story told by 'Chapman's' wife of the attempt to murder her with a long knife while in America is not to be ignored, but something else with regard to America is still more remarkable."

"While the coroner was investigating one of the Whitechapel murders he told the jury a very queer story. You will remember that Dr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, who made the post-mortem examination, not only spoke of the skillfulness with which the knife had been used, but stated that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the criminal had so mutilated the body that he could possess himself of one of the organs. The coroner, in commenting on this, said that he had been told by the sub-curator of the pathological museum connected with one of the great medical schools that some few months before an American had called upon him and asked him to procure a number of specimens. He stated his willingness to give £20 for each. Although the strange visitor was told that his wish was impossible of fulfillment, he still urged his request. It was known that the request was repeated at another institution of a similar character in London. The coroner at the time said: 'Is it not possible that a knowledge of this demand may have inspired some abandoned wretch to possess himself of the specimens? It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man; but, unfortunately, our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible!"

"It is a remarkable thing," Mr. Abberline pointed out, "that after the Whitechapel horrors America should have been the place where a similar kind of murder began, as though the miscreant had not fully supplied the demand of the American agent."

"There are many other things extremely remarkable. The fact that Klosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him. All agree, too, that he was a foreign- looking man,--but that, of course, helped us little in a district so full of foreigners as Whitechapel. One discrepancy only have I noted, and this is that the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view."





Part two
31 March 1903


' Since the Pall Mall Gazette a few days ago gave a series of coincidences supporting the theory that Klosowski, or Chapman, as he was for some time called, was the perpetrator of the "Jack the Ripper" murders in Whitechapel fifteen years ago, it has been interesting to note how many amateur criminologists have come forward with statements to the effect that it is useless to attempt to link Chapman with the Whitechapel atrocities. This cannot possibly be the same man, it is said, because, first of all, Chapman is not the miscreant who could have done the previous deeds, and, secondly, it is contended that the Whitechapel murderer has long been known to be beyond the reach of earthly justice.



In order, if possible, to clear the ground with respect to the latter statement particularly, a repre- sentative of the Pall Mall Gazette again called on Mr. F. G. Abberline, formerly Chief Detective Inspector of Scotland Yard, yesterday, and elicited the following statement from him:


"You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."


To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


"I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory."


Our representative called Mr. Abberline's attention to a statement made in a well-known Sunday paper, in which it was made out that the author was a young medical student who was found drowned in the Thames.


"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."


But what about Dr. Neill Cream? A circumstantial story is told of how he confessed on the scaffold--at least, he is said to have got as far as 'I am Jack--' when the jerk of the rope cut short his remarks.


"That is also another idle story," replied Mr. Abberline. "Neill Cream was not even in this country when the Whitechapel murders took place. No; the identity of the diabolical individual has yet to be established, notwithstanding the people who have produced these rumors and who pretend to know the state of the official mind."


"As to the question of the dissimilarity of character in the crimes which one hears so much about," continued the expert, "I cannot see why one man should not have done both, provided he had the professional knowledge, and this is admitted in Chapman's case. A man who could watch his wives being slowly tortured to death by poison, as he did, was capable of anything; and the fact that he should have attempted, in such a cold- blooded manner to murder his first wife with a knife in New Jersey, makes one more inclined to believe in the theory that he was mixed up in the two series of crimes. What, indeed, is more likely than that a man to some extent skilled in medicine and surgery should discontinue the use of a knife when his commission--and I still believe Chapman had a commission from America--came to an end, and then for the remainder of his ghastly deeds put into practice his knowledge of poisons? Indeed, if the theory be accepted that a man who takes life on a whole- sale scale never ceases his accursed habit until he is either arrested or dies, there is much to be said for Chapman's consistency. You see, incentive changes; but the fiendishness is not eradicated. The victims, too, you will notice, continue to be women ; but they are of different classes, and obviously call for different methods of dispatch." '
* *
-Abberline, who was in charge of the Ripper case, was without peer when it came to understanding East London crime . Even still, Ripperologists want to believe they know better than he did, and his belief that Klosowski was the Ripper has never been taken serious by them. Yet they quickly believe Magnaughten when he claims Montague Druitt was the Ripper. Magnaughten, who hadn't even worked the case! Only because Druitt commit suicide soon after Mary Kelly's murder.
But they have never taken Abberline's opinion seriously.


