the key

[GregBaron]

Uterus, kidney, heart...

I used to profess to that belief too. Now, however, I think that believing that all four murders must have had the same incentive if the killer was the same, may be what is standing in the way of understanding the whole series. I will try to make myself a bit clearer, and I will try to keep it short:

A/ Much points to Kelly being slain by somebody she knew; the killing venue in her room, the "cozy" setting, with a lit fire and Kelly undressed, having tucked her clothes away, the fact that it was dreadful night, arguably preventing her from any further excursions after Blotchy etcetera.

B/ Much points to her being slain by the Ripper - the notched vertebrae, the eviscerations, the removal of the flesh flaps over her abdomen etcetera.

C/ Little point to the other murders - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - being aquaintances of the killer. They seem to be opportunistic killings, with randomly chosen victims.

Now, I think we can safely deduct that the killer was driven by an urge in the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes killings. We can call it lust murders, if we like, or simply speak of something he felt compelled to do. But I donīt think that Kelly is another one of the same! Too much differs, and we must ask ourselves why.

I have in an article for Ripperologist put forward the theory that Joseph Fleming may have been the killer of these women. He moved into the heart of the area where the murders occurred in the late summer or early autumn, and he lived in the Victoria Home, pretty much centering him in it all.

Fleming ended up in an asylum, one of the main reasons being that he had developed delusions of persecution. He was also known to have maltreated Kelly, so we seemingly have a history that may involve violent behaviour against women.

All in all, that is not a bad list of traits, looking for the Ripper.

Now, Greg - assume that Fleming was the Whitechapel killer, and that he killed out of urge/lust. Further assume that the delusions of persecution that got him incarcerated 1892, had already begun to chew away at him in the autumn of 1888. If this was true, then he may have felt that he was persecuted by people who closed in on him more and more. Maybe he felt that it was just a matter of time before he was caught and revealed as the Whitechapel monster.
He would also have known - if it was him - that he had been seen with Eddowes in Church Lane. Maybe now he was convinced that it was just a matter of time before the game was up. And maybe that belief grew stronger and stronger between the Eddowes murder and early November.

So what to do? And, more importantly, how would the woman he loved and who was very fond of him (using Barnettīs own words) react to the information that she had been sharing her life with the Whitechapel killer?

Perhaps in a situation like this, he decided to tell her himself. Perhaps he believed that she would never abandon him, come what may. Maybe she had told him so herself, who can tell - they apparently could not stay away from each other in spite of Kelly staying with Barnett.

This is why I wonder: Did Joe Fleming go to Millerīs Court in the early hours of Friday the 9:th of November 1888, to confess to Mary Kelly that he was the man the police were looking for? Did he climb into the bed with her, hesitating in the longest before he broke the news? And what were his plans? Did he suggest that they should flee together? That they should form a suicide pact?
And did Mary react in the exact opposite way that he was hoping for, becoming outraged and telling that she would never do anything like it?

And was that what brought about the rage?

Did he kill her, annihilate her, try to erase her from the face of earth, throwing the sheet over her face before he could manage to destroy her features? And did he choose the one part of her that had always been what he was after - her heart - as he was done?

And was this why the killings stopped after Kelly - because Joe Fleming was a spent man, slowly slipping down the road to madness, bound for the asylums?

This is a scenario that interests me very much, since it covers most things involved, including the question why the killings stopped. And this is also why I donīt necessarily see the Kelly killing as a lust murder. Lust murderers do not choose the victimīs heart, do they...?

Fisherman,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You're nothing if not thorough. Your scenario is certainly plausible although I find it a bit melodramatic and I'm not sure we can equate a missing heart to some Hallmark moment. Organs had been taken before, perhaps the increased time gave him the idea to take home the heart 'to fry it up nise'. It might taste better! Again, speculation can run rampant. Maybe it was someone she knew as in a punter who had pre-arranged an early morning rendezvous. Some have argued that Eddowes and Stride might have had pre-arranged meetings. Your idea has credence and I know many on these boards harbor similar views. It is easier for me to believe that MJK is the culmination of a series by a sick boyfriend than a one-off domestic I must say.....

Greg

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I really don't understand why some people are dismissing the "intruder" premise on the basis of the room's "darkness". I might agree that a complete stranger might have trouble immediately locating Kelly within that small room, but this would not have been any obstacle to someone with a passing familiarity with the layout of the room (a previous punter, for instance), especially when aided by the light of a smoldering fire. Bear in mind that the killer had no trouble negotiating the extreme darkness of the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed."

The corner of Mitre Square was nowhere near "extreme darkness", Ben - it was a very small square (which you frequently point out yourself), and there was a gas lamp burning in the opposite corner. Such things do not bring about any extreme darkness! The corner was the darkest one of the square, yes, but in no way pitch dark. Dutfields yard would have been darker, and room 13, Millerīs court the very darkest venue of them all, if no light source was about in the room.

