Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

Yes, he did die at the infirmary - but does it say from what?
Fisherman

From good health, I'm sure.

[curious4]

Copycat

However the broad consensus

There was more, much more than a consensus in 1888, and among researchers as well.

Other than as a description of a current situation, a snapshot (if you will) of the conventional wisdom - when has a concensus ever meant anything?

if the concesus is WRONG it is valueless.

If the concensus declines to think freely or consider new ideas it is an obstruction.

If new facts emerge then the concensus has to change.

Lechmere - you still miss my point. I couldn't care less whether Barnett satisfied Abberline or the Archangel Gabriel - from the information available to me I consider it entirely possible that an intimate killed Kelly. Barnett was such an intimate, as were Flemming and now perhaps Morgenstern, maybe others. We do not have the file and thus we must draw our own conclusions. I differ from you, as on so much.

The copycat notion, basically at all, but specifically right now, to " MJK" is almost completely ridiculous.

If you say so, Digalittledeeperwatson. I disagree.

The notion of someone, not being "the ripper" and trying to make it look like a killing of said individual is assenine.

Well, there are plenty of such people around. I don't consider myself one of them.

Sorry, but killing someone then being like, "damn, I don't wanna get caught. I know! I'll stay here and deconstruct this body to cover my tracks!" is just ludicrous.

Your opinion.

I emplore anyone who buys into the copycat notion to go back and stare at that picture for one full hour.

A HOUR! I have been studying and looking at that picture for decades.

My view has not changed.

I'll therefore keep assuming MJK was a Ripper victim without carefully chosen phrases.

I cannot do anything to help closed minds, DVV.
Phil

Hello Phil,

I have to agree with DALDWatson here. Mary Kelly was literally cut to pieces. Although the other victims were mutilated, none of them was as badly cut up as Mary. Why go so much further with her body if the aim was just to make her look like a Ripper victim?

Cheers,
C4

[Ben]

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.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Tall, thin... and in very bad health.

Thanks !

It does not say that, David. It says his doctor recommended him to "expand his lungs", and that he walked at a very fast pace - the way sick people DON`T walk ...

Yes, he did die at the infirmary - but does it say from what? Are you just ... "concluding" things, the way you often do? You know, like when things get established "beyond doubt" and heights get altered:

Thereīs this fellow from Bethnal Green
whose height differed from the mean
Disallowed to be skinny
(such a thing would be sinny)
he was shortened by those who were keen

to have Hutchinson as a crook
They would rewrite any book
that said Evans was tall
(didnīt suit them at all!)
so they gave him a fresh, new look!

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I recently saw a quote from Trollope - a clergyman (one of his characters) said something like, "I have a mind that and see two conflicting opinions and agree with both of them".

While I am usually a little more decisive than that, Ripper studies draw on a relatively sparse basis of information. More than one interpretation can be derived from it and be plausible. I find it perfectly possible to hold in thought more than one interpretation both generally and specifically (i.e. about the whole case, and details within it).

I recommend it as an approach.

Phil

Phil

The quote from Clouseau, which has been The Good Mike's signature until it got replaced by "Uh ?", springs to my mind.

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

Tall, thin... and in very bad health.

Thanks !

[Sally]

You mean you get angry, inflate to 6ft 7ins and turn green?

All the best

Dave

Fleming, as we've established, was in fact an ent - so I imagine something very like this actually happening when he got angry....

[Fisherman]

Posted on another thread just now:

"DEATH OF "JACK THE RIPPER.

For about two years past there has been a man whose name has never been ascertained, but who has been termed "Jack the Ripper," living in the neighbourhood of Upper Holloway. He was a tall, very thin, and strange individual, and was in the habit of walking at a very fast pace, and in an eccentric way through Highgate and the northern suburbs. It appears that a short time ago he was sent to the Islington Infirmary as a wandering lunatic and died two days after, He was frequently asked why he walked at such a pace and in such a manner, and always replied that he did so for the benefit of his health and that the doctor had told him he must expand his lungs."

The Sheffield Evening Telegraph and Star, 17 July 1890

Tall, very thin and taken off the streets as a wandering lunatic ...

