Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

First to be clear Garry, Barnett (as far as I am concerned) is an EXAMPLE of an intimate of MJK - I am not trying to make a specific case against him.

Next - you clearly don't agree - I am not here to persuade you.

Third, there are possible answers to all your points. But the fact is, it is all speculation. Since you are out of sympathy with the point in discussion, I doubt you'll acceopt what I say.

The uterus/kidney - if the killer of MJK was NOT "Jack" but someone like Barnett he might have been less familiar with the human body than the real killer.

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.

Unpremeditated rage? So then Kelly must have provoked him into this murderous rage, presumably during the course of an argument that was overheard by not a single one of Kelly’s near-neighbours.

I am thinking slightly wider than you are, it seems Garry. The French used to have a legal term - the crime passionelle - a sort of "while the mind was disturbed state". My concept would stretch to that. No argument prior to the killing needed - that could have been done hours/days before, but it preyed on her killer's mind until something cracked.

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.

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.

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? Well, I can see many potential solutions, glimpse many combinations of events and evidence. I try opening the blinds sometimes to let in fresh light.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Gary Wroe.

Nice points to mention.

[Garry Wroe]

My own ideas are based on the known fact that Barnett read reports from the newspapers about the murders to MJK. Thus we know he (at least) knew some of the details as reported in the press.

In which case he would have been aware that the killer was partial to a uterus as well as the occasional kidney. Strange, then, that Barnett the copycat neglected to take such organs away from the Miller’s Court crime scene.

IF (big if and there are other possibilities) Barnett killed MJK in an unpremeditated fit of rage, or something similar, I think he might have fastened on the idea of disguising the killing as a "Ripper"-job. He thus tried to emulate, but exceeded, the read "Jack's" mutilations and disembowellment.

Unpremeditated rage? So then Kelly must have provoked him into this murderous rage, presumably during the course of an argument that was overheard by not a single one of Kelly’s near-neighbours. 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.

Momentary hatred of the victim and a desire to destroy her identity may also have driven some of his work.

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

[Fisherman]

I'm afraid so, David - Outlandish or no.

As for Crossmere's sick leave - probably. All that murdering had tired him, no doubt.

That could well be right, Sally. Think MacKenzie.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From good health, I'm sure.

Yes, you normally ARE sure - when no sure deduction can be made. That´s just you - and preconception.

A ruptured aorta, a sudden heart failure? Who knows? He was taken to the infirmary as a lunatic, so it could have been anything - but very sick people do not walk very fast.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

That's nice, Fisherman, but it's important to get the meter right, like this:

There's a Ripper enthusiast Swede
Whose posts are exhausting to read
Now we might all revile
His bombastic style
But his angling efforts succeed!

Just tweaking yer bum, Fisherman. Chill out.

I see! Well, let´s try again then:

Two guys from the butcher´s boutique
found a method that was quite unique
for cutting people short;
they would simply distort
The record of where Evans would peak!

How´s that? No? So how about this one:

A galloping, dangerous disease
is disturbing Ripperology´s peace,
reads the evidence backwards
and moves the discipline towards
silly Ripperology à la John Cleese!

Surely you must find at least one of them to your taste?

I hope you got the fishing thing right, at any rate - Norway coming up next week. Salmon and halibut, God willing. Or willing cod.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

My own ideas are based on the known fact that Barnett read reports from the newspapers about the murders to MJK. Thus we know he (at least) knew some of the details as reported in the press.

IF (big if and there are other possibilities) Barnett killed MJK in an unpremeditated fit of rage, or something similar, I think he might have fastened on the idea of disguising the killing as a "Ripper"-job. He thus tried to emulate, but exceeded, the read "Jack's" mutilations and disembowellment. Momentary hatred of the victim and a desire to destroy her identity may also have driven some of his work.

But Barnett - the example here - is just one of several intimates who might have done the dee.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Phil H, and anyone else.

Can I have your opinion on this? Are you in favour, as it pertains to the notion of a copycat, of it being an in the moment decision or a premeditated type thing? I respect it as a possibility, but not much further than that. And it's not the old conventional wisdom thing. I'm not saying that "MJK" had to have been murdered by "JTR". I'm not even saying that there was a "JTR", although it isn't the most unreasonable explanation. Many thanks. And don't take my earlier post as an attack, as it was not. If anything it was more of a tactic.

[Sally]

Sally, are you seriously suggesting that the Ripper killed Mary Kelly ?

How outlandish.

I'm surprised at you.

Was Charles Crossmere on sick leave in November ?

I'm afraid so, David - Outlandish or no.

As for Crossmere's sick leave - probably. All that murdering had tired him, no doubt.

[DVV]

Sally, are you seriously suggesting that the Ripper killed Mary Kelly ?

How outlandish.

I'm surprised at you.

Was Charles Crossmere on sick leave in November ?

[Phil H]

carrying out his deeds in familiar surroundings

Familiar - why, Sally?

Phil

[Sally]

OR...

Kelly's killer - the same killer responsible for the deaths of several other women before her - had more time and was possibly carrying out his deeds in familiar surroundings - more of a comfort zone than a few snatched minutes on a darkened street?

Where did Fleming go in all this?

[Phil H]

I am not going to debate with you DVV - . I have said what I have said, and it is clear.

If you disagree... well, that won't be unusual.

Phil

[DVV]

Excellent !

And the papers did tell "them" that the Ripper favourite preys were prostitutes in their twenties, working indoor.

[Phil H]

Why go so much further with her body if the aim was just to make her look like a Ripper victim?

Obvious - they were working from WRITTEN accounts in the press.

They had not seen the actual bodies of victims, they knew they were supposed to be horrendous, so they imitated what they thought had happened.

Phil