The Ripper's MO....

[Christine]

Wasn't it determined that Fleming was unusually tall and thin? Since none of the witnesses describe seeing an unusually tall and thin man, it is highly unlikely that anyone saw him.

Ah yes, here it is.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2079

6' 7", 11 stone 8.

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

Legitimate concerns have been raised as to the accuracy of the the height and weight suggested for Fleming in the report referred to. For starters, we know that the report gave a wrong age - it was out by about five years, as I recall - and in addition, we have the added complication of him being referred to as having enjoyed good bodily health. It's difficult to envisage how he managed that when he was 6"7 and 11 stone in weight, unless of course the records contained another erroneous detail.

Hi Mike,

If Hutchinson was a crank, I wouldn't expect him to appropriate the identity of the Wideawake man as soon as the latter's existence became public knowledge, chiefly because he'd be putting himself in harm's way without giving himself an alibi for the crucial murder time-frame. I've never heard of any publicity-seeking crank ever employing such a tactic. False confessions, yes. False witness statements, plenty. But not a bogus witness stealing the identity of an independently observed suspect and then pretending to be a witness.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

if Blotchy was still in that room, then yes, i too believe that HUTCH was on guard duty outside, if not; then Hutch on his own is good enough for me.

Hutch on guard duty makes a lot of sense anyway, but it doesn't explain JTR attacking Kelly with a knife first...or appearing too, this for me is the biggest problem of all....because it tells me that he broke in and she woke up...or she upset him in conversation and he flew into a rage.....because, there are simply too many opportunities to strangle her first, over a 4 hour period.

[Malcolm X]

And i assume you had cold weather gear and where moving about quit alot.
My point was that if jack was staking out the room he would have either walked past several times, possibly drawing attention or he woud have been hidden and still. Hidden and still would be a danger to him for cold weather injury. Look i was an infantryman in the US Army for 22 years, Ive been to Alaska, Korea (which was even colder when the wind blows if you can believe that), and Germany in the wintertime standing guard at missile bases where you cant move around. The rule was 20 minutes tops before you are relieved from outside duty when the temp dropped below 40 becous hypothermia is a very real danger. the more i think about it it was raining that night too so that increases the time factor becouse now you are wet so take that time down from 15 minutes to 10 before you start to feel the effects.

uuum i was wearing a heavy jacket only, no cloves....in Belgium....that American air base was bloody freezing, we stopped work every 2 hours and went inside the Range Rover to warm up, but, that was miles colder than Whitechapel.....that night was above freezing point, or it wouldn't have rained; but snowed instead..

i've regularly worked outside as a Rigger/ Labourer in temps as cold as Whitechapel....easy! i worked with guys that used to wear shorts in that cold weather... real tough Northerners from Yorkshire....beer drinking/womanising/fighting all the time, you know the types...as hard as nails.

people back then were much hardier too, so they were well used to the cold.

[Malcolm X]

it would be virtually impossible to be 6ft 7'' and 11 .8 stone...i'm 5ft 9'' and 14 stone and i'm slim..... well i'm stocky but definitely not overweight.

6ft 7'' and only 11.8 stones, good grief, he'd be as weak as hell and totally undernourised...not nearly strong or agile enough to be JTR, plus and more importantly, nobody was ever seen that tall..he'd look like a total freak back in 1888

try 5ft 7'' and 11.8 stone, now that makes sense.

[smezenen]

you dont know enough about the Hutch theory do you?

Yes Ive read the Theory. And heres what just dont make sence about it. Why after getting away clean would he make up his story to throw the police off his trail when they where never on it to begin with. If he attended the inquest to find out what they knew then he would have known he was in the clear and not had to make it up. Sarah Lewis doesnt give a good enough discription of the man she sees for the police to figure out its him until after he states he was there, and then they only assume it was him she saw. As you say it dont feel right. Since you wanted to make it personal i will not be responding to your posts anymore.

[Christine]

It's underweight but it certainly isn't freakishly underweight, or inconsistent with being otherwise healthy. It's a BMI of 18.2, anything below 18.5 is considered underweight. It's only about 6 pounds shy of the normal low weight cutoff. It isn't necessarily too weak to be the Ripper, certainly. So I don't see a hugely compelling reason to assume that it's a mistake. Of course if Fleming really was that tall, no witness saw him and he certainly wasn't Blotchy.

[DVV]

Wasn't it determined that Fleming was unusually tall and thin? Since none of the witnesses describe seeing an unusually tall and thin man, it is highly unlikely that anyone saw him.

Hi Christine,
just a quick post, for we're a bit off-topic.
Ben is absolutely right, and you've to bear in mind that the records also quote Fleming's mother, who is supposed to have said something like : "Madness is in our family for 160 years."
I take this as another evidence that somebody in the infirmary used to shape his 6 like a 5, for she's much more likely to have said "150 years".

Joe was therefore 5'7 for 70 kg.
Good enough to play scrum half.
Good enough to be Sailor Man too.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Why after getting away clean would he make up his story to throw the police off his trail when they where never on it to begin with

To pre-empt what he felt would be inevitable suspicion, a tactic used by other serial killers when they feel there is a strong likelihood of them being questioned at the very least. By coming forward, they supply the police with a false persona - usually that of a witness or informer - to ensure that, in the event of being suspected, they can remind the police how cooperative they were, and that they were only seen at the crime scene for the "innocent" reason they gave before. In Hutchinson's case, any subsequent recognition on the part of Sarah Lewis that he was the man seen in the wideawake could be countered with "See? Just as I told you. Than man would have been me, according to the innocent reason I gave you earlier."

