Domestic or lunatic?

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"The earlier grandparent murders apart, the key thing to remember is that Kemper seems to have had a particular "focus" regarding a loved one (his mother), and that he killed and mutilated several strangers before eventually returning to that "focus" and killing/mutilating her.
In short, I don't see that a familial relationship with a victim should be radically different to a relationship with an unrelated, though significant, other."

Hmm, Sam; much as I see your point, I think that there is some call for cautiosness here. To begin with, when you describe Edmund Kempers mother as a "loved one" of his, I think that is vital to keep in mind that Kemper did NOT love his mother. On the contrary: he hated her. After he was released from his incarceration after having killed his grandparents (who, of course, were responsible for giving birth to his mother), psychiatrists recommended that he did not go back to staying with his mother, since their relationship was a dreadfully dysfunctional one. And the same psychiatrists agreed upon the theory that Kempers lifelong hatred for his mother stemmed from very early childhood.
Therefore I think that we see a significant difference compared to Fleming/Kelly, who only met as grown-ups. If we are to allow us some psychological mumbo-jumbo - though I am well aware of what you think of such things handled by amateurs - I would say that a thought that easily surfaces here is that Ed Kemper seems to have been intent on distroying the people who were responsible for his own entrance into this world. The thought that he was in fact trying to annihilate himself is hard not to discern here. We also know that Kemper tried to commit suicide at a couple of instances.

If we allow ourselves to speculate along lines like these, it is of course just as compelling to see the Ripper as someone who - by carving out wombs and eviscerating the abdomens of his victims - may have held a grudge about the very mechanisms that had brought HIM into the world. So there may well be a likeness between Kemper and the Ripper in that sense.

But if it is a sensible interpretation of things, I think that the Ripper and Kemper stand for something different from what Fleming does when/if he kills Kelly. Which is why I stated from the outset that I think that the bloodline part in the Kemper case carries noteworthy significance.

All of this of course applies very much when discussing the topic of whether it was of significance to the Ripper that his victims were prostitutes. I agree with you that this must not have been the case at all. In fact, it complicates the matter in a way that I think is totally unnecessary - to my mind the eviscerations of the abdomen, very probably together with the annihilation of organs that are connected with human reproduction, was the main objective for the Ripper. To further elaborate on our killer having both this urge AND a hatred of prostitutes is to paint one self into a corner, as far as I´m concerned. So on that point it seems were in agreement, Sam!

All the best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi David!


You should read the two sentences together; I don´t BELIEVE that Fleming was the Ripper, and since I hold this belief, I also believe that IF he killed, he killed only Kelly. Call it intuition if you like, or call it a weighing together of the circumstances surrounding the killings. The only thing you can´t call it is proof, for there is no such around. Which in the end of course means that I could have been a bit clearer by adding an IMHO to my statement!

The best, David!

Fisherman

[DVV]

1. I do not believe that Fleming was the Ripper. If he killed, he killed only Kelly.

Hello Fisherman,
have you got in mind some elements that shore up this statement, or is it an intuitive one (which, of course, I would respect)?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

Thanks for that post, and I'm with you on most of these points, however there are a couple of things I'm not so easy with...

The differences involved here, if we are to compare with Joe Fleming in the Rippers´role, is that Kemper killed people belonging to his own bloodline, and not a spouse.

I don't think that's all that significant, really. The earlier grandparent murders apart, the key thing to remember is that Kemper seems to have had a particular "focus" regarding a loved one (his mother), and that he killed and mutilated several strangers before eventually returning to that "focus" and killing/mutilating her.

In short, I don't see that a familial relationship with a victim should be radically different to a relationship with an unrelated, though significant, other.

The Ripper differed in that respect: He killed women who were either actively prostituting themselves or who at least could have passed for doing so. Therefore the element of prostitution seems to play a role.

Again, the denominator (good word!) here might simply have been "easy targets". I wouldn't expect a serial sexual mutilator of the LVP or today to have much luck with opera singers, middle-class suffragettes, charity workers or karate instructors. In contrast, prostitutes, vagrants, drunkards, hitch-hikers, students and the like are much more straightforward propositions - and it should come as no surprise to learn that women (or girls) like these are often the target for sexual serial murderers.

I don't see it as axiomatic that killers like JTR have a "down on whores", anymore than Kemper had a "down on co-eds". However, both appear to have shared a compulsion to kill and mutilate easily-obtainable victims in various gruesome ways.

