the key

[Heinrich]

Hello Heinrich,
....Can you honestly imagine a bloodthirsty killer tidily roll up the bedroll, and place what has been suggested as the stocking of Mary's left leg over it., rather then sling away every thing in his way?

We cannot tell from the photographs for certain what appears to be cloth about Mary Kelly's ankle or even what is folded on the bedside table. No contemporaneous mention is made of either item. It calls for speculation. On the other hand, it is stated that Mary's clothes were folded neatly so, a folded bolster is at least consistent.

[Lechmere]

Fisherman

The point about rough looking women is that the Ripper tended to ply his trade in the early hours, when the least favoured prostitutes, those more down on their luck than most, would tend to predominate. And when the swarm of prostitutes was mostly asleep. That would skew his victims in the ‘rough’ direction, although that would not be an absolute, as shown by Kelly (and maybe Coles, though I am reluctant to include Coles).

I tend to doubt that he picked ‘rough’. He would need to find one when he was both ‘in the mood’ and when no one else was about. I would presume they would be his primary considerations, rather than finding a pretty one. I don’t think he was bothered about their appearance, although he may have also gained an unexpected voyeuristic pleasure from Kelly undressing before killing her.

Wife murderers tend to just murder wives or girlfriends – like Ed Gingerich, Bury or Chapman (multiple wives) – ah but not Christie!

The giant Flemming seems a poor suspect to me.

Of course Kelly will have known some people, probably quite a few people. But out of the tens of thousands living with a few minute’s walk of her abode, her circle of friends will have been a drop in the ocean.

If Kelly’s killer didn’t go there with murder on his mind, he seems to have gone equipped for murder!

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The point about rough looking women is that the Ripper tended to ply his trade in the early hours, when the least favoured prostitutes, those more down on their luck than most, would tend to predominate. And when the swarm of prostitutes was mostly asleep. That would skew his victims in the ‘rough’ direction, although that would not be an absolute, as shown by Kelly (and maybe Coles, though I am reluctant to include Coles)."

I dunno, Lechmere - I think your reasoning somewhat predisposes that the younger and prettier prostitutes were volunteering in the trade, and thus were at liberty to pick their working hours themselves.
I think we need to remember that most prostitutes took up that occupation because they were forced to. And some of them would have experienced more force than others - there would have been pimps around, supplying an around-the-clock army of fairly attractive streetgirls, for example.

Maybe the overall picture you paint has something going for it, though; maybe the ones who had not been able to find costumers in the earlier hours of the night, were the ones who felt compelled to stay out the longest. But even if we were to accept this to be the overall picture, it would only show us that the Ripper actively chose to hunt when the prey was certain to be middleaged drabs, and we would still be left with the same impression of a man who made an active choice.

Of course, we can throw forward a guess that the Ripper tried to stay undetected by using only the latest hours of the night, and thus he had no actual choice. But the span of victims points to a time frame inbetween 12.45 and sunrise, so I would not bank too much on this.

Furthermore, if you want to throw forward Kelly venturing out in the small hours looking for trade on the night she was killed- and that is exactly what you do - then you also create a scenario in which you HAVE a goodlooking, young woman prostituting herself in the early morning hours ...

... so maybe I should be the one pressing the point of only the elderly brigades being open for service in the small hours, since that would mean that Kelly would not have gone out ...?

"The giant Flemming seems a poor suspect to me."

A personal aquaintance, said to have maltreated Kelly, a down-on-luck former plasterer, unable to hang on to a job, living in the Victoria Home and ending up with a diagnosis that got him incarcerated in an asylum, a man shoved aside by Kelly in favour of another guy, a man suffering from delusions of persecution - a poor suspect? Jesus, Lechmere, you ARE picky! I would instead say that Flemings act contains a type of material that should sound all alarms available!

... but for the heigth of the man, that is. 6 foot 7 - that is a heavy burden. Then again, there is the odd possibility that this figure is wrong. But that will take some disproving, of course!
There is also the possibility that none of the men sighted in connection with the murders was the actual killer. Lawendes man, for example, may have said goodbye to Eddowes seconds after the clubbers´ sighting of him, and Kate may have walked down that lane on her own. No definite call can be made, that must be remembered. But I do of course favour the bid that the Church Passage man WAS Kates killer!

