the key

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman
All I meant was that it is conjecture that the Flemming who ended up in the Asylum is the one who was with Mary Kelly and in any case there were two recorded Joe Flemmings/Flemings around and for all we knew there were others.
We should guard against making these things facts when they are not!
For example I would say it’s not an absolute fact that Charles Cross equals Charles Lechmere to be honest – although it is a near certainty."

Point taken - was hoping for conclusive proof, though, but that´s life, I guess ...

I´m out of here presently, but will check back later tonight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"you have mentioned that you dont think the killer went there with murderous intentions but that something went wrong. Care to expound on this?"

Ripperologist 97! This is not the thread, and at present, I do not have the time. But it´s all in that magazine!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"since you're not usually one to have "inclinations" without a sound basis, I'd say you must have very good reasons for adopting this position"

Gee, thanks, Ben - I wish I did! The truth of the matter, though, is that all I have is a feeling that somebody would have seen the tall ex-plasterer on one of his visits to Kelly, and mentioned it somewhere along the investigation, a sense that the combination of 11 stone and 201 centimeters makes for a VERY thin man, and - let´s face it - an inclination to believe that what we have on Fleming otherwise makes him a very interesting suspect for killing Kelly.

Taken together, that means that I would very much like to see more research done here - and I would not be surprised if it turned up that the Stone asylum records are faulty!

But I would never take that as far as to claim that I have a better case than the ones who believe in the records. I am far too wise and weathered to do that, thank you very much!

Hope this clinches my stand for you! As you well know, I have beliefs in other Ripperological areas too that do not fall into the mainstream category, like for example in the Tabram case. We are all free to hold these beliefs, but I don´t feel at all free to claim that they have more substantiation behind them than other, more traditional if you like, theories. And when we have figures on record, the way we do in the Fleming case, I take even more care to admit that I am holding on to the short end of the straw as it stands. But I don´t mind that, and I quite enjoy holding it together with you - we seldom draw our swords together, so it makes for a refreshing change!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben is most keen to get your agreement I see!

Already got it, Lech!

It ought to be considered beyond reasonable doubt that the son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming was Kelly's Joe.

But Roy is right - we are drifting off-topic somewhat here.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Fish
Welcome back.

I agree with you that Kelly probably holds the key in all of this because I also think that she knew her killer. I also beleive that she was probably done for the night after boltchy and did not venture out again and her killer came to her door.

But you have mentioned that you dont think the killer went there with murderous intentions but that something went wrong. Care to expound on this?

Hi mr Abby (heyhey I won't do the mistake of calling you Missus again)

I also think she knew her killer, of course this is all a matter of personal convictions, I'd say a regular client of hers, then if she was indeed already getting to sleep and turned him down, he got out of his hinges. But I think that's the opinion of a lot of people.

Cam

[Roy Corduroy]

This is not a Joe Barnett thread anymore? I stopped in to see, because I had ordered Paley's book, but it never arrived. So I got a refund.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
All I meant was that it is conjecture that the Flemming who ended up in the Asylum is the one who was with Mary Kelly and in any case there were two recorded Joe Flemmings/Flemings around and for all we knew there were others.
We should guard against making these things facts when they are not!
For example I would say it’s not an absolute fact that Charles Cross equals Charles Lechmere to be honest – although it is a near certainty.

Ben is most keen to get your agreement I see!

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi Fish
Welcome back.

I agree with you that Kelly probably holds the key in all of this because I also think that she knew her killer. I also beleive that she was probably done for the night after boltchy and did not venture out again and her killer came to her door.

But you have mentioned that you dont think the killer went there with murderous intentions but that something went wrong. Care to expound on this?

[Ben]

My inclination is supported by a hunch, theirs by cold, caserelated numbers.

And yet despite this, you still think that the figures are erroneous, Fish. That's your position on the subject, and since you're not usually one to have "inclinations" without a sound basis, I'd say you must have very good reasons for adopting this position - most probably the reasons discussed on this thread and elsewhere.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That's what the entry says, Fish, yes, but you're not inclined to think it's correct, and nor am I."

That is true. But I am very much inclined to accept that the ones who believe in the figures have a far better case factually than I do. My inclination is supported by a hunch, theirs by cold, caserelated numbers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

As it stands, Joe Fleming WAS 201 centimeters tall, weighed around 11 stone - 11 stone 8 lp during his incarceration, and was of good bodily health.

That's what the entry says, Fish, yes, but you're not inclined to think it's correct, and nor am I.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

As usual, Ben, I prefer to make my own calls. I THINK that the figures may well be wrong, but I don´t feel at liberty to regard that as anything else but an inclination on my behalf. And that, alas, does not mean that the figures change in any fashion. As it stands, Joe Fleming WAS 201 centimeters tall, weighed around 11 stone - 11 stone 8 lp during his incarceration, and was of good bodily health.
It can - and should - also be added that anorexia is not a specific BMI figure - it is an eating disorder. This is how a specialist answers a woman who have written to her in this specific errand:

"The BMI charts don't judge whether or not you have an eating disorder. Nor do I think they take into account the differing body types humans have. They are a "one-size fits all" approach to what is considered an "ideal" weight for people.
That said, you do have a very low BMI. It's 16.3. That is enough to raise concern, just as my very high BMI is enough to raise concern."

So, in this case a BMI of 16.3 was something that was "enough to raise concern" - but it did not in any way make the specialist urge the woman to go see a doctor or tell her that she was anorectic.

.. and I don´t think that we will get much further with this discussion than this.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Fisherman, although unfortunately, a list of actresses and their BMIs tells us very little about how healthy a BMI of 17.4 is when assessed by medical professionals. A 2001 review of eating disorders noted that "Involuntary patients' mean BMI was 17.4 on admission" (to the University of Iowa Hospital in this case). It is clear that 17.4 is officially classed as anorexic:

http://www.bmi.name/

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Anorexia-Nervosa.htm

We´ve got what we´ve got in terms of figures, and as long as we cannot disprove them we must regard them as true figures.

But you don't regard them as true figures.

You just said:

"I remain inclined to think that we are looking at faulty figures in that ledger"

And I agree with this entirely. Like you, I'm not asserting that the entry was factually in error, but the anomaly here is a strong indication that some details of the entry were not correct.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Fleming had an eating disorder (!), but rather that his "BMI" would be comparable to the weight of an anorexic individual if the entry was accurate.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"...that may not be the right Fleming anyway"

No?

Fisherman
slightly baffled but listening

[Fisherman]

I am trying to find figures for men too, but they are harder to come by. One figure I HAVE found is the one for Alan Culpepper, a marathon runner, and obviously a skinny guy - but in extremely good bodily health. He clocks in at BMI 17.1.

...but this whole discussion is becoming a bit silly, I think. Apparently you CAN be in good health at low BMI:s - but we must also consider the fact that the doctor who examined Fleming may perhaps have been inclined to polish the truth somewhat, what do we know? The possibilities and traps are endless, as usual when dealing with this case.

The best,
Fisherman