Domestic or lunatic?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

That, Ben, basically means that no matter how many changes you see from one crime-scen to another, you still say that it should not divert you from thinking that it could be the same killer.

It doesn't mean that, and I really fear that we're going round in circles here. As I said: My point is that you can't have Jack the Ripper changing only in the way that you want him to change (and that's a generic "you", incidentally. I'm sure your thoughts aren't desire-driven) and rule out the possibility of him changing in other respects too. That goes for all of us. We learn from other cases that a different type of crime venue often calls for a different approach.

That's it.

Oh and...

Then again, his candidacy for having warmed up to the Kelly deed by knocking off a handful of middleaged prostitutes out on the East end streets, blitz style, is ice cold as far as I´m concerned.

If that's the specific theory you're outlining for Fleming in relation to the ripper murders, I'm not surprised, but that wasn't suggested here either.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Whoever used the expression "crafty, violent lunatic" in relation to Fleming, Fisherman?

We have evidence of violence, not conclusive proof, but evidence.

We have evidence of mental instability, as we learn from his incarceration in an asylum from 1892 until his death in 1920.

That's not over-enthusiastic or jumping the gun. That's just stating the evidence.

[Fisherman]

In answer to my statement:

"I AM saying that every element that is seemingly new in a pattern moves us further away from the probability that we are dealing with the same killer"

...Ben writes:

"Again, I don't agree."

That, Ben, basically means that no matter how many changes you see from one crime-scene to another, you still say that it should not divert you from thinking that it could be the same killer. One guy is found dead with a pickaxe jammed down his throat, another guy is found, likewise dead with a pickaxe shoved down his throat, and suddenly a woman is found poisoned to death. No reason to believe that is not the same killer - since every element that is seemingly new in a pattern DOES NOT move us further away from the probability that we are dealing with the same killer?

You are either entertaining a wiew that is quite uncommon here, or I have misread you, Ben. And I don´t feel any need to be bogged down in a discussion on things that are self-evident, which I really think this is!

On your last point, if you read my post to DVV you will see that when I have thrown my bathwater out, I have not rid myself of Fleming alongside it. He IS interesting. But he is nowhere even near a case closed verdict - just like you say.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi DVV!

Let´s get this straight: I am not trying to minimize facts and evidence surrounding Fleming. If I was, I would be saying that he was the wrong type altogether, that he probably was 6 ft 7, etcetera.

Fleming IS interesting, no doubt about it. And I have already said that I welcome deeper investigation into his person, something I would not have said if I considered it a waste of time from the outset.

That aside, I still feel that the "Flemingists" are overenthusiastic and jumping the gun occasionaly. Joe Fleming is described as a violent madman, for instance - something that may of course make him viable as a Ripper candidate - but on what evidence? Because Julia Venturney said that he had "ill-used" Kelly, something we have no conclusive proof for, and no idea whatsoever to what extent it was supposed to have had. Still, it is used to create a violent lunatic!

Make a comparison with Aaron Kosminski. We have evidence stating that he threatened his own sister with a knife a couple of years after the murders. We know that he was incarcerated in an asylum.
But does that make him a crafty, violent lunatic? I should think not.

Moreover, a crafty, violent lunatic like Ed Gein spent all his years of incarcaration as a role model inmate, a meek, mild-mannered man. Meaning that even if we overinflate Venturneys statement to create a dangerously violent madman, we may still be on the wrong track altogether. Which is why I suggest we do not go to such lenghts.
Besides, when you state that Sam has conclusively proven that "ill-using" meant violence, I think we may well risk another case of over-inflation – my guess is that "ill-using" could mean a variety of measures, ranging from a slap on the chin to outright manslaughter. Or from kicking somebody in the butt to hitting somebody over the head with a log. Thing is, we don´t know, DVV! And that is NOT "minimizing" the evidence - it is recognizing it for what it is.

Thus I would not like to be called a Fleming opponent; I find him a very interesting prospect. But not as the Ripper in total, just as a possible killer of Mary Kelly, although I do believe that Kelly was in fact a Ripper victim. If I am wrong on that score, though, Flemings candidacy is sizzling hot. Then again, his candidacy for having warmed up to the Kelly deed by knocking off a handful of middleaged prostitutes out on the East end streets, blitz style, is ice cold as far as I´m concerned. Buying THAT is going to take some serious psychological afterthought, I believe.

By the way, since you hope that I will not give up questioning Fleming as a Ripper candidate, I will return your sentiments and say that I enjoy discussing the subject with you too!

Keep well!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

What I mean - and I do think that you would agree on it - is that you cannot defend a wiew saying that if we allow for one change, we must also allow for others.

But with respect, I did defend that view - and pretty successfully at that.