"If Kelly’s killer didn’t go there with murder on his mind, he seems to have gone equipped for murder!"

I think we both know, Lechmere, that many men carried knives with them at all times. I think we may also agree that there is a fair chance that the Ripper, as such, may have belonged to this category of men. Finally, if there had been an absolute demand for people visiting friends not to carry knives, then the possibility remains that Kelly was killed with her own knife. For if he arrived there knifeless, a household like Kellys would potentially - perhaps even reasonably - have been equippped with a knife just the same.

I am in no way saying that your wiew is not a useful one, Lechmere. That it is, and the case can be called in many directions without stretching things too far. So very little evidence and information remains at our hands.
But I am intrigued by the obvious possibility that the Kelly case holds the key to the whole affair. I would say that the chances that she was slain by the Ripper are very big - to me, there is even little doubt about it.
I would also say that the extreme excess violence points to a deed by an aquaintance, just as I would say that the undressed state in which she was found, the neatly tucked away shoes, the folded clothes, the rolled-up bedroll the lit fire and her position in the bed as she was attacked, leaving room for a bedmate, all speak for a scenario in which Kelly never left her room after the Blotchy visit, but instead opted for a night alone at home - but then there was this soft knock on the door ...

When we combine these factors, we get a lot of explosive power. And I think that it may very well be - and aptly so, considering the name of this thread - the key to the whole business.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair.One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable.A state whereby she was fully concious of what she was doing,even by habit to lock the door from the inside before retiring.In respect of the lock,it has to be realised that the door was an old one,perhaps even predating Victorian times,and locks of that time were mostly of the bar type bolts,and although some could have a kind of spring mechanism,most were lever types,and the bar bolts prevented self locking.Barnett speaks of pushing the bolt to disengage from the jamb,and again this might mean a separate bolt to the main lock.Separate that is to the key locking mechanismn.As to 'On the latch',a favourite means of keeping a door closed but not locked was to insert a paper or cardboard wedge between door and jamb.I know the idea of a bar bolt would mean that the killer would have to reach through the window to engage the bolt on leaving,but the few seconds to achieve this would be more than compensated by keeping people from entering easily.One last thing.A self locking spring bolt when engaging,and in the narrow confines of Millers Court would have made a sound like a gun shot.There was a sound of a person leaving the court,but no sound of a door closing.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair."

It was.

"One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable."

It might.

"A state whereby she was fully concious of what she was doing,even by habit to lock the door from the inside before retiring."

Perhaps.

Then again, we don´t know HOW neatly the clothes were folded, and locking doors does not automatically follow from folding clothes. There are such things as slipping minds and partial drunkenness.
But in my world, Kelly retired and went to bed, fire lit, comfortably undressed, and subsequently let the killer in when he arrived since she knew him and did not foresee any foul play. So, you see, to me the point about locked or not locked is a moot one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fisherman

I’m going on the accounts of the murder victims – why they were out that late.
No money for their room usually, having spent it on booze.
There would have been far fewer customers around in the small hours as well.
Some prostitutes would have been more desperate than others.
An explanation for Kelly’s late night soliciting is that she was behind on her rent.

If the Ripper was essentially ‘organised’ (which I take him to be and I think you do, from what I have read), then his options for ‘organising’ his activities would be limited.

There was little privacy – whether he was a married man, a lodging house dweller or a simple lodger.
He would have to do it when he would be least noticed in committing the act and by any people he lived with.
The streets were crowded at day time and very dark in the dead of night.
The area was overpopulated. Within ten yards of all the murder scenes there would have been maybe 50 asleep or snoozing or even awake and listening out!
There were quite a number of policemen on the beat.
Where did most prostitutes service their client? In the street or indoors? Quite a few lodging houses allowed ‘couples’ and were regarded as being no more than brothels. Many like Kelly probably had their own room. It wouldn’t be feasible I suspect to murder in a lodging house, so that reduces his potential victims to be either the ‘street’ variety (almost certainly the poorest type of prostitute) or the occasional one who had their own place (Kelly – and maybe Pinchin Street?) who would probably be less available late at night.