message 46: by Douglas (last edited Mar 03, 2019 08:09PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments Bibliography
The books I have consulted

1. 'The Complete History Of Jack the Ripper' - Phillip Sugden ; new edition, 2006
2.'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion/Sourcebook' - Stewart Evans & Keith Skinner, 2000
3.'Autumn of Terror; Jack the Ripper, His Crimes & Times' - Tom Cullen, 1965
4.'The Trial of George Chapman' - H. L. Adam, 1930
5. 'Jack the Ripper; the Facts' - Paul Begg, 2004
6. 'The Jack the Ripper A - Z' - Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Keith Skinner, 1988
7.'The Complete Jack the Ripper' - Donald Rumbelow, 1975
8. 'Jack the Ripper; The Final Solution' - Stephen Knight, 1976 ( my introduction to the subject matter)
9. 'The Identity of Jack the Ripper' - Donald McCormick - 1970 (revised)
10. 'Jack the Ripper: Summing Up & Verdict' - Robin Odell & Colin Wilson, 1987
11. 'Jack the Ripper: The Definative Casebook' - Richard Whittington-Egan, 2013
12. 'Jack the Ripper' - Daniel Farson, 1972
13. 'Uncovering Jack the Ripper's London' - Richard Jones, 2007
14. 'The Ripper File' - Elwyn Jones & John Lloyd, 1975
15. 'Jack the Ripper at Last?' - Helena Wojtezak, 2017 ( I found recently, very good, about Klosowski)
16. 'Alias Jack the Ripper' - R. Michael Gordon. About Klosowski, but frustratingly ignores anything regarding the uterus offer- even editing all reference of it out of the PMG Abberline interview! Tends towards exaggeration. There is no need to do that
17. 'The Crimes, Detection, & Death of Jack the Ripper' - Martin Fido

Early Books that I have not yet obtained (but plan on someday)
'The Mystery of Jack the Ripper' - Leonard Matters - 1929. the 1st book. on my wish list. not cheap either
'Jack the Ripper, A New Theory' - Willian Stewart, 1939
'Jack the Ripper; When London Walked in Terror' - Edward T. Woodhall, 1937
'Forty Years of Man Hunting' - Arthur F. Neil, 1932
'Jack the Ripper in Fact & Fiction' - Robin Odell, 1965
'A Casebook of Murder' - Colin Wilson, 1969
there are also books from Macnaghten and Anderson

These books were each consulted by myself while writing my essay. (except, obviously, the half dozen on bottom). However, if you have read my essay you might know that I did not agree with these books in many instance. But that is not surprising, because most of the authors disagree with each of the others also. In fact it sometimes seems that for every different theory that exists about the identity of Jack-the-Ripper, there exists also a different Ripperologist, and that the number of Ripperologists equals exactly the number of theories.

Perhaps this is another reason that I prefer believing the 'theory' of the very first person to have ever investigated the case, back in 1888. The theory of Frederick G Abberline. But another reason that I believe this theory is simply because it makes such good sense to me. And, as Phillip Sugden likes to say, "It rings true". If Abberline would have found Klosowski in 1888 instead of finding him 15 years later, as he was about to be put to death for another series of murders, things would have turned out so differently, especially for the 'Ripperologists'. That's all.


message 47: by Douglas (last edited Mar 14, 2019 06:03PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments The interview with Inspector Abberline (message #45) was published in the 'Pall Mall Gazette' on March 24 and 31, 1903. Klosowski was executed on April 7. In those two weeks, I wonder if Severino had been given the opportunity to read that interview? Police provided him with newspapers, eg 'The Times'. Would they possibly also have provided him with a 'Pall Mall Gazette' that included an interview with his old nemesis, if for no other reason than to antagonize him? Did Klosowski go to his death knowing that he had finally been exposed as being the 'Ripper', after years spent having been so proud that he had outsmarted Scotland Yard? I really hope he did.
'Ripperologists' never want to give Abberline the credit he deserved. Maybe, just maybe, Klosowski ended-up having been forced to give Abberline that credit. And wouldn't that have been so much better? As far as the Whitechapel Murders went, Klosowski had been smugly laughing at Scotland Yard well onto fifteen years by the time of his trial. But did Abberline have the last laugh? It all depends on if Klosowski was given a copy of that magazine. Seeing that it was the police themselves who were deciding what 'George Chapman' would read, it would seem likely he did get that 'Gazzette'. (I would not be one bit surprised if Abberline himself had directed them to give the magazine to Klosowski!)




