Domestic or lunatic?

[Fisherman]

Ben, friend!

What you state here comes very close to a verdict of my arguing being worthless hunches, wheras yours is appropriately weighed scientific facts apt for a "discourse of this nature".

I wonīt even go there, Ben, as I think you well understand.

Nor will I go into the statement you make on "ill-using", trying to establish an exact level of violence called upon for such a term. It would, I realize, be futile.

The fact that you claim that my wiew that most women will not stay fond of fledgling lunatics who beat them up is "unbelievably wrong" speaks for itself. Try pushing it at a seminar over womenīs rights, Ben - and run for your life. And IF they catch up with you - do try to stay fond of them afterwards

"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."

You are ABSOLUTELY AND CONCLUSIVELY RIGHT! The general rule that differing crime scenes reveal differing perpetrators would have had nothing to do with my statement that surveillance didn't happen at previous murders - if I had made such a statement. I believe I settled for pointing out that it seems much less credible there was any surveillance in them cases. But there is no need whatsoever to bring Bundy et al on the stage, since the arguments you can build under using them, are not arguments that apply in the discussion I am having with you. Or thought I was having, at least.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

PS. "You are right about another thing too: "You're keeping on about things again after you've said it once". I do. But that is just because when I say A, you keep saying B over and over again. DS.

[Fisherman]

DVV writes: "what I can tell is that the violence was serious enough to be told by Mary to Venturney"

Meaning that it must have amassed to ...?

On Venturney: I had felt that I had to come up with a reason why she would lie, there would be a number of suggestions, DVV. Maybe she enjoyed the limelight, maybe she was a mythomaniac, maybe she was forced by somebody else to lie. Take your pick.

I for one, believe that she did NOT lie - at least not consciously. She could have passed on a lie from Mary, though, unknowingly.
The best bet, however, is that she had been told by Mary that Fleming had ill-used her, and that there was a relevant background for that accusation.

When it comes to claiming that it will have meant nothing less than an attempt to break her skull and blood spattered over her walls, feel welcome to the suggestion if you really believe that it can be advanced as conclusive proof. Who am I to deprive you of it? If I may just settle for a more cautious wiew on the matter, Je vous en prie, I shall be ever so pleased!

The best, DVV!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Perhaps "worthless" is the wrong word. I don't mean that my "hunch" carries any more weight than yours, only than hunches are very difficult to debate.

Try pushing it at a seminar over womenīs rights, Ben - and run for your life. And IF they catch up with you - do try to stay fond of them afterwards

No, mate. I'm just saying that women often remain fond of violent men for whatever reason. Dickens' Nancy and Bill Sykes relationship wasn't plucked entirely from the ether of fiction.

As for surveillance, all I'm saying is we don't know how much of it took place at earlier crime scenes. I then pointed out that even if it didn't happen at earlier murders, Bundyesque experience has informs us that different venues often call for different approaches. That's not to say it did or didn't happen in this case, but there's no "more credible" "less credible" about it.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

The fact that you claim that my wiew that most women will not stay fond of fledgling lunatics who beat them up is "unbelievably wrong" speaks for itself. Try pushing it at a seminar over womenīs rights, Ben - and run for your life. And IF they catch up with you - do try to stay fond of them afterwards

This I would call a "coup bas".
And a non-sense as well.
For it's obvious, joking apart, that a women's rights seminar is absolutely not representative of the feelings or moral of women such as Mary.
How many times have I seen Bogart or Jean Gabin slapping a woman and then, at the end, kissing her, promising eternal love to the spectator!
And this was quite far after 1888.

Amitiés,
David.

[DVV]

Hi Fisherman,
So at last we came to agree?
Venturney could be a liar, but she is more likely to be reliable!
OUF!

Wish you the best too (I think my post are always decent, or try to be so, though my poor English may sometimes betray my thoughts).

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm just saying that women often remain fond of violent men for whatever reason. Dickens' Nancy and Bill Sykes relationship wasn't plucked entirely from the ether of fiction."

I know that, Ben! Incidentally, if I am to choose one author as an absolute favourite, it would be Charles Dickens. And I just bought "Oliver Twist" in a four-DVD issue - marvellous stuff.
Still, and I include an answer to DVV in this, I do not think that we can allow ourselves to see the fact that there are women who stay fond of men who beat them up as something that applies generally! Without venturing a statistical guess, I would say that the normal thing for any woman to do who has her butt kicked by a bloke is to walk out on him.

