Domestic or lunatic?

[Natalie Severn]

That was an interesting comparison Dan.I wont be looking him up before I go to bed but when I can stomach the thought I will try to see what he was about.

Hi Celesta,Ben, Fisherman et al---

In case people wonder where Mary may have met her ex, Joseph Fleming,she was reported to have gone over to a pub in Fish Street,quite often .Fish Street is very near to Cannon Street station and also near Billingsgate Fish Market.I cant remember where I read this but its in one or two of the press reports.

[Ben]

Thanks for the suggestion, Norma. I''ll look into it!

[KatBradshaw]

I have just read 'Will the real Mary Kelly..' and I have to say I am really interested in these histories of Flemming. I was wondering how many people pit there think that he is a serious contender.
I was struck by the idea that he was living in the area unbeknownst to some and that he was said to have been abusive to Mary. If he was angry at Mary's prostitution, and I admit that is a massive if, then I can see him destroying the class of woman before ultimately turning on the woman he was truely angry with in the worst way.

[DVV]

Hello KatBradshaw,
if you read the thread since its start, you'll see that most posters show interest in Fleming's case.
If a man known for having ill-used Mary Kelly, lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, died as a lunatic, etc, etc, is not a serious contender, then who is?
As to your suggestion that Fleming may have been "angry because of Mary's prostitution", I think you should not confuse Barnett (the Good) and Fleming (the Bad and the Ugly!).

Amitiés,
David

[KatBradshaw]

I am not confusing them. I don't think that there were, or are, many men who would sit back and allow their woman to sleep with other men, whatever the reason.

[KatBradshaw]

And I have read the post from the begining. I find Flemming a very plausible suspect.

[DVV]

Yes Kat, plausible and fascinating.

[Carrotty Nell]

My thoughts too. This guy is at the top of my list way above the likes of Druitt, Chapman and Kosminski. In fact it's actually harder to think of negative points arguing against him. The only thing that occurs to me in that respect is that he seems just a tad too obvious. You would expect someone known to have been harassing one of the victims to have figured in the contemporary Police investigation. Even if they could not trace him you would kind of expect him to get a mention to that effect in McNaghten's report of the 'his whereabouts could not be ascertained' kind or whatever it was he said about Ostrog. The Police silence on the subject of Fleming kind of makes me suspect that they could have traced him and eliminated him for some reason. But if they didn't... well! I think this guy was JTR, I really do.

[Fisherman]

Carrotty Nell writes:
"I think this guy was JTR, I really do"

Well, you could do a lot worse picking a suitable suspect, Nell. But you yourself throw forward an interesting matter when it comes to the silence of the police. And even if we choose to believe that Fleming would have slipped through the net, as James Evans or something else, we are left with the trouble of explaining why he did the first murders. And if it was him - why did he choose a category of women so consistent in age and status?

If we are to look away from the rest, Fleming really is the most convincing suggestion mentioned for Kellys death, no doubt about it. But when we bring the other victims on stage, we are faced with something quite different from a domestic scenario. And if we accept that the same killer is responsible for all the killings (Stride aside, as usual...), we are left with something that resembles crime fiction if we try to nail Fleming as Jack. If someone tried to force-feed me a plot like that in a crime novel, I would use said novel for toilet paper.

Who will supply me with a credible answer to my questions? Could Fleming have practiced on the first victims, before going for the grande finale with Kelly? Or did all the other victims know that Fleming was of royal descent, and had fathered an illegitimate child with Kelly...

The best, all!

Fisherman

[brummie]

There are plenty of motives for him to be MJK's killer since for him to be still giving her money and calling to see her even after she had left him to move in with somebody else means he was clearly obsessed with her and perhaps still harbored some thoughts of 'possessing' her,maybe she split with him once and for all and he came to realise that he would never be able to restart their relationship and decided no-one else should have her. Alternatively maybe he decided she was simply taking him for a ride by taking his money. The killing of the other women is more difficult to attribute to him, I don't claim to understand how an insane mind works but maybe he was seeking to punish the prostitutes for 'his' Marys involvement and preventing her from returning to him. OK it seems unlikely but as I say who knows how the unsound mind works and perhaps we shouldn't be looking for logical motives.

[Fisherman]

Well, Brummie; thanks for trying! And you are absolutely spot on when you say that believing in Fleming as the Ripper is helped tremendeously by skipping logical thinking...

I can easily accept a man who tries to get back on his former girl for having left him. Works all the way down the line.

I am having much more trouble accepting someone who goes out executing prostitutes for the reason that he dislikes his former girls involment in that self same business. Especially since the victims he chooses have nothing in common with his former girl, apparition- and agewise.

