Domestic or lunatic?

[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

[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

[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:

"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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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