[Fisherman]

Brummie writes:

"Just because we are unable to ascribe a particular motive to Fleming at the moment doesn't mean he should be summarily dismissed"

Quite so, Brummie - and if you read my posts to Nell and Sam, you will see that I do not ascribe to those who do so.

The best, Brummie!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"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."

Hi Sam! You are right: Ed Kemper certainly belongs to the discussion here. For those who are not familiar with Edmund Kemper, he killed his grandparents as rather a young teenager, was locked up, let loose, and started killing a handful of girls before finishing it off by killing his own mother, and - after having called her over the phone and summoned her to the Kemper residence - his mothers best friend.
He then turned himself in (like I think he did after killing his grandparents too) to the police.
Kemper enjoyed sex with his dead victims, after having dissected them thoroughly.

The differences involved here, if we are to compare with Joe Fleming in the Rippers´role, is that Kemper killed people belonging to his own bloodline, and not a spouse. He also set out killing people of hbis own blood (his grandparent) whereas Fleing seems to have started out by killing strangers, something that belonged to Kempers mid-section of killing.
Moreover, those of Kempers victims who were strangers to him before he killed them, seems to have no common denominators with his grandparents and his mother. The Ripper differed in that respect: He killed women who were either actively prostituting themselves or who at least could have passed for doing so. Therefore the element of prostitution seems to play a role. And that is where the Fleming proposition has an element of fiction to it that is not there in Kempers case, as far as I can see.
Admittedly, though, if you don´t attach any weight to the motive of prostitution, and choose to see the Rippers victims prior to Kelly as just handy, vulnerable prey, we may be moving quite close to Ed Kemper.

Thanks for bringing him up, Sam!

All the best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Carrotty Nell writes:

"But we're not dealing with a rational person."

I see what you mean, Nell. But boiled down, I think that the actions of the Ripper evince that he was not a totally unrational guy. He kept to the same type of victims, and he was able to flee the different scenes in time to avoid detection, leavin no evidence at the crime scens and so on. Summing it all up, I think that doing what he did, and getting away with it, points to a very rational behaviour - as long as we look at the killings.
Sam brings up Ed Kemper as an appropriate comparison, and one thing to keep in mind with Kemper is that much as he was a "mad" killer, he backed that up with an IQ of over 130 (which is not that unusual when it comes to serial killers, by the way...)

As for your question "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?", the answer can only be one: Few, if any. Fleming IS interesting, but I think I have displayed my dilemma with the guy:

1. I do not believe that Fleming was the Ripper. If he killed, he killed only Kelly.
2. I believe that the man who killed Kelly WAS the Ripper.

Ergo, exit left for Fleming - at least as a Ripper candidate.

Finally, you warm my heart by saying "By the way Fish, you are a real gentleman and it is a pleasure to cross swords with you "

Thanks, Nell! I will bear it in mind, and try not to disappoint you in the future. As long as I exchange with the likes of you it will be a piece of cake to stay on track!

All the best, Nell!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Brummie,
you're right, but I would add that the fact that Fleming had a story with Mary doesn't necessarily "center" the murders around her, as in Barnett's candidacy (he disliking her working as a prostitute, etc), and it doesn't change the motives of JtR (Fleming would be also a serial killer, a necrosadist, whatever of this kind, and his affair with Mary would simply affect the circomstances - moving to Whitechapel in August, for example - as pointed out by Sam Flynn).
Just remember the reaction of his mother, when he was brought to the asylum. It seems that she was not surprized, and instead, said that mental illness had been "in the family" for 160 years!

Amitiés,
David

[brummie]

Just because we are unable to ascribe a particular motive to Fleming at the moment doesn't mean he should be summarily dismissed,after all apart the more complex and convoluted conspiracy theories which of the other named suspects has a particular motive other than the obvious, (hatred of women:hatred of prostitutes:religious mania:simply insane and psychopathic), which could equally as well apply to Fleming.Here is a man with mental (possibly violent) problems in the area at the time of the killings with a known association with at least one of the victims.This must surely make him worthy of much more detailed investigation. On the other hand like all the other suspects we simply have no evidence linking him directly with the killings,and therein lies the problem (or fascination) with the whole case,we can theorise and speculate all we want but short of finding a signed confession we will probably never know for sure.

[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

[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).

[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

[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.

[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

[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.