So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Ben]

Hi Brummie,

That was Joseph Fleming:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=28059&highlight=fleming#post28059

[brummie]

Thanks for that Ben. This Joseph Fleming certainly seems to be a charachter worthy of further investigation, I wonder why he doesn't appear more regularly on suspect lists given the description of his behaviour on that link.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It seems much more likely to me that JTR was a local man rather than most of the relatively well to do named suspects, who would attract attention and a fair amount of risk wandering the streets and alleyways of a place like Whitechapple. It probably wouldnt be that unusual for a local man to be seen around the streets at that time, it is quite interesting to note the level of activity going on in Whitechapple even in the very early hours.

As for Barnet being the killer I hve always been put off him as JTR because the motive I have seen put forward i.e. killing prostitutes in order to scare MJK off the streets, has always seemed unconvincing to me. However it occurs to me now the possibility that he could have killed the other victims after building up some kind of resentment of prostitutes because of MJK refusal to give up her profession. Maybe he didnt leave her at all but she kicked him out in order to carry on, and this led him to her total obliteration. It would be interesting to know his whereabouts on the nights of the other killings and if he had an alibi also what he did after the death of MJK.

I can't rule out the possibility that Barnett may have been MJK:s killer; he had recently had a row with her and left the premises a week before the murder and as always it is usually the male closest to the victim (spouse, boyfriend, husband) who tend to be the perpetrator.Nor should we take Barnett's alibi too seriously since we can't actually be sure of the time of death, nor could the medical men agree on it at the time. So common sesne dictates, that if the time of death wasn't what was generally expected, then Barnett's alibi could be irrelevent.

That said, I find Fleming to be of bigger interest, since he apparently seems to have been of some violent disposition and also appear to have been mentally unstable, at least a few years later on. He also had a close connection with the murder victim while she still lived with Barnett.

Let me just say, that regardless of what one might think of Barnett as the perpetrator in the Kelly murder, I have never seen any reason to ever suspect him of being Jack the Ripper. In short, there is simply no evidence that even suggests such a thing, and Pailey's arguments in his book are less than convincing in that regards, although his research is interesting.
As far as I am concerned, it is quite OK to suspect him of the Kelly murder but it beats me why he should have killed the others.

Nor do I believe in the nonsense theories about MJK being the catalyst behind the whole Ripper outrage. Such speculations are a pure result of romanticising Mary Jane Kelly and I simply can't take them seriously.

All the best

[brummie]

Hi Glenn,

Just to be clear are you saying that you do not believe Kelly to have been a victim of JTR? It is surely a huge coincidence for two homicidal maniacs to be operating in the same area at the same time, and lets face it Kelly was not just murdered but obliterated. Joseph Flemings violent behaviour and mental state must surely make him a candidate for all the killings yet he seems to have slipped under the radar. Do we know the exact nature of his mental illness?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Yes, Brummie,

Although I can't say for sure - who can? - I most certainly DON'T consider MJK to be a Ripper victim, and for several reasons (see also my earlier post above).

Fleming (or rather, "John Evans"), I believe, displayed rather paranoid violent behaviour when he was brought in, he was psychologically absent and he reacted very violently when he was interviewed or subjected to pressure. His pulse also went over 100.
I can't say, though, that I've seen any firm diagnosis.

All the best

[Ben]

Hi Brummie,

I'd echo Glenn's view that Fleming is of great interest. His lack of "exposure", for want of a better word, is probably due to the fact that the more salient details concerning his character and history have arrived relatively late in the day. Currently he's generating much interest, which will no doubt be fuelled as and when new information emerges.

Best regards,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

With Glenn and "perrymason" around, it's amazing how every thread seems to become a "Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim" thread... Come on, guys, give it a rest already. Please keep it to a thread devoted specifically to that topic so the debate over that doesn't spill over onto the whole board.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I am only responding to posts already on the subject, nothing more - I wouldn't dream of starting a conversation on a thread not devoted to it.
In fact, on some occasions you yourself have actually started such a conversation on a thread where it doesn't belong.
And in case you haven't noticed, I also post about other things, not least on this thread.

But in principal I agree with you, although I am not sure who appointed you as a moderator.

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Guys,
A simple question from yours truely,a man that has been fascinated by this subject since 1959, why that year? answer proberly a 'victorian' history lesson mentioning that 'Name'.
So who was 'Jack'?
I have attempted to decifer every snippit of information, that was/is available to us over the years, and my conclusion is / will always be/ the answer to a possible outcome, lies with the death of Mary jane kelly, and therefore the series may have been the result of a domestic nature. which would suggest suspects, that would include, her common law, JB, her Ex, Fleming, and a possible not much discussed the illusive Lawrence.
It is also fair to assume, that because we are not in the position to be priviliged to any other names that may have presented themselves to poor Mjk, leading up to her death, someone else may have had a leading role in this huge mystery...
So That is my intake on this ongoing crime, what are your views 'CASEBOOK'
Best Regards,
Richard.

