Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

Well it stands alone doesn't it?

I believe that Kelly was killed by an intimate - the extent and nature of the mutilations speak of that to me.

But I do not believe that we must therefore deduce that her killer was JtR.

I'm genuinely sorry if posting as I did offended you, but I thought I had made my reasoning clear many times.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Only the ripper could have done that to Mary.

I don't agree for a moment.

Phil

Out of all the points I made in my previous post and this what and how you respond?

What a worthless response.

[Phil H]

Only the ripper could have done that to Mary.

I don't agree for a moment.

Phil

[Abby Normal]

No evidence to support that theory as such though - all speculation.

Not quite, Sally.

I don't think it's utter conjecture to say that there is something "personal" (and different from the other murders ascribed to "Jack") in the way MJK's identity was deliberately removed.

I don't think it's speculation that makes the police, even today, look at those closest to the deceased in the majority of murder cases - and many ARE "domestics".

I know you place heavy emphasis on the fact that Barnett was exonerated by police in 1888 - I don't think it is out of order to question that basis of that judgement or the extent of the examination.

But I repeat, I see Barnett as only one of a number of intimates who might have killed Mary, I don't see him as the only or the prime possibility. I do nowadays, seriously question whether Mary was a victim of "Jack" however.

Phil

Hi Phil
I agree with you that Barnett is one of a number of people who knew Mary Kelly that may have been her killer. Indeed I think the facts and circumstances point to her knowing her killer. And even though Barnett was cleared by police I still think he is a possibility.

I can't help but think about that last meeting he had with Mary the night she was killed. Maybe he finally realized it was over. And her killer took her heart, the organ associated with love.

However, I strongly disagree with the rest. Mary Kelly was IMHO killed by the ripper, be it Barnett or not. Only the ripper could have done that to Mary. And if Barnett was not the ripper and tried to copycat to make it look like the ripper, I think he would have taken away the uterus or kidney, just like jacks previous murders, and he would have known this by reading in the papers and reciting to Mary.

Also, as another poster pointed out that room was hell, and a relatively long time in making. Like someone was savoring every minute and indulging their fullest dark fantasy. Not something a spurned lover (who was not jack) would have had the stomach for, I think.

[Fisherman]

Yes, Garry.
But the more nonsensical some are, the more "open-minded" they feel.
Didn't you know ?
It causes their lungs to expand, each soon weighting thrice their brain, a bit like Fish's new suspect.(1)

(1) edit footnote : the one who died from a perfect health of the most virulent type, for those who have missed that memorable post.

Clowning around won´t hide the fact that you once again claim to know what you can´t know. As always. You have as little knowledge of how the man died as you have of how to approach Ripper research.

Think I´ll dedicate another limerick to you!

A phantasist, anxious to save
his phantasy from it´s grave
said "I´ll go with a guess
and make more out of less
as sure as my name is Dave!

All the best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

I do have an extremely limited capacity for ill-conceived nonsense masquerading as progressive thinking. From what I’ve read over the past few years, you don’t appear to be similarly afflicted.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yes, Garry.
But the more nonsensical some are, the more "open-minded" they feel.
Didn't you know ?
It causes their lungs to expand, each soon weighting thrice their brain, a bit like Fish's new suspect.(1)

(1) edit footnote : the one who died from a perfect health of the most virulent type, for those who have missed that memorable post.

[Phil H]

I have been challenging Ripper orthodoxy for upwards of twenty-five years, Phil. The difference being that I test my arguments against the available evidence before presenting them.

Only twentyfive years? - Johhny come-lately aren't you? Oh, I wish I had that self-confident arrogance, Garry.

You cannot have it both ways though - either an organ was missing or it wasn't. If it WAS then either "Jack" took something other than a uterus or kidney; or the perpetrator took an organ in emulation of "JacK". [I was countering your original assertion.]

I do have an extremely limited capacity for ill-conceived nonsense masquerading as progressive thinking. From what I’ve read over the past few years, you don’t appear to be similarly afflicted.