Mar 13, 2019,, 48 views



Douglas wrote: "The Frederick Abberline/Pall Mall Gazette 1903 interviews
24 March 1903

' Should Severin Klosowski, the wretched man now lying under sentence of death for wife-poisoning, go to the scaffold soon w..."



message 48: by Douglas (last edited Mar 16, 2019 09:12PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments THIS ENTIRE PIECE ON 'JACK-THE-RIPPER' BEGAN AT THE START OF MESSAGE #15, above. I would be honored if you would read it all sometime, from message #15 on down to here. You might like it. On the other hand, you might think me an idiot. But at the very least I don't think it is boring. I really believe that it is very close to being what actually happened in foggy east London, all those many years ago, in regards to the Whitechapel Murders. I was so pleased with it that I 'Highlighted' it all, 'Copied' it, 'Pasted' it into a 'Word' document, and then printed it up and put it in a 3 pronged folder, then placed it in an honored spot among my collection of 'Ripper' books on my shelf. For me, even as short as it may be, it is still the most satisfying piece on the Ripper case in my entire, substantial collection.

Incidentally , it is not necessarily my aim to convince people that Klosowski was Jack-the-Ripper. But I would like it if people would admit that he is equally as 'valid' a suspect as any other, and probably more likely than the other 'suspects', mainly because of the circumstantial case that can be made against him. I would also like for them to believe/admit that a serial murderer might change his method of killing over the years, that it wouldn't be all that unlikely, especially after 10-15 years have passed and one of the motives for his killings has changed, that this is in no way unlikely, especially as these were not sexually motivated murders committed by a sexual lunatic, as was the case with the more recent BTK killer, or even someone as perverted as Jeffery Dahmer. Most writers want to believe that the Ripper murders too were the result of some sexual perversion. The fact that these were prostitutes who were being murdered and mutilated proves that sex was the motive, this is their reasoning. I feel one of the reasons people may not like this Klosowski theory is because it almost makes it look as if Jack-the-Ripper was not a sexual lunatic, and that he was motivated as much by 'rational' monetary gain as he was by sexual perversion. It is far too reprehensible to believe that he commit such blasphemous atrocities in the name of something so mundane yet essential as money, the same motivation that spurns us all on each day. (if the need for money could drive Klosowski to do what he did, does it make us evil also? After all, we have done things we are not always proud of to get money before also! It seems to put us on less firm ground when we judge him, a slight feeling of being hypocritical possibly. We want to feel much more superior to this sort of thing, right?) This monetary motive will change for Klosowski as the years pass, and as he becomes successful in his business and thereby fairly wealthy on his own. But in my opinion, one word sums up Severin Klosowski's continuing motivation to kill women better than any others do: anger. Not sexual stimulation, or even money; but it was his beastly rage against women that was at the root of everything. I sometimes wonder if this anger was something he did not acknowledge in himself, and that he felt he was a good person, a caring public benefactor who was doing the unfortunate women a favor. He knew what it was to struggle to keep a roof over his head, especially in the wintertime of gas lit, horse drawn, Victorian London town. He knew these women were getting older, and how difficult life would be for them from then on; the degrading sexual favors they needed to provide for strangers in order to obtain money, to stay in some degree comfortable as they lived out the remainder of their lonely lives, which would only get more difficult to find takers for as they continued to age. He knew that the reason many of them needed to stay intoxicated was to obscure the horrors of their own lives from themselves, that the only thing keeping them alive was the fear of killing themselves; even if this was not true it is probably what the Ripper told himself in order to maintain the illusion for himself that he was a decent person, as all people want to believe. His murderous anger at women may have remained unacknowledged in himself, only acknowledging that women had been unfair to him before. And even if he was capitalizing on these 'mercy killings', as he likely thought of them, even if he cut out their uterus and sold it for £20 afterwards, it didn't alter the fact that he was doing them a 'favor'! In his mind. he was a humanitarian, it was a shame that the Metropolis was not filled with more like him! But as time passed, and as he read more of the newspaper articles about what a monster 'Jack-the-Ripper' was, it would get more and more difficult to have these illusions about himself. And for all I know he really enjoyed being the brute he was from the very outset. There is evidence to support that way of looking at it also, especially if any of those messages to the papers, or on Goulston St. were genuine.

But I digress, and likely have been going down the wrong path.

