Scavenger or predator?

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"The cause of death was haemorrhage"

...and yes, that was the given cause. But Killeen also said that the pierceing through the sternum and heart in itself would be enough to cause death. Therefore, Harry, I think we are left with the only possible solution that it was the last blow, and not the first. Had it been the first, then there would have been no reason to surmise that she died from blood-loss, would there?

"As killen implies it was the only one different,all others must have been caused by the same person,including the slash wound."

Ah, but he never did say that the 37 wounds MUST have been by the same instrument to begin with - what he said was that the wounds all COULD have been inflicted by the same blade, but for the one through the sternum. And indeed, although the 37 stabs would reasonably have been made by the same blade, there is of course no way to be sure that they were not inflicted by 37 blades that were similar in shape.
The cut, though, is another thing altogether: no way to measure blade width from an entrance hole, and no way to establish the thickness of the blade. It could have been made by the smaller blade and it could have been made by the wider one. Try and cut a loaf of bread with a number of different blades, and then tell by the appearance of the cuts which blade made which cut - can´t be done, I´m afraid. But stab the loaf with a small, thin blade and with a sturdy, wide-bladed dagger and anyone can tell which blade made which stab.

"If the sternum wound was the last given,and not done by the same hand,that would mean another attacker after she was dead or nearly so,a very implausible situation"

...which is why the obvious possibility to fit the wounds in with BOTH a frenzied attacked and a man interested in eviscerating has illuded us for so long a time. Together with John Bennetts find of that pic of George Yard Buildings, it makes for a very compelling scenario, I believe.

All the best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Interesting discussion chaps and sound observation from all sides, but on balence I'm inclined to agree with David.

I don't see why Fleming could not have been a cunning and organized offender, if he was the killer. The fact that he ended up in an asylum is only indicative of the extent of his mental instability at that time. The majority of known serial killers are either sociopaths or psychopaths, whose diagnostic traits will often include impulsivity, repeated lying, use of aliases, stealing, a history of misdemeanors in childhood, an inability to hold down a job, superficial charm (interesting in light of Kelly's alleged affections for him), aggression and verbal abuse.

Fleming meets more than a few of these critera, and given his prior history of criminal activity, it would seem reasonable to catergorize him as largely organized and anti-social, rather than asocial. If that behavioural culminated, eventually, in serial murder, I don't think it would be a loopy or psychotic affair.

Just for jolly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisoc...ality_disorder

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Fisherman,
If the 37 wounds,which it is presumed are not in dispute as to same blade used, were committed while in rage or feenzy on the killer's part,why is it no blows were executed through the clothing.The disarangement of the clothing shows thought on the killer's part, an action to bring the flesh itself open to stabbing.So if you say the slash and sternum wound were done independently by another person,and they were committed after the 37 deliveries it would rule out any frenzy or rage on the part of both your attackers.
One killer one weapon seems the only way to accept Kileens findings,and if there is one fault to find ,it is that Kileen description of the weapon as a penknife might have been wrong,and it's ability to cause a different looking wound, not appreciated.
Regards,
Harry.

[DVV]

Actually, though I concur with the wiew that it is likely that Joe the Burglar was "our" Joe, that is pretty much unproven too.

Hi Fish,
honestly, I'm pretty sure that the 1872 Joe is our Joe. Unproven, of course, but very likely.
More likely and far less far-fetched, IMHO, that the "scavenger/37 stabs + 2 theory".
In any case, Fleming was a resourceful "badman", as far as we can portray him.
Barnett loved Mary and wanted her to live a decent life. He played whist, were unable to help her with little money and to find a new job for months.
Fleming ill-used her for being with a kind guy like Barnett. He was able to pay his rent in the VH for years, he wasn't afraid of hard jobs, he still gave money to Mary even after he had shifted to Whitechapel.
Your view is that, by extraordinary, Fleming witnessed the murder of Tabram, and that would have been the trigger for his subsequent killings...
How unlikely is that, Fish!
The fact that Fleming went to live in Whitechapel in August, on the contrary, makes me think that he did so planning to murder prostitutes there.
Not proven, of course, but just simple and very likely.
I can't see Fleming as a scary scavenger in a "spiral downwards"... That doesn't work... Look: a scary scavenger, with no money, that ill-used Mary... And still Mary were in love with him?
No. As far as I can guess, Mary prefered "bad boy Fleming" to the kind Barnett, with his speech-impediment and good intentions. A man who, after being forced to move out for Miller's Court, said to her "Sorry darling, I have no money for you". A weak and pitiful man who wasn't respected by Mary.
On the contrary, Fleming ill-used her, but still Mary said to her friends that she was "very found of him".
God forgive her...