If he attended the inquest to find out what they knew then he would have known he was in the clear and not had to make it up. Sarah Lewis doesnt give a good enough discription of the man she sees for the police to figure out its him until after he states he was there, and then they only assume it was him she saw

He couldn't have known he was in the clear. A description is not the same as a sighting. There are people whose faces I can easily recognise again without being able to dive a decent description of them, necessarily. Compounding the problem in this case was the fact that earlier witness statements had been suppressed from the inquest record, and this could have happened again with the Lewis sighting, for all the real killer (whoever he was) knew.

But back on topic!

It's a BMI of 18.2, anything below 18.5 is considered underweight. It's only about 6 pounds shy of the normal low weight cutoff.

But surely "6 pounds shy of the normal low weight cutoff" is freakishly underweight, Christine? Physically, at least, he must have looked very unusual indeed at a towering 6'7 in height but only 11 stone in weight. I can't rule anything out, but based on these oddities and the fact that the record was certainly wrong in other respects, I'm inclined towards David's explanation.

Best regards,
Ben

[smezenen]

To pre-empt what he felt would be inevitable suspicion, a tactic used by other serial killers


He couldn't have known he was in the clear. A description is not the same as a sighting. There are people whose faces I can easily recognise again without being able to dive a decent description of them, necessarily. Compounding the problem in this case was the fact that earlier witness statements had been suppressed from the inquest record, and this could have happened again with the Lewis sighting, for all the real killer (whoever he was) knew.

Ben,
I'm sure you have researched this so can you give an example of a serial killer who used this ploy?

Your second statement, the part in bold only boslters the fact that he didnt need to throw the police off unless someone at the inquest identified him, IE pointed him out AT the inquest. So Why even attend the inquest when its more likey that the police will discover him just becouse he attended? He isnt documented as being at any of the other inquests, so If Hutch is JTR would this not be a break of his after killing behaviour? Another shift in his MO as it where.

Im interested in the theory but its just not clicking for me becouse of this unneeded part of the behaviour.

[Ben]

Hi Smez,

I'm sure you have researched this so can you give an example of a serial killer who used this ploy?

I've referenced several in the past, but prostitute serial killer John Eric Armstrong is one of the better examples:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/armstrong/jordan_1.html

Hutchinson didn't need to have attended the inquest in order to have learned of Sarah Lewis' account. He could easily have learned the detail through word of mouth, or simply by observing the witnesses as he joinined the masses that gathered around the Shoreditch Town Hall on the day of the inquest. He wouldn't have been coming forward as a result of being identified by name, but rather as a result of being seen and fearing - legitimately or otherwise - that the sighting would lead eventually to an identification.

Best regards,
Ben

[Christine]

At that height and weight Fleming would clearly have looked unusual, but he would not necessarily have had health problems other than being slightly underweight. The record refers to him as healthy, and that is at least possible at 6' 7", 11 stone 8. The six on the notes looks nothing like a five. I'm inclined to accept the figures as they are written unless some further evidence comes forward that he was shorter. I wouldn't consider this freakishly underweight because it's not evidence of disease or abnormality, just tall and thin.

People who think that any of the witnesses described Fleming have two assumptions that they have to prove. One is that Fleming could have been the man at all, the other is that the information about Fleming's height is incorrect. So far, there really isn't a convincing reason to believe either. Really, Toppy is a much more likely candidate.

[smezenen]

Ben,
Thanks i'll check out that link. Im sorry if im asking you to go over old materialbut ive only been here a few months.

[Ben]

No worries, Smez! Glad to help out.

At that height and weight Fleming would clearly have looked unusual, but he would not necessarily have had health problems other than being slightly underweight

He would have been more than slightly underweight, Christine.

He was still referred to as being in "good" health even when his weight dropped to 11 stone 2, which is possible, if very unlikely. You point to the fact that the "six on the notes looks nothing like a five", and decide on that basis to accept the notes as they were written despite the various problems with that acceptance, as discussed above. The age given looks just like "37", but if we were to accept that as written, we'd be wrong, because we know that 37 was five years too old for Fleming's actual age. There was never any suggestion from Kelly, as recounted by her friends and acquaintances, that he had so noteworthy and conspicuous an appearance.

People who think that any of the witnesses described Fleming have two assumptions that they have to prove. One is that Fleming could have been the man at all, the other is that the information about Fleming's height is incorrect.

I don't think anyone is trying to "prove" any of those things. That can't be done at this remove in time, obviously. What we can work with is inferential probability, which suggests that Fleming could have been the man, and since we know that the Fleming notes contained errors, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that Fleming's height and weight could have been equally incorrect.

Really, Toppy is a much more likely candidate.

Toppy?!?

But back on topic: The Ripper's MO.

[DVV]

At that height and weight Fleming would clearly have looked unusual, but he would not necessarily have had health problems other than being slightly underweight. The record refers to him as healthy, and that is at least possible at 6' 7", 11 stone 8. The six on the notes looks nothing like a five. I'm inclined to accept the figures as they are written unless some further evidence comes forward that he was shorter. I wouldn't consider this freakishly underweight because it's not evidence of disease or abnormality, just tall and thin.

Hi Christine,

please, remember Fleming was a dock labourer. Almost impossible for the man you think he was.
The documents we have seen are a final form based on various drafts, I guess, whether it's simply a mistake (a bit less likely, when I think of "160 years").
Remember also that his weight hasn't varied when in asylum. And constantly: good health.
Remember also that had he been such a freak, this detail would certainly have been known to Mary's friends. None of them said anything about this incredible appearance, though they obviously tried their best to reveal all they knew about Joe.
And no, it isn't just about being "tall and thin".
It's incredibly tall (perhaps the tallest man in England at the time), and incredibly thin.

Amitiés,
David