Only the Ripper himself would know if it is likely or not that he might change his method of killing, after more than 10 years had passed. A sexual thrill killer might never alter his method of killing later on, but somebody who had been ripping up women to procure female organs in order to fulfill a £20 order from an American who wanted uterus' might easily do it . You couldn't put ANYTHING past a person who would do that, he is probably capable of anything at all; even convincing young Victorian women who he does not love into living with him 'in sin', and telling their parents that he had married their daughters when he actually had not, then proceeding to poison each of the 'wives' to death, slowly & painfully, savoring each moment, dragging it out to prolong both his enjoyment of it and the suffering of his 'wives' at the same time. No 'Ripperologist' has any business eliminating a likely 'suspect' on the reasoning that a serial killer would never alter his method of killing, especially when they don't know what the motive for his killing was. The Ripper, I feel, was motivated by anger at women, 'getting back' at them was the underlying motivation, just like it was, mostly, with Ted Bundy (another serial-killer you couldn't put ANYTHING past; a killer who was capable of anything at all. There are no 'rules' that apply to these killers, in fact breaking rules might just motivate them more). In his past he had likely felt betrayed by some female who had some degree of control over his youthful existence, and now he was repaying the outrage, tit-for-tat (how is that for pun?)Sexual contact was besides the point with the Ripper, and the victims had not been sexually violated. (the £20 offer for the uterus was his justification for the crimes, aside from the fact that he also needed the money- but it was Klosowski's rage against women, not the money, and not sexual gratification, that was the real motive for what he does, this is my theory. This becomes obvious later on, I feel, as he is eliminating his 'wives', one-by-one, in the cruel manner that he chose for them) With those other killers, living out some perverted and violent sexual fantasy is the entire point of their crimes. This, I feel, is another reason why the 'ripperologists' always seem so ready to dismiss Klosowski as a suspect, and it is also what makes Klosowski interesting to me. As crude as he first appears, judging by the photographs of his victims, he seems more complex the more you look into what seems to have been propelling him to do it. Not sympathetic, but only more complex, which also becomes more interesting. (how is it that he has this hateful rage against women, yet at the same time he seemingly can't bear to live without one?) But I never found some crude brute who tortures and then murders women only to satisfy his personal sexual fantasies, eg. BTK Killer, Jeffery Dahmer, Boston Strangler, etc , anything but revolting and embarrassing, at best. Yet some ripper 'experts' seem like they will be disappointed if it turned out that the Ripper too was not from that same class of perverts.

Phillip Sugden, in his book 'Jack the Ripper, The Complete History', wrote that Klosowski/Chapman was the only one of the popular 'Ripper suspects' that he could not eliminate as being a suspect, and he had also explained why all the others could & should be eliminated in that respect. In other words, in Sugden's final summation, Klosowski is the only 'Ripper suspect' who could possibly be the Jack-the-Ripper. If it wasn't Klosowski, according to Phillip Sugden, then Jack-the-Ripper could only be somebody who we have never considered before, and likely we never will. (And consider the fact that the only thing excluding Klosowski from being the most likely Ripper suspect, even in the minds of his harshest critics, is the fact that they do not believe that a sexual-serial killer would ever alter his method of killing. But because he poisoned his 'wives', and did not mutilate them, he goes from being the most likely suspect of all to an absurd choice, in the estimation of most 'ripperologists'. Considering all of the evidence against Klosowski, if altering his method of killing [after 10 years had passed and his motive for killing had changed] if that is the only 'evidence' that excludes him from being the Ripper, then it seems to me rather likely that we have considered the identity of the true Ripper after having considered Klosowski).