"Jack The Ripper" was believed by Police to be an Editor of a Newspaper.
"The Whitechapel Murderer" was never conclusively found. Although I suspect the truth of the matter is far more scary than any "solution" to his identity could muster. He was you and me. He was your next door neighbor. Your Mailman..Your trashman..The only thing different between him and most is that he was able to keep his mouth shut.

[Graham]

"Jack The Ripper" was believed by Police to be an Editor of a Newspaper.
"The Whitechapel Murderer" was never conclusively found. Although I suspect the truth of the matter is far more scary than any "solution" to his identity could muster. He was you and me. He was your next door neighbor. Your Mailman..Your trashman..The only thing different between him and most is that he was able to keep his mouth shut.

I think I'd be inclined to keep my trap shut if I'd brutally murdered a few prostitutes...

...trashmen in the East End of 1888? You kidding?

Cheers,

Graham

[Mitch Rowe]

I think I'd be inclined to keep my trap shut if I'd brutally murdered a few prostitutes...

...trashmen in the East End of 1888? You kidding?

Cheers,

Graham

Im just making a point that he could be anyone at any time. Many people do talk eventually. If we assume JTR lived past 1888 and that after MJK he just went about his daily business then he never did anything to cast suspicion on him if he wasnt a guy like Chapman.

[FrankO]

Hi Graham,

If the police actually did haul in our killer, and give him a bit of a grilling but nevertheless sent him on his way, maybe he did think, "Sod this - enough's enough!"

It took a minimum of some 20-25 years for the man who butchered at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes to grow into the man who did that like he did, in so short a time span. I doubt that this man would really be able to think (and act accordingly): "Sod this - enough's enough!" and gave it up after only 2.5 or 3 months. I rather think he was incarcerated, sent to Broadmoor, killed, otherwise incapacitated or whatever.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

It needn't have been a conscious decision to stop permamently. Serial killers are, however, quite capable of "pausing" for prolonged periods of time. Incapacitated or incarcerated he may have been eventually, but it needn't have occured right after the Miller's Court murder.

Best regards,
Ben

[FrankO]

Hi Natalie/Norma,

The reason I have doubts about him being a "local" is that not only the women most obviously in danger but everyone in the East End was on the look out for him.So if he was local in the sense of living there,various "neighbours" would have reported it---in fact we know they did report on their neighbours. Anyone checking in new lodgings would have raised alarm too and if the newcomer began acting at all suspiciously ,someone somewhere would have reported it.

It's my impression that generally everyone who stood out risked being brought under the attention of the police - local or not. Obviously, strangers would stand out easier than locals. Wouldn't the logical 'solution' then be that The Ripper was someone who just didn't stand out and was quite probably local?

What is particularly surprising is that the prostitutes didnt appear to "know" him, and this was true as much at the time as afterwards when the murders had stopped.

It has never appeared to me like that. As far as I'm concerned, the prostitutes may actually have known him, they may only have known him by sight, or they may not have known him at all. There's nothing to particularly point in a certain direction.

I often wonder if this is what happened regarding Kate.Highly aroused still and hotfoot from Berner Street ,he saw Kate leading her mister into Mitre Square and went straight to the secret spot he had for himself to wait and watch there and when her" liaison" was over and the man had moved off he pounced before Katehad time to rearrange her five skirts and three pockets!

This scenario would even lessen the relatively little time the Ripper had at his disposal to do what he did to Eddowes.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Ben,

It needn't have been a conscious decision to stop permamently. Serial killers are, however, quite capable of "pausing" for prolonged periods of time. Incapacitated or incarcerated he may have been eventually, but it needn't have occured right after the Miller's Court murder.

I agree that, if he stopped permanently, it very unlikely was his conscious decision to do so. I know that serial killers in general are capable of 'pausing' for prolonged periods of time, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the Ripper specifically here. Although he seems to have taken some simple precautions not to get caught and, to a certain extent, to have been in control of himself and the situation at hand, he strikes me as an impulsive murderer rather than a cool planner. Considering that he killed 3 women in only 1 month and under high-risk circumstances, I just wonder if such a murderer would have been able to stop of his own volition for a period longer than, say, half a year. I see killers like Rader, Bundy and the Zodiac as different, certainly in this respect.

Cheers,
Frank