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

David, excuse me for being such a party-killer, but I really can´t remember when we received proof of Wilson being attacked by Fleming.

Fish, you're not a party-killer, and everything is all-right!
Simply, knowing that Fleming is your favorite suspect, I'm a bit surprised that you dismiss a bit lightly the possibility that he was the one who assaulted Wilson.
A man of medium height (said to be 5'6, when JF was 5'7), white, aged 30, not to say anything about the location...
Not proven? Once again, of course! What can be proven in 2008?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't see why Fleming could not have been a cunning and organized offender, if he was the killer."

I think, Ben, that there is room for such an interpretation of him, without disallowing that he could have set out as a scavenger in Tabram´s case. My reasoning goes along the line that as she lay on that landing, stabbed and badly bleeding, she offered a possibility that met his inner desires - desires that he had managed to suppress up to that night.
Once he had put the knife to her abdomen, only to realize that she was NOT dead, and therefore forcing him to silence her , stabbing her through the heart, Pandoras´ box was wide open. After that, he may well have employed a cunning and stealthy manner as he procured his following victims. And he may well have displayed a number of those things that you mention as being often connected with serial killers.

When you write "Fleming meets more than a few of these critera, and given his prior history of criminal activity, it would seem reasonable to catergorize him as largely organized and anti-social", it is easy to see where you are coming from. But I believe it would be wise to wait with that verdict until we A/ know for sure that Joe the Burglar became Mary´s lover, and B/ know what it was that brought Joe the Burglars earlier verdicts upon him. We cannot ascribe it to the disposition of either a sociopath or a psychopath just like that, can we? The underlying reasons to whatever criminal activities he may hav been into are of the outmost importance. For instance, given the conditions under which the average poor Eastender grew up, I think it is reasonable to believe that quite a few of those who stole, did so to improve the chances of surviving for both themselves and their families. Oliver Twist - though not a figure from real life - was not a psychopath, was he?
More research is needed here!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry asks "why is it no blows were executed through the clothing.The disarangement of the clothing shows thought on the killer's part, an action to bring the flesh itself open to stabbing"

Harry, the clothes were pushed up around the waist, and so I believe we must accept that the lung-piercing stabs, for example, DID go through her clothes. And it is hard to tell how many of the stabs that did so.
A killer intent on destroying another human being, and who resorts to stabbings to reach his goal, would have no reason to disarrange the clothes to do so. And certainly, if he chopped away at the upper part of the torso without opening her clothes there first, it would make little sense if he did so on the lower part.
It has been suggested that she may have done it herself, accomodating for sex, lying down on the landing, and I guess that is a possibility, but I lean to believing that she would not have laid down on a hard concrete landing, reasonably dirty, for sex. Most of it would have been knee-tremblers.

I feel there is a good possibility that Jack was the guy who lifted her skirts; and he DID have a motive for doing so.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Ben]

But I believe it would be wise to wait with that verdict until we A/ know for sure that Joe the Burglar became Mary´s lover, and B/ know what it was that brought Joe the Burglars earlier verdicts upon him.

Agreed wholeheartedly, Fisherman.

Although the chances of Joe the Burglar not being the Joe of Kelly notoriety are slim to non-existent. The extraordinary coincidence of geography would tend to eradicate all reasonable doubt as to the identification.

Not all burglars are psychopaths, I'd agree with you on that score, too. But if Fleming was the killer, as you've persuasively argued, then a previous conviction for burglary is of extreme interest given the number of serial killers who committed less serious crimes in adolescence, whether they were psychopaths or not. Burglary in isolation does not a psycho make, but it must be considered significant when taken in conjunction with all the other evidence that pinpoints Fleming as a very realistic suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"honestly, I'm pretty sure that the 1872 Joe is our Joe. Unproven, of course, but very likely."