And to accept a scenario with a man who makes that strange decision - to kill a handful of prostitutes because he does not like the fact that his ex girlfriend prostitutes herself - and who thereafter suddenly decides to have a go at that ex girlfriend too...? No sir, not if I can help it!

Let´s not forget that Mary was the victim who seemed to be most hooked on prostitution (how´s that for a lousy pun?), meaning that Joe Fleming would in all probability have been aware of that occupation of hers during their living together.

Like you say, Brummie - to pull this one off in a rational manner is not an easy thing to do. Offers, anybody?

The best, Brummie!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

I am having much more trouble accepting someone who goes out executing prostitutes for the reason that he dislikes his former girls involment in that self same business. Especially since the victims he chooses have nothing in common with his former girl, apparition- and agewise.

I don't buy the idea that Jack went about killing and mutilating the first few women "because Mary was a prostitute and so were they", simply because they were mainly vulnerable vagrants, and certainly not prostitutes in the "gay house in Knightsbridge" sense that Mary may have been.

However, the notion of someone embarking on an extreme killing/mutilation campaign before homing in to attack the putative "cause" of his pathology isn't so easily dismissed - indeed, the Edmund Kemper story is a fairly recent exemplar of just that.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Like Fisherman, I totally agree with brummie. Personally, I see no reason why Fleming should be Jack the Ripper, and I have aways thought the idea of the Ripper murders being centered around Mary kelly as fictionous garbage.

I also think brummie's analysis of Fleming's situation with Mary Kelly is spot on.

One might suggest that Fleming may have been 'ill-using' Mary kelly for staying with Barnett, simply because she stayed with Barnett in spite of being more found of Fleming because the former could provide her with a roof over her head and Fleming couldn't.
My theory is that Mary Kelly used both men for her own purposes and took them both for a ride. If the Ripper didn't kill her, one of those two men finally let her pay for it.

All the best

[Carrotty Nell]

I am having much more trouble accepting someone who goes out executing prostitutes for the reason that he dislikes his former girls involment in that self same business. Especially since the victims he chooses have nothing in common with his former girl, apparition- and agewise.

And to accept a scenario with a man who makes that strange decision - to kill a handful of prostitutes because he does not like the fact that his ex girlfriend prostitutes herself - and who thereafter suddenly decides to have a go at that ex girlfriend too...? No sir, not if I can help it!

Like you say, Brummie - to pull this one off in a rational manner is not an easy thing to do.
isherman

But we're not dealing with a rational person. This is someone who spent most of his natural adult life incurably insane. I have never imagined Joe killing the other prostitutes because he disliked prostitution per se and particularly Mary's involvement in it. I find it much more credible to believe a sick and tortured mind punishing Mary for rejecting him by firstly terrorising her by killing women who may have been friends or aquaintances of her and then finally inflicting the ultimate punishment. That the other victims may have been her friends or acquaintances has been pointed out on other threads - the connections with Dorset Street for example.

I don't want to labour the point because Ben has already done it more eloquently than I can. But which of the heavyweight suspects like Druitt, Kosminski, Chapman etc ticks as many boxes - residence at the centre of gravity of the crimes, not dissimilar to the witness sightings, incapacitated and put out of harm's way not too long after the killing spree?

By the way Fish, you are a real gentleman and it is a pleasure to cross swords with you (which is more than I can say for some on this message board).

[DVV]

Hi Fish,I don't buy the idea that Jack went about killing and mutilating the first few women "because Mary was a prostitute and so were they", simply because they were mainly vulnerable vagrants, and certainly not prostitutes in the "gay house in Knightsbridge" sense that Mary may have been.

However, the notion of someone embarking on an extreme killing/mutilation campaign before homing in to attack the putative "cause" of his pathology isn't so easily dismissed - indeed, the Edmund Kemper story is a fairly recent exemplar of just that.

Well thought, well said, Sam.
Prudent, reasonable, synthesizing!

Hi Glenn,
You wrote: "I see no reason why Fleming should be the ripper." And at the same time, you make him a plausible Mary's murderer.
I know you dismiss her as a ripper victim - but how can you be so flat? Especially reminding her throat cut through to the spine (since you don't underestimate this detail), not to talk about the location, the period, etc.
I will agree with your despise about the theories centred around Mary Kelly, like the royal conspiracy, or the construction of Barnett's figure as that of a serial-killer motivated by his feelings...
But are you really under the impression that it is what we are doing on this thread?

Amitiés,
David