This adds up, I think, to having to take what victims as presented themselves and they would tend to be the rough type. This is far from suggesting he actually preferred the rough type.

Regarding Flemming’s height, I tend to the view that the Ripper wasn’t actually sighted by any of the witnesses. However Flemming would have stood out like a sore thumb prowling around. You provide motivation for Flemming murdering Kelly, not for him being the Ripper and not for him destroying her body in that manner.

The point Harry made about the folded clothes is interesting. She was so incapably drunk that she left her stocking on and couldn’t have gone out again that night. Yet she wasn’t so incapably drunk to be able to light her fire and fold her clothes... and answer her door to a soft knock.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere!

Yours are useful points, as always. I think we will just have to disagree about the avilability of different types of prostitutes on the East End streets between 12.45 and sunup, simple as that.

"Regarding Flemming’s height, I tend to the view that the Ripper wasn’t actually sighted by any of the witnesses."

Oh-oh! Including Lawende...? That´s interesting - do you regard the woman he and his companion saw as being Eddowes? And if so, what is your picture of what went down afterwards?

"Flemming would have stood out like a sore thumb prowling around"

More of a middle finger, methinks

"You provide motivation for Flemming murdering Kelly, not for him being the Ripper and not for him destroying her body in that manner."

Come on, Lechmere - how could I tell where Flemings and the Ripper´s motivations would have been the same, when we do not know what drove the killer...? And in all fairness I do point to total destruction being a factor in some domestic murders, like the Gingrich case, don´t I?
If you get a chance to read Ripperologist 97, it will give you a much more full picture of what I mean. It would take up too much space to through it all here, and it would not be strictly threadrelated either, so that is the best I can do.

"The point Harry made about the folded clothes is interesting. She was so incapably drunk that she left her stocking on and couldn’t have gone out again that night. Yet she wasn’t so incapably drunk to be able to light her fire and fold her clothes... and answer her door to a soft knock."

As I said before, cold temperatures may be the best of incentives for leaving your socks on (and we do not for sure know that she did, mind you!). Furthermore, I would not say that she was too drunk to be capable to go out. We could not possibly know this, could we? Some people sober up quicker than others, and some describe drunkenness in a more dramatic way than other - perhaps like Cox. And we DO know that she made it to her room on her own, since Cox saw the couple walking in front of her, and that says something, I guess.
What I am saying is that people who have been out on the town drinking themselves gloriously pissed, and who subsequently return to their homes, more often than not call it a night when they do so. And when they are found undressed in their beds the day after, clothes folded on a chair and evidence of a fire having been lit, it does not in the least way detract from that picture, does it?
Yes, she could have worked up a motivation for going out again - we simply cannot know - but as it stands and working from the extensive knowledge I have about my own drinking chums and myself many years ago, I´d go for the bunk in ten cases out of ten. Mind you, I was never a prostitute, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair.One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable.

I'm not so sure, Harry. Sam made the point a year or two ago that no contemporaneous evidence has been uncovered to support the notion of Mary Jane's clothing having been neatly folded. The contention appears to have originated with McCormick and has been repeated with such frequency that it has come to be regarded as factual. Personally, I remain open minded about the issue.

[Ben]

... but for the heigth of the man, that is. 6 foot 7 - that is a heavy burden. Then again, there is the odd possibility that this figure is wrong.

Indeed, Fisherman, especially since we know that other "figures" in the entry were wrong, such as his listed age. He was also described as being 11 stone and in good health, and it is very difficult to be both of these things and 6'7" in height.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He was also described as being 11 stone and in good health, and it is very difficult to be both of these things and 6'7" in height."