If a killer tends to repeat a pattern, more or less, and suddenly makes a change, that is no reason at all to accept that he would probably make MORE changes.

Sorry, I disagree. That doesn't follow logically at all. Serial killers aren't robots. Different crime scenes often call for different approaches, as we learn from the likes of Ted Bundy and others. He "inveigled" his victims using false guises prior to his outdoor attacks, but when it came to indoor attacks, it was simply intrusion as the victims were sleeping.

I AM saying that every element that is seemingly new in a pattern moves us further away from the probability that we are dealing with the same killer

Again, I don't agree. Experience shows otherwise, but that's more of a "Was Kelly a ripper victim?" argument and not necessarily Fleming-specific.

Recognizing the need to look further into the character of Fleming, she urges us not to let ourselves be carried away by our imagination when it comes to Fleming as Kellys killer.

Nobody's doing anything of the sort. If we were all exclaiming "case closed" you'd have a case, but we're not. We're simply recognizing a credible suspect in the Whitechapel murders, and with so many implausible suspects being bandied, it's rather churlish to discard the baby with the bathwater. David is quite right; suggesting that maybe Venturney lied in a non-discredited, non-late police statement isn't a very strong argument against Fleming's candidacy if we have no evidence that she did. The salient point is that Fleming was "found" wandering at large. That does not permit us to conclude that he wasn't "wandering at large" before being found. It was probaby the case that he was discovered when his mental instability was revealing more outward and visible signs than they were previously.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

For all we know, Venturneys assertion that Fleming had ill-used Kelly may well amount to precious little - if anything - just like Natalie points out. We are dealing with a murder victim who was apparently not God´s best child, and there is no reason to put it past her that she may have lied or grossly exaggerated about it all. Until we are on much firmer ground about Fleming being a violent lunatic AT THE TIME (or at any time, for that matter), I think that it is perhaps time to lend Natalie an ear and go a little bit easier on Joe Fleming.

The best,

Fisherman

Bonjour Fisherman,
For sure we don't have to use too much our imagination, but is it what we are doing?
I don't think so.
One the contrary, I observe an attempt to minimize the evidences we have about Fleming.
The "ill using" debate is a very good example here.
First, it has been objected that "ill using" did not necessarily imply violence.
Thanks to Sam Flynn and others, it has been conclusively shown that "ill using", especially at the time, meant "violence".
Then it has been said that Venturney was lying. But why the hell would have she lie? And who is using "imagination" here?

Plus, I have to repeat: why would it be so extraordinary that people such as Kelly and Fleming quarrel, fight, or ill use each other?
Quite the reverse! especially because Fleming was probably jealous because of Barnett (I mean: besides alcoolism, prostitution, etc, they did have a reason to quarrel: Barnett and jealousy).

Lastly, I'd like to mention that I always give attention to opposite views, Norma is obviously one of the smartest persons here around, and I'm well aware that she has studied the case far more deeply trhan I.
I find this discussion of great interest and I hope "Fleming opponents" like you will not give it up. Then I will take care of not speculating too wildly...and I hope you will stop to minimize the facts and evidences surrounding Fleming.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Mornin´!

Just to clear up from yesterdays posts:

I wrote:

"The fewer the changes the more credible, as far as I´m concerned, Ben. If we use the logic that every change opens up for accepting more changes, we´ll have Lizzie Borden as a suspect sooner or later."

...whereas Ben replied:

"No, no. My point is that you can't have Jack the Ripper changing only in the way that you want him to change, and rule out the possibility of him changing in other respects too. That goes for all of us."

Ben, to begin with I can´t say that I ever "wanted" the Ripper to kill indoors! It has nothing to do with what I want or not, actually. What I mean - and I do think that you would agree on it - is that you cannot defend a wiew saying that if we allow for one change, we must also allow for others.

If a killer tends to repeat a pattern, more or less, and suddenly makes a change, that is no reason at all to accept that he would probably make MORE changes. That is simple logic, and simple logic is always useful, since it helps us to recognize the specific parts of a specific killers way of going about things.

Once more, this is not saying that he could not have added surveillance to his pattern - of course he could - but I AM saying that every element that is seemingly new in a pattern moves us further away from the probability that we are dealing with the same killer.

I will also take the opportunity to point out that I think that Natalie Severn makes some very good points on the issue. Recognizing the need to look further into the character of Fleming, she urges us not to let ourselves be carried away by our imagination when it comes to Fleming as Kellys killer. I think that is very wise advice throughout.
For all we know, Venturneys assertion that Fleming had ill-used Kelly may well amount to precious little - if anything - just like Natalie points out. We are dealing with a murder victim who was apparently not God´s best child, and there is no reason to put it past her that she may have lied or grossly exaggerated about it all. Until we are on much firmer ground about Fleming being a violent lunatic AT THE TIME (or at any time, for that matter), I think that it is perhaps time to lend Natalie an ear and go a little bit easier on Joe Fleming.