So why is it that Sugden's book gets almost universal acclaim, across the spectrum, from most 'Ripperologists', yet they continue to ridicule the idea of Klosowski being the Ripper? Why would these people who respect Sugden's book more than any other ripper book ridicule Sugdens only possible choice for ripper 'suspect', as if Sugden doesn't know what he is talking about? Certainly Phillip Sugden did not come out and name Severin Klosowski as definitely having been Jack-the-Ripper, but he did infer that he was the only known suspect who could possibly have been. My only guess about it is that 'ripperologists' are fearful of having their readers believe that the Ripper case has been solved, because if that were the case then why should their readers continue to purchase more Ripper-books? (And I would like to commend 'Ripperologists' Stewart Evans & Keith Skinner, authors of 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook'. Both writers have gone on record previously as opponents of the 'Chapman' theory, but they did not allow that to get in the way of keeping their personal opinions to themselves in the penultimate chapter of their book, and only printing the evidence alone, which points the finger of guilt directly at Klosowski. Their book convinced me of Klosowski's guilt just as much as Sugden's had). Many of these authors have made a career from Jack-the-Ripper. I don't think they need to worry. All I can tell them is this: that I myself believe that the killer has been correctly named, I believe that I myself have named him. But it does not stop me from reading more books about the case, on the contrary, especially if the author has something he feels is honest to say about it. I like to hear his reasoning. But only if his reasoning is honest, and not something colorful that is mainly intended to sell books, such as that Lewis Carrol was the Ripper, or Queen Victoria perhaps. Or some bizarre sexual fetish is exploited in order to sell books. Or even worse yet; the author tries to obscure the possibility of someone like Klosowski being the Ripper only in order to maintain the mystery of an unsolved case. All of this has been done, and is still being done, in order to make as much off the Ripper case as is possible. One thing is certain; much more money has been made from the Ripper case by 'ripperologists' than had ever been made by Severino Klosowski, even at twenty pounds per uterus.


message 49: by Douglas (last edited Apr 04, 2019 06:57AM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments In the years following the confessions by Albert Desalvo for the Boston Strangler Murders, many people made news by claiming that Desalvo was lying. Many writers came forward to proclaim how obvious it was that Desalvo was simply after publicity, despite the fact that he knew so many secret details that only the actual killer could have known. Despite how obvious it seemed that Desalvo was the killer, and that his childhood and his family background was so bizarre that he was obviously the best suspect, many people at the time insisted he was not the Boston Strangler. There was very little reason to think he should not be the killer, and very much evidence to make it clear that he was. Only writers who were looking to make a buck, or looking to make a reputation and some publicity for themselves, these were the prominent  dissenting voices, this is my feeling about it. Why else would it seem so important to them? (many of them were doing precisely what they had accused Desalvo himself of doing; seeking publicity)
It was just as obvious that Desalvo was the Boston Strangler as it is that Klosowski was jack-the-Ripper. The writers still denied it, for years they wrote and sold books about their theories that Desalvo had pulled a scam. It was understandable that some would have their doubts, but these people seemed completely certain. The police were in on it in order to close the case, they maintained (how could the case be closed if the police know that the real killer is still out there, possibly waiting to do it again? Can you just imagine?) But the writers continued to say that it was a conspiracy, and they kept it up all the way up to the day, (50 years after Desalvo had first confessed to the crimes) when the body of one of the victims was exhumed (after DNA evidence was perfected) and testing proved fairly conclusively that Desalvo WAS the killer. Afterwards Desalvo (who by that time had been killed by some of the other prisoners) himself was dug up and his DNA was tested as well. It left little doubt; Albert Desalvo had indeed been the Boston Strangler.

But just go on youtube now and watch any of the many documentaries on the Boston Strangler (all of them made before the DNA tests had been done). It is embarrassing how wrong these writers were!  Now that it has been proven that it WAS Desalvo, and now that all of those writers have been left with egg on their faces, there are no more books being written on that case any more, and no more TV documentaries being made about it. (It would make a good documentary, in my opinion, if they would do a show looking up some of those writers now and ask them about what they think about Desalvo being the Strangler now! What do they have to say about it now? THAT is the show that I want to see. Funny how they don't seem to want to go on camera now.)

Do you suppose that the Ripperologists saw this? That the only reason, even with all the evidence against Klosowski, the only reason that Klosowski is still ridiculed as a possible ripper suspect, and is dismissed as soon as he is brought up in many books on the Ripper, is because they do not want the Ripper industry to dry up in the same manner that the 'Boston Strangler industry' did?  Just prior to Desalvo being exhumed in order to test his DNA, a number of TV specials were produced about the case, just prior to the exhumation. But go on youtube yourself now, I can find ZERO documentaries that were done AFTER it was conclusively proven that Desalvo was the Strangler, the case just went away as soon as it was conclusively demonstrated Desalvo was the Boston Strangler.