As for an aquaintance being able to navigate the room better than other people: yes, that is true. Whether there was any smoldering fire or not, we canīt tell. The ones who commented on it said that there was NO light coming from her room at the later stages of the night. Maybe the fire was accompanying Blotchyīs visit, only to fade and die long before the killer came around.

At any rate, all the POTENTIAL shortcomings that relate to an intruder scenario - the POTENTIAL darkness, the POTENTIALLY creaking floorboards, the POTENTIALLY creaking hinges on the door, the POTENTIAL waking up of Kelly, the POTENTIAL falling over a ginger beer bottle on the floor, the POTENTIAL you name it - are not there if we work from the suggestion that Kelly let her killer in volunteerly.

And potential nuisances are also nuisances.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"Yes Fisherman, if MJK was taken in isolation one might suspect an Ed Gingrich type but on the tale of at least 3 similar murders I find it less convincing...."

I used to profess to that belief too. Now, however, I think that believing that all four murders must have had the same incentive if the killer was the same, may be what is standing in the way of understanding the whole series. I will try to make myself a bit clearer, and I will try to keep it short:

A/ Much points to Kelly being slain by somebody she knew; the killing venue in her room, the "cozy" setting, with a lit fire and Kelly undressed, having tucked her clothes away, the fact that it was dreadful night, arguably preventing her from any further excursions after Blotchy etcetera.

B/ Much points to her being slain by the Ripper - the notched vertebrae, the eviscerations, the removal of the flesh flaps over her abdomen etcetera.

C/ Little point to the other murders - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - being aquaintances of the killer. They seem to be opportunistic killings, with randomly chosen victims.

Now, I think we can safely deduct that the killer was driven by an urge in the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes killings. We can call it lust murders, if we like, or simply speak of something he felt compelled to do. But I donīt think that Kelly is another one of the same! Too much differs, and we must ask ourselves why.

I have in an article for Ripperologist put forward the theory that Joseph Fleming may have been the killer of these women. He moved into the heart of the area where the murders occurred in the late summer or early autumn, and he lived in the Victoria Home, pretty much centering him in it all.

Fleming ended up in an asylum, one of the main reasons being that he had developed delusions of persecution. He was also known to have maltreated Kelly, so we seemingly have a history that may involve violent behaviour against women.

All in all, that is not a bad list of traits, looking for the Ripper.

Now, Greg - assume that Fleming was the Whitechapel killer, and that he killed out of urge/lust. Further assume that the delusions of persecution that got him incarcerated 1892, had already begun to chew away at him in the autumn of 1888. If this was true, then he may have felt that he was persecuted by people who closed in on him more and more. Maybe he felt that it was just a matter of time before he was caught and revealed as the Whitechapel monster.
He would also have known - if it was him - that he had been seen with Eddowes in Church Lane. Maybe now he was convinced that it was just a matter of time before the game was up. And maybe that belief grew stronger and stronger between the Eddowes murder and early November.

So what to do? And, more importantly, how would the woman he loved and who was very fond of him (using Barnettīs own words) react to the information that she had been sharing her life with the Whitechapel killer?

Perhaps in a situation like this, he decided to tell her himself. Perhaps he believed that she would never abandon him, come what may. Maybe she had told him so herself, who can tell - they apparently could not stay away from each other in spite of Kelly staying with Barnett.

This is why I wonder: Did Joe Fleming go to Millerīs Court in the early hours of Friday the 9:th of November 1888, to confess to Mary Kelly that he was the man the police were looking for? Did he climb into the bed with her, hesitating in the longest before he broke the news? And what were his plans? Did he suggest that they should flee together? That they should form a suicide pact?
And did Mary react in the exact opposite way that he was hoping for, becoming outraged and telling that she would never do anything like it?

And was that what brought about the rage?

Did he kill her, annihilate her, try to erase her from the face of earth, throwing the sheet over her face before he could manage to destroy her features? And did he choose the one part of her that had always been what he was after - her heart - as he was done?

And was this why the killings stopped after Kelly - because Joe Fleming was a spent man, slowly slipping down the road to madness, bound for the asylums?

This is a scenario that interests me very much, since it covers most things involved, including the question why the killings stopped. And this is also why I donīt necessarily see the Kelly killing as a lust murder. Lust murderers do not choose the victimīs heart, do they...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"Barnett was questioned by detectives (plural) was he not?"

That he was!

"And wouldn't those same detectives have submitted a report?"

That they would!

"So at least more than one person would have had to have dropped the ball big time not to have verified Barnett's alibi."

Thatīs about it, yes.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Hello Curious,

Like I have said before it does not necessarily follow that Barnett was not charged because he had an air tight alibi, it would have been because the police did not believe that they had the evidence to convict him. If they were attempting to charge him with being Jack the Ripper his alibis for the nights of the previous murders would have been just as important as his one for the Kelly murder.

Another point to take into account is that there is serious concern as to the actual time of death of Kelly. Certainly the murderer would have definately known what time she died.

