Domestic or lunatic?

[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 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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[DVV]

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

Mon cher Fish,
of course, quoting one of your two sentences does not mean I read only one of them.
My problem is that I'm little bit afraid about people trying to portray Fleming as "another Barnett", since we can't ignore two major facts: Fleming's lunacy, and his moving to Whitechapel in August 1888.
But I have no problem to concede that I don't believe him to be the ripper. To my mind, he has to be a viable suspect, and the little we know about him should prevent us, IF we assume him to be Mary's murderer, to see this murder as a 100 percent domestic affair (thinking here, also, about Sam's comparison with Kemper).

Amitiés, and all the best,
David

[Sam Flynn]

To begin with, when you describe Edmund Kempers mother as a "loved one"

I knew I'd get in trouble for using that phrase! Perhaps I should have referred to her as "someone with whom the killer had had a long-standing and significant relationship". Long-winded though that is, it fairly encapsulates what I meant, and what I should have said

[Cap'n Jack]

Hey Sam, lay off that PC button, for you are quite right, the majority of murder victims are killed by someone who 'loves' them.
I've been saying that for 30 years now.
The boy wanted love.

[Sam Flynn]

Hey Sam, lay off that PC button, for you are quite right, the majority of murder victims are killed by someone who 'loves' them.

In Indeed, AP. In the case of Kemper, however, one might have to argue that his love towards his was of the "less-than groovy" kind. As Auden wrote, "Each love to its aim is true, and each must seek its own", and I have little doubt that there are folk out there who indeed love in their own way, but whose aim is rather off-centre compared to the majority.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Has this turned into an Edmund Kemper thread?
It's starting to get tedious.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Well, Sam, if you saw the movie "Silence of the lambs", you may agree that Hannibal Lecter had a long-standing and significant relataionship with dr Chilton...?

That aside, I have already said that I realize the significance of the Kemper case as a useful comparison when it comes to Fleming as a possible Ripper, and that applies even when you ponder the built-in significant differences.

As for Auden and off-centre love aims, I think that we may turn to another British poet to recognize the fact that what we describe as love may range from Platonic such to more flesh-concerned variants, and that the object for one´s love may sometimes be yourself; was it not Byron who once said that he would rather suffocate a child in it´s crib than look away from his own lusts...?

All the best,

Fisherman