Well, there you are, then. Re-read my posts, Garry - I think a key theme of them is the importance of adhering to scholarly standards. But then I don't have an agenda to protect, and I can occasionally enjoy playing with ideas - though I normally signal when I am doing so, and NEVER proclaim them as other than alternatives.

I think I always try to root my views on facts, and common sense for that matter. So define "ill-conceived nonsense" please. It sounds like - "something I don't agree with".

Some people wouldn't recognise "progressive thinking" if it slit their throat.

Cheers, "tyro".

Phil

[Garry Wroe]

Barnett the copycat neglected to take such organs away from the Miller’s Court crime scene.

But so did the killer if he was Jack!!! An attempt had been made to remove the heart though.

The heart was missing, Phil.

And, of course, Barnett just happened to be carrying a strong, razor-sharp knife capable of abstracting a number of organs as well as slicing flesh from bone. How convenient.

Mock all you will - I have tried to make my contributions positive. But then closed conventional minds seldom have much to contribute in terms of new ideas.

I have been challenging Ripper orthodoxy for upwards of twenty-five years, Phil. The difference being that I test my arguments against the available evidence before presenting them.

Or Jack the Ripper killed Kelly and had the time and privacy to indulge his sadistic fantasies to the full.

Simple solutions for minds that stay on railway tracks. 125 years of clinging to a single killer has brought us no closer to a solution. But you are welcome to your unadventurous approach to the case.

Well, I could argue that Kelly was killed during the course of extraterrestrial medical experimentation, but such a position is neither realistic nor evidentially robust. Each to their own.

I am not seeking to overthrow the conventional wisdom, which you seem so eager to protect. I am speculating, seeking new explanations. Can you not carry more than one idea in your head at a time?

It depends. I do have an extremely limited capacity for ill-conceived nonsense masquerading as progressive thinking. From what I’ve read over the past few years, you don’t appear to be similarly afflicted.

[Phil H]

No evidence to support that theory as such though - all speculation.

Not quite, Sally.

I don't think it's utter conjecture to say that there is something "personal" (and different from the other murders ascribed to "Jack") in the way MJK's identity was deliberately removed.

I don't think it's speculation that makes the police, even today, look at those closest to the deceased in the majority of murder cases - and many ARE "domestics".

I know you place heavy emphasis on the fact that Barnett was exonerated by police in 1888 - I don't think it is out of order to question that basis of that judgement or the extent of the examination.

But I repeat, I see Barnett as only one of a number of intimates who might have killed Mary, I don't see him as the only or the prime possibility. I do nowadays, seriously question whether Mary was a victim of "Jack" however.

Phil

[Phil H]

I was thinking of something a little more substancial than a pen knife or clasp knife. Wonder what the regular knife was for a porter type?

I seem to recall one of the Barnett suspect books going into that in some detail. I'll do some deeper "digging".

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Sally.

Well whoever it was was packing something mean enough to do that. Not saying I buy the Barnett killed "MJK" notion. But looking for someone with some equipment to get the job done isn't a fool's errand by any means. One reason a butcher has appeal. Plenty of hardware.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo PhilH

I was thinking of something a little more substancial than a pen knife or clasp knife. Wonder what the regular knife was for a porter type?

[Sally]

Oh yes, Dig - didn't you know? Barnett used a knife to gut fish - just like he (could've) gutted his girlfriend.

There's an entire book about this (two, even) which explains how Barnett slipped out of the lodging house in the night and filleted Mary Kelly.

No evidence to support that theory as such though - all speculation. An excellent demonstration of how easy it is to paint a man a villain using only conjecture.

[Phil H]

I think most East End men carried a knife of some sort - pen-knife; clasp knife - as a matter of course. Not necessarily for "protection" or violent use. It might even have been used as an eating utensil.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Mockery or no.

The knife is a solid point. Sorry. Would be interesting to know if Barnett being a porter carried a knife. Of course anyone going down Dorset Street without a very sharp knife might be considered a little foolish maybe? I sure would have had a couple of weapons at least.