Well, well. They probably misheard "very thick" for very thin. That would explain it.

Fisherman
understanding

[Phil H]

And still I'm not ready to open my mind to ridiculous theories, such as MJK's murder being a copycat work, or a mere domestic affair.

Or to open it to anything else it seems!! But it was ever thus.

I don't say it WAS a copycat, DVV - I am simply prepared to entertain that idea along with others.

I recently saw a quote from Trollope - a clergyman (one of his characters) said something like, "I have a mind that and see two conflicting opinions and agree with both of them".

While I am usually a little more decisive than that, Ripper studies draw on a relatively sparse basis of information. More than one interpretation can be derived from it and be plausible. I find it perfectly possible to hold in thought more than one interpretation both generally and specifically (i.e. about the whole case, and details within it).

I recommend it as an approach.

Phil

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

You mean you get angry, inflate to 6ft 7ins and turn green?

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Domestic rules

I've just shown my wife the crime scene pics of Miller's Court.

So that she knows what will happen next time she forgets to buy beer.

[DVV]

I cannot do anything to help closed minds, DVV.
Phil

Oh, the Parthian shot !

I'm hurt.

I'm crying.

And still I'm not ready to open my mind to ridiculous theories, such as MJK's murder being a copycat work, or a mere domestic affair.

[Phil H]

However the broad consensus

There was more, much more than a consensus in 1888, and among researchers as well.

Other than as a description of a current situation, a snapshot (if you will) of the conventional wisdom - when has a concensus ever meant anything?

if the concesus is WRONG it is valueless.

If the concensus declines to think freely or consider new ideas it is an obstruction.

If new facts emerge then the concensus has to change.

Lechmere - you still miss my point. I couldn't care less whether Barnett satisfied Abberline or the Archangel Gabriel - from the information available to me I consider it entirely possible that an intimate killed Kelly. Barnett was such an intimate, as were Flemming and now perhaps Morgenstern, maybe others. We do not have the file and thus we must draw our own conclusions. I differ from you, as on so much.

The copycat notion, basically at all, but specifically right now, to " MJK" is almost completely ridiculous.

If you say so, Digalittledeeperwatson. I disagree.

The notion of someone, not being "the ripper" and trying to make it look like a killing of said individual is assenine.

Well, there are plenty of such people around. I don't consider myself one of them.

Sorry, but killing someone then being like, "damn, I don't wanna get caught. I know! I'll stay here and deconstruct this body to cover my tracks!" is just ludicrous.

Your opinion.

I emplore anyone who buys into the copycat notion to go back and stare at that picture for one full hour.

A HOUR! I have been studying and looking at that picture for decades.

My view has not changed.

I'll therefore keep assuming MJK was a Ripper victim without carefully chosen phrases.

I cannot do anything to help closed minds, DVV.
Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Gotta try and relay this. Apologies.

The copycat notion, basically at all, but specifically right now, to " MJK" is almost completely ridiculous. Now, if one suggests that her murderer WAS an intimate and exacted this damage on her due to an intense rage/passion/whatever I can get with that. The notion of someone, not being "the ripper" and trying to make it look like a killing of said individual is assenine. Sorry, but killing someone then being like, "damn, I don't wanna get caught. I know! I'll stay here and deconstruct this body to cover my tracks!" is just ludicrous. It's not just a murder. It is destruction by deconstruction. So lingering and going to the extent that it was taken to is just way removed from anything likely. It was madness. I emplore anyone who buys into the copycat notion to go back and stare at that picture for one full hour. It is hell in that room. A hell to be more accurate. There are many. Think about the stuff it takes to accomplish that. It is no small task. Feel free to fire at Will. That way I take no damage. Heh heh heh.

[DVV]

And at the same time, it is beyond doubt a Ripper murder.

That's a bold statement.

Phil

No, that's not.

There was more, much more than a consensus in 1888, and among researchers as well.

A handful of modern deconstructionists does not represent the doxa.

It's their position that has to be considered "bold", not to say outlandish.

I'll therefore keep assuming MJK was a Ripper victim without carefully chosen phrases.