DVV states that he has often seen Jean Gabin slapping a girl around, only to be kissed by her afterwards, but honestly, DVV, that is fiction, although it has itīs counterparts in reality. But how many times a week do you give your girlfriend our wife a real thrashing, only to find out that it has made her even more fond of you? Or you, Ben? I for one try to pull the punches when my good lady is around, and I suspect that goes for most of us.

On the point on Venturney lying or not, DVV, I believe I have never stated that she would have lied, merely that she COULD have. That still stands - since it must do so.

Surveillance? Well, technically, I guess that you can make a point that if you see a woman and follow her, you are to some extent putting her under surveillance up to the point you strike. Of course it may have been that way, but I still believe that it seems less credible when it comes to the street attacks, it would have been of a differing character, since a man walking on the streets would have been a less suspicious character that a man posting outside a court for the better part of an hour. That would have been more probable to attract suspicion and attention, and thus a change in itself.

To what extent the Ripper would have realized this is - of course - open to discussion.

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Still, and I include an answer to DVV in this, I do not think that we can allow ourselves to see the fact that there are women who stay fond of men who beat them up as something that applies generally!

It's situation-specific, Fisherman, and if we're dealing with an impoverished London prostitute from 1888, I'd say that chances of such a person remaining with a physically absuive boyfriend were considerably higher. These people often live with abusive boyfriends and pimps, even today. That said, you can walk out on somebody because they're physically abusive and still remain fond of them. That may very well have happened in this case.

"Of course it may have been that way, but I still believe that it seems less credible when it comes to the street attacks, it would have been of a differing character"

You may well be right, and Ted Bundy might well agree, and if you are right, it would tend to support my observation that different crime scenes call for different approcahes.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It's situation-specific, Fisherman, and if we're dealing with an impoverished London prostitute from 1888, I'd say that chances of such a person remaining with a physically absuive boyfriend were considerably higher."

So howīs it gonna be, Ben? IS it situation-specific, or can we allow us to make guesses about prostitutes and pimps as more credible to be involved in abusive relationships, staying fond of each other?

Pulling your leg slightly here, Ben! My hunch (whoops, there I go again) is that you are to some extent right here, that extent being that I think you may well be right that relationships between prostitutes and lovers/pimps more often involve violence than ordinary relationships. That said, I will not make any guess about whether prostitutes are more willing to stay with abusive men than non-prostitutes. It should, I think, be kept in mind that the cases we see and hear about are those where women incredibly stay with men who they ought to realize will beat them to death sooner or later, whereas the cases where the woman says "get out of my life, bum!" donīt go down in history or in the sensation press, do they?

On the surveillance bit, maybe we should not talk about surveillance of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes. Perhaps "stalking" is a more appropriate term, and sure enough, it is reasonable that it was involved to some extent. In Nichols case, for example, he may well have followed her, waiting for seclusion and the right moment to strike.
With Chapman and Eddowes, if we are looking for a stalking scenario, we must accept that he perhaps first stalked them, then contacted them (as seen by Long and Lawende, IF they saw the Ripper). Stride? Well, that seems to rule out stalking, but then again, I rule her out as a Ripper victim anyway.

And yes, different crime scenes call for different approaches. Moreover there are not two crime scenes that are exact mirror images of each other, no matter how hard some killers try to create such a thing.
That does not mean that we can look away from the fact that the greater the differences in crime scene evidence, the larger the chance that different perpetrators are involved, though – Bundy or not Bundy.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

On the term ”ill-used”:

I read up a little bit on it, since it seems that many posters imply that it must have included serious physical violence, and I have found a few examples to point in a different direction.

First out is the link http://victorianweb.org/art/illustra...lthorpe/3.html where you will find a drawing of a young woman seemingly trying to comfort a young man lying face down beside her, implying jilted love. Not to bloody a scene, Victorian and all, drawn about 1900.

Next: In 1873, the horse race ”Belmont Stakes” had a starting line of 10 horses. The horse that ended up fifth in the race was named ”the Ill-Used” ... I donīt think the owner was implying that he beat the horse severely, but who knows?? http://www.tbcprojects.com/career.php?search=2965 is the link that will take you there, nevertheless.

Next link: http://www.buy.com/prod/some-ill-use...206883215.html shows us that in 1908 Alfred Ayres published a book called ”Some Ill-used words”.