If the police were asking questions about the wrong time then anyone could create an air tight alibi for a time time when the murder wasnt actually committed.

Best wishes.

Hi, Hatchett,

I realize the difference of airtight alibi vs. not enough to charge. However, there is nothing anywhere that indicates that was even a thought with the police, that Barnett was the killer, but there was not enough to charge him.

I have not seen a single indication of that. Just the opposite, in fact.

I do take into account the time of Kelly's death. Actually, medical evidence has her dying mid-morning. Maxwell seeing Kelly so ill around 8:30 might account for her being undressed and lying down in the middle of the day. However, because Barnett had lived there for 18 months, he would have been so well known that had he been seen in the area during the morning, someone would surely have reported it.

Don't you think there is almost no possibility Barnett could have snuck back in daylight with people about and no one have seen him?

best wishes,

curious

[GregBaron]

Funny, disagree, agree....

"Police: Do you have an alibi for the night of the murder?

Suspect: Yes.

Police: All right then. Next!"

Thanks c.d. I'm with Fisherman here.......this made me laugh......

That is a point that can very easily be made, and it has got tons of things going for it. And still, I would say that in the series of killings, ranging from Nichols to Kelly, the one murder that I do not regard as neccessarily being lust driven, is the Kelly killing.
Search the net for Ed Gingrich, amishman and wifekiller, and you may realize what Iīm after here, greg!

Yes Fisherman, if MJK was taken in isolation one might suspect an Ed Gingrich type but on the tale of at least 3 similar murders I find it less convincing....

I really don't understand why some people are dismissing the "intruder" premise on the basis of the room's "darkness". I might agree that a complete stranger might have trouble immediately locating Kelly within that small room, but this would not have been any obstacle to someone with a passing familiarity with the layout of the room (a previous punter, for instance), especially when aided by the light of a smoldering fire. Bear in mind that the killer had no trouble negotiating the extreme darkness of the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed.

I agree with Ben here....it wouldn't take a navy seal to sneak in that apartment in the middle of the night......remember stalking and sneaking is what serial killers do.........it's part of the game......Ted Bundy would have laughed at such an easy entrance.....


Greg

[c.d.]

By the way...with regard to the pronunciation of Abberline's name, is it lean or line?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Fisherman,

Thanks for the kind words. And to you as well.

Barnett was questioned by detectives (plural) was he not? And wouldn't those same detectives have submitted a report? So at least more than one person would have had to have dropped the ball big time not to have verified Barnett's alibi.

Abberline: So did you find the statements made by his fellow lodgers to be credible?

Detectives: What statements?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"Police: Do you have an alibi for the night of the murder?

Suspect: Yes.

Police: All right then. Next!"

Did Monty Python try that one? Should have, leastwise...!

Good to see you out and about, C.d. And a fair, fair point!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"This was a lust murder of an extremely mentally ill person."

That is a point that can very easily be made, and it has got tons of things going for it. And still, I would say that in the series of killings, ranging from Nichols to Kelly, the one murder that I do not regard as neccessarily being lust driven, is the Kelly killing.
Search the net for Ed Gingrich, amishman and wifekiller, and you may realize what Iīm after here, greg!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"How do we know they checked out Barnett's alibi? If there is not any evidence they did then we are just assuming. You would think its a no brainer they did but perhaps they were impressed enough by his 4 hour interrogation, that he came forward himself and his inquest testimony."

The things you guys suggest! The polce searched Barnetts clothes for bloodspots. That is hardly something they would do if they were impressed enough by his coming forward to throw all suspicions overboard, is it?

He was interrogated, and the first question they would have asked would be where he was during the murder night. To even speculate that they may have dropped the idea of checking it out afterwards is not a very viable idea.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

I guess an intruder would have located Mary OK. He'd have found her in the general direction of where the cry "Oh murder" came from.

[Ben]

I really don't understand why some people are dismissing the "intruder" premise on the basis of the room's "darkness". I might agree that a complete stranger might have trouble immediately locating Kelly within that small room, but this would not have been any obstacle to someone with a passing familiarity with the layout of the room (a previous punter, for instance), especially when aided by the light of a smoldering fire. Bear in mind that the killer had no trouble negotiating the extreme darkness of the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was killed.

[c.d.]

Scotland Yard detectives couldn't figure out that an alibi needs to be checked out and substantiated? I can just see it now. A long line of suspects entering police headquarters and detectives seated behind a table.

Police: Do you have an alibi for the night of the murder?

Suspect: Yes.

Police: All right then. Next!

Jeez no wonder they couldn't catch anyone. C'mon guys this is just laughable.

c.d.

[GregBaron]

Murder of passion?

Very well said Ausgirl,

Few seem to understand this isn't a one-off lose your temper type murder. Copycats don't go to this extreme. This was a lust murder of an extremely mentally ill person. IMHO John Douglass's Book said that some surgeons thought the murderer may have spent 2 hours in there! (Off the top of my head). A 2 hour murder of passion? Please..........


Greg