The best,

Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Norma,



Yes, we do. We have Julia Venturney stating that he "ill-used" her for living with Barnett. That's where the phrase "ill-used" derived from in this situation. That's the evidence. It doesn't constitute proof, but it irrefutably constitutes evidence. We have no reports of Kelly being violent to the extent that she was physically abusive to others. Whatever rumous circulated about Kelly defending her patch, you won't find any mention of them in any police statement, and yet "ill-use" on the part of Fleming was specifically mentioned by Venturney in her police statement.

Best regards,
Ben

Exactly, Ben. Well put.


I also like David's thinking here. It is quite possible that Venturney and Barnett held some suspicions against Fleming, especually since Venturney especially mentioned the 'ill-using'.
Indeed, it is incredible that Fleming don't seem to have attracted any interest in the police investigation. Fleming apparantly lived at the same place as Barnett's brother, The Victoria Home, so it wouldn't have been too difficult for them to track him down, unless he'd already split and changed his name directly after the murder.

All the best

[DVV]

I wonder if it was only an innocent coincidence that both Barnett and Venturney refered to Fleming at the inquest.
Doing so, they obviously threw suspicion on him.
Of course, JtR was at the time in everyone's mind, but possibly Barnett and Venturney did entertain, perhaps unconsciously, some suspicions on Mary's ex-boyfriend.

[DVV]

except David,that we dont know he was a jealous lunatic!Mary might have given him up because he was cold or introverted or more interested in the stars than Mary!

Maybe his mental illness was latent in 1888, however, he is known to have given money to Mary (when she was already with Barnett), and also to have "ill used" her.
Quite clearly, these contradictory behaviours indicate a jealous lover, if not an obsession about Mary.
And the fact that he shifted to Whitechapel around Aug may then well has something to do with Mary.

Amitiés,
David

ps: have to apologies for a previous post stating that Fleming entered a Lunatic Asylum as early as november 1889.
This was an Infirmary, due to an injured leg.
My mistake.

[Ben]

Norma,

We have no evidence that Joe Fleming "ill-used" Mary-quite the opposite from some others who had known them

Yes, we do. We have Julia Venturney stating that he "ill-used" her for living with Barnett. That's where the phrase "ill-used" derived from in this situation. That's the evidence. It doesn't constitute proof, but it irrefutably constitutes evidence. We have no reports of Kelly being violent to the extent that she was physically abusive to others. Whatever rumous circulated about Kelly defending her patch, you won't find any mention of them in any police statement, and yet "ill-use" on the part of Fleming was specifically mentioned by Venturney in her police statement.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Norma,
the very fact that Mary could be violent tends to confirm her statement that Fleming had "ill used" her, no?
There would be nothing extraordinary between a drinking prostitute and a jealous lunatic...

Amitiés,
David

except David,that we dont know he was a jealous lunatic!Mary might have given him up because he was cold or introverted or more interested in the stars than Mary!

[DVV]

Hello Norma,
the very fact that Mary could be violent tends to confirm her statement that Fleming had "ill used" her, no?
There would be nothing extraordinary between a drinking prostitute and a jealous lunatic...

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,


If he was just fighting with her, yes.

Anyone who ill-uses someone just for living with someone else is certainly a violent character, and we know from other sources that "ill-use" was Victorian terminology for physical violence. We only have to study the W.H. Bury case for proof of that. Ellen's sister pleaded with Bury not to "ill use the poor girl" after he pelted his wife with such force that blood was spattered on the wall.

All the best,
Ben

Ben,
We have no evidence that Joe Fleming "ill-used" Mary-quite the opposite from some others who had known them.That Mary may have chosen to say this to Julia Ventury is not proof that he actually did.We have reports that Mary herself could be violent,she was reported by her landlord and others to have smashed windows etc.and she is also reported to have been pretty wild and threatening when others on the game tried to move onto her patch-its all conjecture about Joe,-he had been her boyfriend.He became mentally ill some years later.Thats all we really know.For all we know Mary had been duffing him up regularly-she was the same height as him and pretty well built from all accounts!

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

I dont think he would have gone to the police if Mary was his ex girl friend and she was murdered nearby and he had been over to her place fighting with her.

If he was just fighting with her, yes.

Anyone who ill-uses someone just for living with someone else is certainly a violent character, and we know from other sources that "ill-use" was Victorian terminology for physical violence. We only have to study the W.H. Bury case for proof of that. Ellen's sister pleaded with Bury not to "ill use the poor girl" after he pelted his wife with such force that blood was spattered on the wall.

All the best,
Ben