Likely, yes - but no more than that so far, David. And even if he WAS the burglar, we know nada of his incentives. Stealing on his families orders, perhaps, to accomodate for a living? There is no flesh on them bones of yours, David, and no nourishing soup can be cooked using fleshless bones.

"In any case, Fleming was a resourceful "badman", as far as we can portray him."

No, David - there is the possibility to interpret things that way, just as there is the possibility to believe that he was NOT the burglar, and that his "ill-using" amounted no precious little - if, indeed, it was true. There´s no "In any case" applicable here, not yet anyways.

Your view is that, by extraordinary, Fleming witnessed the murder of Tabram, and that would have been the trigger for his subsequent killings...
How unlikely is that, Fish!

Unlikely. But the evidence existing offers the possibility for making an interpretation that gives us a fledgling Ripper, detail for detail, including an explanation for his MO, something that has always seemed to have been planned from the outset for some inexplicable reason, something that explains why there were two blades employed, plus it all took place sixty yards from where Fleming lived - Now, David, how unlikely would you describe THAT as...?

"The fact that Fleming went to live in Whitechapel in August, on the contrary, makes me think that he did so planning to murder prostitutes there."

It´s not, David, as if the hunting licenses for prostitutes were only handed down to those living in Whitechapel. He of course did NOT need to move there to kill. Having a place of your own in Bethnal Green would reasonably offer a better chance of not giving yourself away, than staying in the Victoria home with a fair amount of other guys.

"I can't see Fleming as a scary scavenger in a "spiral downwards"... That doesn't work... Look: a scary scavenger, with no money, that ill-used Mary... And still Mary were in love with him?"

I am not saying he stayed a scavenger, David - it´s patently obvious that he did not. What I AM saying though is that it would seem he may have started out that way. And who says he had no money - it´s just as patently obvious that he would have had money; how else could he have given Mary money? How much or how little - who knows?

And on Ada Wilson:
"A man of medium height (said to be 5'6, when JF was 5'7), white, aged 30, not to say anything about the location...
Not proven? Once again, of course!"

David, surely I do not need to tell you that 5 foot six was an average height, just like thirty years of age was an average age, white was THE average colour and being a man was a pretty average sex...?
If you succeed to convict Joe using this, I say damn the jury.
Plus I say that stabbing for the throat was NOT what "my" Ripper was interested in, priority-wise.

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Although the chances of Joe the Burglar not being the Joe of Kelly notoriety are slim to non-existent. The extraordinary coincidence of geography would tend to eradicate all reasonable doubt as to the identification.

Not all burglars are psychopaths, I'd agree with you on that score, too. But if Fleming was the killer, as you've persuasively argued, then a previous conviction for burglary is of extreme interest given the number of serial killers who committed less serious crimes in adolescence, whether they were psychopaths or not. Burglary in isolation does not a psycho make, but it must be considered significant when taken in conjunction with all the other evidence that pinpoints Fleming as a very realistic suspect."

Of course, Ben. Not weighing these things in would be careless, and therefore I do ponder it in much the same fashion as you do. But I´m afraid I don´t buy the stuff about seeing a straight line stretching from burglary to full-blown psychopathy and bloodlust. We are dealing with far too many uncertainties to assert anything at all like that, at least to my mind.
And whichever way you look upon it, what I am throwing forward is that things may well point to him SETTING OUT as a scavenger, in connection with Tabram. That is what this thread is all about - was that how he started?

After that, it seems he was pretty resourceful when it came to procuring victims and doing away with them in a controlled fashion.
But, you see, that does in no way swear against what I am saying - he may well have had a set of norms implanted within him that made him suppress his urges until the Tabram opportunity came along. Up to that moment, he may have spent his time burglarizing for all I know.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Good evening Fish,
I'd say you have a strange way of distorting my arguments...
I'm well aware that 5'6 or 7 is was the average height, and that there was no shortage of white people in London, even in the East-End.
But the way we have to study the case simply doesn't work like that.
From the description given by Ada, nobody can prove that the man was Fleming. That's bloody obvious, and nobody can prove that the man was someone else!
It just doesn't work this way, and this you have to admit.
The interesting fact is that it CAN be him (location+general description, it's not a lot, I agree, but it's not nothing either).
Objecting that I can't prove it was Fleming is a pure nonsense, I'm afraid.