Next quotation needs no internet link: It refers to Ebenezer Scrooge, Dickens anti-hero from A Christmas Carol, who, when speaking to Bob Cratchit about the latters wages, says:

"If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you'd think yourself ill-used, .... said Scrooge, 'you don't think me ill-used, when I pay a day's wages for no work. ..."


...and after that, I think there is little reason to go on: It is pretty obvious that the term ”ill-used” in Victorian days need NOT have ANYTHING at all to do with physical violence! Meaning that we can not use Venturneys words to establish anything of the kind - it would be to ill-use obvious evidence, in fact!

All the best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

It is pretty obvious that the term ”ill-used” in Victorian days need NOT have ANYTHING at all to do with physical violence!

That's absolutle nonsense, as the examples you've provided have just demonstrated the opposite! Once again, you're just being a tiresome zealot looking to start arguments at any cost, but you lack the intelligence and the ability to gather your thoughts coherently and articulately to pull it off. In terms of an altercation between a man and women in Victorian times, it invariably refers to physical violence on a heightended level.

In every instance where the phrase ill-used crops up in anything related to the Whitechapel murders, it refers to physical violence on a higher scale to the type you're envisaging.

It was used in relation to the bodily assault witnessed by Schwartz.

It was used in relation to the alleged bruality of Leather Apron.

It was used in relation to William Henry Bury's punching his wife over the head and leaving blood traces on the nearby walls.

That's what conteporary cources from the period were using in relation to the term "ill-used". Each carry considerably more weight than whatever you've frantically "googled" to force-fit into your conclusions. Then you dredge up a laughable "example" from fiction and try to claim that it occured in Fleming's case. What? You're saying Fleming "short-changed" Kelly for living with Barnett?

You made a perfectly reasonabler last post yesterday. I agreed with a great deal of it. Please have the nouse in future to cultivate an "amicable agreement" awareness rather than looking for any opportunity to set the sh*t storm brewing again.

Go fishing.

[Fisherman]

Calm down, Ben!

What I have presented is four examples from Victorian days where "ill-used" meant something entirely different from what you are implying. And Iīm afraid that clear-cut examples from the actual period DO count, no matter if they give you ulcers or not, Ben.

Seriously, there is no way we can have an unbiased discussion on these boards if you wonīt allow for other posters to publish relevant information, Ben. In this case we have the three examples you refer to, and that is all good and well. But they do not mean that OTHER examples cannot be used, do they? There is no monopoly on your, or any other posters, behalf, when it comes to interpreting the signs left in the case, nor should there be!

Moreover, in the cases of Schwartz, Bury and Pizer, we have reasonable assesments of exactly what was meant by ill-use AT THESE SPECIAL OCCASIONS, whereas we have nothing more than verbal mentioning of ill-use in Kellys case. It is not as if we had a medical report, is it?

And that is when one has to go to the sources - or "frantically google" to put it in your words - to find out just how broad a spectre we are dealing with. And when you do so, you must try and isolate sources from the relevant period in time. Which is what I did. And the last thing you must do is to solemnly promise not to let yourself be bullied around by someone who has already made his mind up on too meagre evidence. That is what I am doing now.
There is homework to be done at all occasions, Ben.

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

What I have presented is four examples from Victorian days where "ill-used" meant something entirely different from what you are implying.

Errr...no Fisherman.

No, we didn't.

We had two examples that absolutely reinforce my point - thanks - and two others that were wholly inapplicable in the context of Fleming and Kelly. I've just noticed how much of a classic your third one was, and I can just picture the scene: "Oi, woman" Stop living with Barnett or I'll use words in the wrong context"!

Come on...

Moreover, in the cases of Schwartz, Bury and Pizer, we have reasonable assesments of exactly what was meant by ill-use AT THESE SPECIAL OCCASIONS, whereas we have nothing more than verbal mentioning of ill-use in Kellys case.

Yes, it referred to bodily violence, and the term ill-use was mentioned.

Whenever we see the term "ill-use" crops up in relation to the Whitechapel murders, it's talking specifically about bodily violence. It's all perfectly simple. They also all referred to men in altercation with women, and Venturney is referring to the same thing in Kelly's case. Gee, I wonder what the most reasonable explanation is...

And when you do so, you must try and isolate sources from the relevant period in time.

Oh, you mean like this?