Here is the Stone asylum entry in which good bodily health was mentioned:

"Form of Insanity: Melancholia
Supposed cause: Drink? Initialled H P
Bodily Health: Good
Height: 6ft 7in
Weight: Weight: 11st 8lbs"

I have taken the time to check things out a bit here, and I think that we must accept that these figures may well have represented good bodily health, Ben. This is how it goes:
Fleming was 201 centimeters and weighed 73,5 kilos. If we look at the BMI (body mass index) that stands for, we come up with a figure of 18,2. Now, the BMI index ranges like this: -19 (underweight), 19-25 (ideal weight), 26-30 (overweight), 30- (obese).

This indicates that Fleming was actually not very far from ideal weight. A further comparison that elucidates the matter further can be made by taking a look at this picture: http://www.allstarpics.net/0223437/0...uello-pic.html

The picture shows the boxing world champion Alexis Arguello. He weighed in at 59 kilos and was 178 centimeters tall. That gives a BMI of 18,6, meaning that he lands in pretty much the same figures as Fleming, and though Arguello was a very lean boxer, he was still muscular and of extremely good bodily health.

In conclusion, although I suspect that Fleming would have made rather a skinny figure if he WAS 6,7´, it cannot be stated that he could not have been of good bodily health, as far as I understand.

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

We have nothing but logic, assumptions and common sense to go on, so we cannot simply ignore the written record.

Nevertheless, since I first read about Fleming's documented height, I have been suspicious. (For one thing, I cannot see the apparently "fastidious" MJK - use the word loosely, of course - going out with someone so comically tall.) So privately, I always amend the height by a foot, but assume also that the mistake might have been in the figure "7" (so might he have been TALL (6'1") if not exceptionally so?

The consequence is that I do not allow his recorded height to be a reason for dismissing him as a contender.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hi Phil!

The problem with the purported mixing up of the numbers 1 and 7 is that we do have examples of how the registrator wrote them - and they differed very clearly. Have a look at the first few posts in the "The records from Stone asylum"-thread, and you will see what I´m talking about.

But believe me, I am as suspicious as you are about the given height...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm no expert on the subject, but I visited this website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tools/bmi_calculator/bmi.shtml

His BMI works out at 18.2, as you note, but this places him firmly in the "underweight" category, and it is advised that anyone with a BMI of less than 18.5 should consult their doctor.

Interesting, if you dock a foot off Fleming's recorded height, it would give a BMI of 24.9, which is in the "normal" range.

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

No argument there!

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

Unless we can locate an unequivocally identified photograph, or some other document (preferably two for corroboration) that demonstrates beyond argument that Fleming was of normal or more normal height, we never shall.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I'm no expert on the subject"

Welcome to the club!

"this places him firmly in the "underweight" category".

If it is all that "firm" I would not know - 19,0 is "ideal weight", and that would only have been around 4 kilogrammes away in Flemings case.

"it is advised that anyone with a BMI of less than 18.5 should consult their doctor."

That sounds as if they would all be very much undernourished and in dire need of medical attention. But the passage you quote reads, in it´s entirety:

"Someone with a BMI of below 18.5 is considered underweight. Whilst some people are naturally slim, being underweight from poor nutrition, or as a result of other disease, can have serious health risks. Illness associated with being underweight ranges from simple tiredness due to inadequate energy intake, through to reduced immunity to infections, anaemia, vitamin deficiencies, thinning of the bones, infertility and heart rhythm irregularities. If your BMI is under 18.5 you should discuss it with your doctor. They will want to make sure you don’t have any illness causing the weight loss and then will advise you about how to safely gain weight."

This seems to tell us that the people who need to see a doctor as a result of their low BMI, are only those who are thin due to undernourishment or suffering from a disease.
The passage, however, also clearly states that some people simply are naturally slim. My personal guess is that this is by far and away a more common thing than undernourishment or disease (although it could well have been more common in the East end of 1888, of course!). And a 6,7´tall Fleming may very well have been just that - naturally slim, and of good bodily health. Could have been the other way around too, of course - but then that would swear against the phrasing the doctor used.

Regardless of all this, I remain inclined to think that we are looking at faulty figures in that ledger.

The best,
Fisherman