Now what does that tell you? I mean, while I like for this Ripper industry to continue myself, I enjoy many of the "true crime" books still being written about it, do I want it to continue only if it means to avoid telling the truth about the case? If it can only continue if we pretty much lie, is it worth it? What is the point then, only to make a buck? Do the 'ripperologists' feel that the Jack-the-Ripper books, that still sell so well as long as his identity is disputed, will not sell at all anymore if people believe that the Rippers identity was solved? Or if it is understood that Severin Klosowski indeed was Jack-the-Ripper, do 'ripperologists' feel that this would prohibit them from writing more books with wild theories about who might have been Jack-the-Ripper? No more books about how Prince of Wales was the Ripper, or Oscar Wilde?

The fact that Desalvo was the Boston Strangler made many of the Boston police angry, the fact that this dumb little guy had gotten away from them for so long, that he was laughing at them for so long as they spent so much time and effort searching for him; they did not want to believe it, or they did not want for the public to know it. Just as Sir Magnaughten and the other police from turn-of-the-century London did not want to believe that the Ripper had been living right smack in the middle of Whitechapel at the same time that he was murdering his way into the history books, and that he looked just like the eye-witnesses had described him looking, he still managed to continue with his murders. And this is probably why Sir Melville claimed Jack-the-Ripper only killed five women, when in fact there is evidence that he could have killed many more, or that he had also been responsible for those five 'Thames Torso murders' as well. It is also why he wanted people to believe that the only reason Scotland Yard had never caught the ripper was because he had commit suicide by drowning himself in the Thames soon after the Kelly murder, despite the fact that Montague Druitt could not have been the Ripper. Nobody could prove that the Ripper HADN'T drowned himself either, and this is what Magnaughten was banking on I bet


message 50: by Douglas (last edited Nov 04, 2019 05:01PM) (new)

Douglas Barr | 38 comments "Maybe some of them are not important.....I won't argue that........But just look at the NUMBER of them!"               

- Sam Spade, from Dashiell Hammett's 'The Maltese Falcon' ; contemplating the staggering amount of evidence and clues implicating Bridgid O'Shannasey (who he did not want to believe was guilty)of murder in his investigation.       



    Look at the number of them, consider their significance, and then consider the odds against all of them being incorrect.

(I feel the same thing can be said about the amount of evidence, coincidence, eyewitness testimony, etc pointing to Klosowski being Jack-the-Ripper in the above essay.  If Klosowski were not the Ripper, could so much compelling, spot-on evidence, that has never been disprooven, exist against him? Even if 50% of the points made against Klosowski were untrue- which I do not think is the case- it would still leave a staggering amount of compelling evidence pointing to his guilt. While the next most likely 'suspect' (eg. Druitt, Gull, Kosminski, etc) usually has one single incident against him- for which some author usually blows out of all proportion, and which is often disprooven as soon as it is investigated by someone reliable, like Sugden.          

Consider the dependability of the source of the information; i.e. Phillip Sugden vs Donald mcCormick for example, or Abberline vs Magnaughten and Anderson. Or someone as reliable as coroner Wynn Baxter.

Then consider the possible motives of the 'Ripperologists' to keep the case forever unsolved

Why is it that the more evidence that exists against a ripper-suspect, the more a 'ripperologist' will then tell the world at large that this same suspect is a ridiculous choice as a suspect?

No doubt there are some mistakes in my essay. For instance, I am not certain just when Severino began using the name 'George Chapman', but I assume in the essay he did it at the time of his return from New York back to London in 1891. There is evidence that it did not happen until 1895 however. Most "Ripperologists", when seeing a discrepancy or mistake like this, will make out that this one small possible mistake shows that the entire essay should now be discounted. Yet if you examine any of the books written by any of the 'Ripperologists', you will find, if you look carefully, mistakes, or even outright lies, that make my own possible error regarding the name change of Klosowski to Chapman look like nothing much at all, especially when you also consider everything that is correct in the essay. It does not change the fact that at least 90% of what has been presented in this essay is 100% right. For instance, almost all of Mr Stephen Knight's brilliant theory, his book 'Jack the Ripper; The Final Solution', has now been dis-proven. But the more you research, and fact-check, the points and ideas raised in my essay here; research them in books such as "The Complete History Of Jack the Ripper" by Phillip Sugden, or 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner (probably the two most reliable books on the Ripper ever written), the more you will find only corroboration for what I have written here. Considering all of the points I have made about Klosowski being the Ripper, if it were untrue it should be easy to disprove many of them. Incidentally, reading this essay just prior to reading those two books I just recommended can add a wealth of insight and understanding to both of those two great books. At least this is my opinion


« previous 1
back to top