CAPPS'S Defence. I was coming down the court - this man was coming down with another female; he took my cap off, and put it in his pocket, struck me, and asked me for drink - I had half-a-crown in my hand - the other woman went away; and when I refused to give him drink, he said I had robbed him of 4 s. These women seeing him ill-use me, came up, and he struck them.

From the Proceedings of the Old Bailey.

Gallent though you're efforts have been, you're making an unsuccessful attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pick on a weaker opponent, and a weaker suspect.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It's all perfectly simple."

Wish it were, Ben; but itīs not. Itīs complicated and multi-facetted as life always is.

There are a few things to get straight here, Ben. The first being that you seem to believe that I am convinced that Kelly suffered no physical violence. This owes to the fact that you cannot control your sentiments, and it is deplorable, the way I see it.

My GUESS - for neither me nor you can make anything more than a guess as evinced from the material i used to exemplify the many possible interpretations of "ill-used" - is that when Venturney used that phrase, she was referring to physical abuse.

What we CAN NOT establish is:

A/ Whether this holds any water - for there is a possibility as evinced by my examples, like it or not - or whether "ill-used" meant something that did NOT include physical violence.

B/ To what extent that physical violence would have reached, if it was there.

Thanks to you, Ben, I have a very good example - from the Old Bailey and all - where we have a man pointing out that he has been struck by another man, describing at as "ill-using". Now, we do not know WHERE the man was struck. We do not know HOW HARD the man was struck. We do not know if ANY PHYSICAL DAMAGE came from it, at least not by the bit you quoted.

...and THAT is precisely why I am telling you it is not "simple" at all, Ben - unless you are desperate for it to be so.

As for "Pick on a weaker opponent, and a weaker suspect": donīt do such things to yourself, Ben. Itīs not worth it.

All the best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

My GUESS - for neither me nor you can make anything more than a guess as evinced from the material i used to exemplify the many possible interpretations of "ill-used" - is that when Venturney used that phrase, she was referring to physical abuse.

And a very commendable guess it is, Fisherman, though I feel you shortchange yourself when you describe it as a "guess". A guess is similar to the dreaded "hunch", and hunches tend to be unreasoning. Rather than a guess, I'd say we're left with a fairly obvious inferential probability that ill-use referred to some sort of violence on Fleming's part.

The trouble with the other non-violent examples of "ill-use" you provided was that they were wholly inapplicable in the context of Fleming and Kelly, interesting though they were. For example, you can make "ill use" of something, such as money (by spending it willy nilly or whatever), but then the whole essence of the phrase changes; it ceases to become a verb in the way that Venturney used it.

Sorry to snap.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"Sorry to snap"

We do make an art of it at times, Ben, and that is a shame. I have stated before and will gladly do so again, that you are a very knowledged participator on these boards, and an excellent guide to the events of 1888.

When you write that Ventuneys "ill-use" "fairly obvious" included some sort of violence, it represents a commendable step-down from cracked skulls and blood-strewn walls, and I welcome it. I think that is a perfectly resonable way of trying to asses what was involved.
In them surroundings, it is perhaps a wise guess to throw forward that it took more violence to make people come up with a verdict of "ill-use", and maybe it is reasonable to think that it would have extended beyond slaps in the face and such. Maybe nobody would care much about being slapped in the face. Such thoughts are of course perfectly reasonable, and just as they lead you to suspecting significant violence, they tend to lead me in the same direction, no doubt about it. But I always try to be cautious when it comes to matters like this. Maybe it means that I succeed in avoiding stepping on the wrong train sometimes, whereas it hinders me to move along at other occassions, I donīt know. But thatīs the way I do things.

I will make one final addition: You write about the way Venturney would have used the expression as a verb in a specific, active way, and it seems a correct estimation to me. But I think that if we move to the western parts of London, if somebody said that they had been ill-used by a friend, it may have meant that somebody had, for example, taken advantage of them economically. I think that the term would apply to differing things depending on the surroundings and cultural behaviour of the people involved. Thus I mean that much as I believe in a physical violence scenario in Venturneys evidence (she was of German extraction, incidentally, if I am correct, and maybe that could have played a part too? Maybe different nationalities had differing wiews on illúsing? Good Lord...), I think we must stay aware of the fact that - much as in the case of salt and pepper jackets - we are dealing with moving borders and different shades.

All the best, Ben!

Fisherman

All the best,

Fisherman