Domestic or lunatic?

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

Morninī!

Just to clear up from yesterdays posts:

I wrote:

"The fewer the changes the more credible, as far as Iīm concerned, Ben. If we use the logic that every change opens up for accepting more changes, weīll 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 canīt 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 Godīs 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

[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 Godīs 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

[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

[Fisherman]

Hi DVV!

Letīs 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 donīt 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 Iīm 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

[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 donīt 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

[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.

[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 Iīm 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

[Fisherman]

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

I did. I believe you settled for "violent madman" or was it "violent lunatic"?

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

That we have, if we accept that "ill-using" must have meant violence - which it is very reasonable to accept. The degree, however, we have no knowledge of.

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

That, too, we have. Who argues differently?

Itīs just that this is not in my wiew anywhere near a suggestion that Fleming could have filled out Jack the Rippers suit, Ben. Differing opinions, differing hunches, thatīs all. To me, it does not have to suggest anything more than the proposition that Fleming may have slapped Mary in the face at some occasion. It obviously did not stop her from being fond of him, and all discussions of female psychology aside, most women do not stay fond of fledgling lunatics who beat them up.

On the point where you answer my words:

"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."

by writing:


"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."

...I can only say that if you are going round in circles, I am not circling with you. I am as straightforward as I can be: the more and bigger the changes between two crimesites, the greater the chance that we are dealing with two perpetrators. That is crystal clear, Ben, and there really is no disputing it. It is a general truth, of course, and it will not rule that there cannot be major changes in the behaviour of a chosen killer - but it WILL rule that the fewer the changes, the bigger the chance that we are dealing with the same killer, just as the opposite applies, formulated thus in my former post: every element that is seemingly new in a pattern moves us further away from the probability that we are dealing with the same killer.

Please, please donīt challenge that GENERAL rule, Ben, or you may have a REAL "crafty, violent lunatic" on your hands (meant as a joke )

The best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;30322]

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.

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 donīt know, DVV! And that is NOT "minimizing" the evidence - it is recognizing it for what it is.

Hi Fisherman,
I'm pleased to see the discussion may go on.
And for that, it's worthy to clear up the matter of the alledged "violence" of Fleming.
First, I'd say there no need at all to create a violent madman figure - on this I agree.
But do you seriously think that "ill using" can refer to a slap on the chin?
Mary was a prostitute, living in Dorset Street. If she have said to a friend: "this man "ill used me", that undoubtedly means something serious. And if Venturney thought of interest to confess this to the police, it has, again, to be something serious.(And Pizer was known for "ill using" prostitutes when suspicions on him were at their peak, etc etc)

And again, why Venturney would have lie about this?
As to the proof, what kind of proof should we expect?
Have you the "proof" that Mary's window was broken during a domestic quarrel? Everything that witnesses say can't be proved ! We can't prove either that Mary was "very fond of Fleming", we can't prove that she have lived with him, and so on and so on.
So this argument does not work.
But one thing is sure: there is no reason to doubt what Venturney said OFFICIALLY about Fleming.
Then, I think very suggestive to watch at what I will call the "double behaviour" of Fleming towards Mary:
He sometimes gives her money, he is sometimes violent.
Which makes me think he was strongly obssesed...
Rule out the violence we know (thanks to Venturny), and you have a simple-minded suitor...quite a waste of time, then!

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Itīs just that this is not in my wiew anywhere near a suggestion that Fleming could have filled out Jack the Rippers suit, Ben. Differing opinions, differing hunches, thatīs all.

Well then, nobody is, because that's the best you're likely to come up with as a suspect at this remove in time. I'm afraid I don't care about "personal hunches" - they're irrelevent for discourse of this nature. You're keeping on about things again after you've said it once. You're not likely to do any better than a suspect who moved into the heart of the murder district in August of 1888, was physically abusive to the most brutually murdered victim, was a user of aliases, and was incarcerated in a lunatic asylum for the rest of his life. Not a case closed, but you're not likely to do any better in terms of named suspects, and as such, it pays not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or keep repeating "personal hunches" as though they carry debating weight.

To me, it does not have to suggest anything more than the proposition that Fleming may have slapped Mary in the face at some occasion.

Really? Well, to a contemporary Victorian commentator, "ill-use" means thwacking a woman over the head and spattering her blood against the wall. As fond as I am of you, I'm sure you understand that, because of this, I can't be expected to care a great deal about what things "might" mean "to you".

It obviously did not stop her from being fond of him, and all discussions of female psychology aside, most women do not stay fond of fledgling lunatics who beat them up.

This is unbelievably wrong, Fisherman. No further explanation necessary...

Plesae, please donīt challenge that GENERAL rule, Ben, or you may have a REAL "crafty, violent lunatic" on your hands

Whatever rule you're claiming to be "general", it doesn't remotely lend weight to your argument that surveillance didn't happen at previous murders. I've already explained that experience has taught us that different crime scenes will often call for different approaches, as we learn from Ted Bundy when he flipped from "inveigling" to intruding when faced with indoor and outdoor venues.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi DVV!

"do you seriously think that "ill using" can refer to a slap on the chin?"

Yes, I do. Or two. Or three. We are dealing with fleeting borderlines here, DVV, and the only thing we could possibly settle for is that some evidence seems to point to Fleming having applied violence on Mary. We cannot conclude that since the term "ill-used" was taken into use in the case of Pizer as well as in Flemings case, it must mean that the same degree of violence was applied in both cases.
If we accept that violence was used, there is no escaping the fact that violence comes in many forms and shapes, is there? If we DO try to accomodate your wish to see consensus on the fact that it must have involved serious violence, then what are we to rule in and out, respectively? Burning her with cigarettes? In. Breaking her arms? Out. Flogging? In. Thumb-screws? Out. It all becomes kind of ridiculous, donīt you think?

On the point of Venturney being a liar or not, there are different possibilities:

-She was to the point, and Kelly had been beaten up severely.
-She was to the point, but it was just a slap in the face.
-She lied.
-She had been told by Kelly that Kelly had been beaten up severely - but that in itīs turn was a lie on Kellyīs behalf.

Leaving us where? Leaving us in the space between thumb-screws and cigarette burns once again. When you canīt tell, donīt go there!

All the best, DVV!

Fisherman

[Ben]

If we accept that violence was used, there is no escaping the fact that violence comes in many forms and shapes, is there?

Nor is there any escaping the fact that whever the expression "ill-use" crops up in anything even vaguely related to the Whitechapel murders, it consistently refers to a level of violence far greater than the slap on the chin you're currently envisaging.

I think it's fairly obvious what most contemporary commentators meant by "ill-use", and it wasn't light slaps on faces.

Leaving us where? Leaving us in the space between thumb-screws and cigarette burns once again.

No, it leaves us is situation where, in the absence of any reason to dismiss Venturney's statement, we treat it as evidence.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Fisherman,
what I can tell is that the violence was serious enough to be told by Mary to Venturney.
Serious enough to appear in an official deposition.
And on the other hand, not serious to the extent that it would have let a long lasting scar... (rule out the cigarette, please...°
And still I'm waiting for ONE reason for which Venturney would have lie.
But you gave no reason...
So where you can't tell, don't go there.

Amitiés
David