As to the 1872 thief, well, Fish, we have enough, I think, that it was our Joe.
I won't change my opinion on this until we find a SECOND Joe Fleming from Bethnal Green, born 1859. Quite simple and logic.

Now about Fleming's move to Whitechapel in August 1888...
This is very understandably an argument for Fleming's candidacy. Simple and logical, Fish.
To argue that Fleming moved to Whitechapel for no reason connected to the crimes or to his affair with Kelly is baseless and astonishing. It's just arguing against Fleming's candidacy - and quite clumsily. The fact that a strong suspect, be him Fleming or anyone else, moved into the very area of the murders, at the time the murders began, just can't be meaningless.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

But I´m afraid I don´t buy the stuff about seeing a straight line stretching from burglary to full-blown psychopathy and bloodlust.

It's not really a question of "buying" it or not buying it, though. It's what serial killers have been known to do, and it is of considerable significant that the majority of psychopathic serial killers have a criminal history that didn't start with serial murder. A suspect who was known to have committed a burglary in his youth is rendered more legitimately suspicious for that reason.

At the moment, I feel you're slightly in danger of minimizing the potential significance of the very factors that make Joseph Fleming a very viable candidate. The fact that a Joseph Fleming (same age) was arrested a stone's throw away from both our Joseph Fleming's childhood residence and the location vicious attack to a woman's throat in 1888 by a man who fitted his broad physical particulars is one of the more incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I agree in most other respects, but I wouldn't dismiss the very details that make him appear suspicious purely because you don't think they uphold your image of Fleming-as-killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

After having taken part of the disgrace you have posted on the thread about what the MJK1 picture may tell us of her last moment, where you accuse me of wilfully misleading - lying in other words, - I have decided not to answer this or any other posts of yours. If everything goes as planned, I will post a picture tomorrow that emphatically shows that this is as wrong as it is slanderous, and I expect you - for the sake of clarity - to take back that accusation of yours. Of course, it would be nice with an apology too - although I am not anticipating one.

Fisherman

[harry]

Her(Polly)clothing was completely disarranged,the bosom of her petticoat having been ripped away and her garments thrown upward as far as the waist.That Fish is the official description.Killeen describes three areas subject to attack,the throat,the breast and lower abdomen,and the above description tallies with the areas uncovered.Had there been thrusts through the clothing,the police or medical people would have reported so,they were not secretive on the matter.The actions were not those of a disordered or frenzied mind,but of a calculating and orderly one.I will agree that it was a ripper crime,but wholly his.One person,one weapon.That is my opinion, but it supports the information given.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'd say you have a strange way of distorting my arguments..."

Distorting, David?? To distort is to turn what somebody says into something else, and I have not even come close to doing so. What I have said - and what you admit in this post - is that it is VERY little to go by. Male, 5 ft 6, white and around 30 years of age, that is a description that would tally with many, many thousands of men connected to the area, David. What you did was to suggest that this would have been enough for me to rewrite my article for Ripperologist, grounded on the the obvious explanation that this man may very well have been Fleming, and it frankly does not amount to anything that even makes me feel it should have been included in the article.
There is and remains a possibility that it may have been Fleming, yes - but that possibility is a truly tiny one if we weigh in the competition, consisting of the total population of violent robbers in the East end at the time, and displaying roughly the same characteristics aas outlined above. And like I say, my guess is that Ada Wilson did not meet the Ripper that day.

It has nothing to do with distortion, I´m afraid. Why would I want to distort your wiews, David?

On his move to Whitechapel: Of course it is interesting, David. But to my mind, the primary value of it all is that it provides us with an address that makes any theory of Fleming being the killer so much more useful. To speculate that he actually moved there to enable him to kill is something I would be very careful about. There were prostitutes all over the East end, and so he did not HAVE to move to Whitechapel to find prey. In fact, it can be resaoned that it would be a more clever approach NOT to live where you killer, taking the heat of you person when it came to house-searching and such things.
No, I find it much more credible that he moved for other reasons - economical reasons, having found work close to the Victoria home or that he simply wanted to move closer to Mary Kelly. Any of these reasons are - to my mind, and without having any wish to "distort" anything - more credible explanations to his move. I find it strange that you should dub this conviction of mine "clumsy", David, with so very little to go on.

All the best, David!
Fisherman