Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Fisherman]

Be careful out there, Fish...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-8755664.html

Thanks, Sally - I read about that one in my own newspaper. Apparently, it did the rounds in papers worldwide.

Myself, I´ve been fishing for salmon in Norway. And going to Norway takes balls, given the prices over there, so I´m happy to say I managed to stay away from any below-the belt attacks.

In Norway, that is.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Also, the police did have access to the asylum records so the fact Fleming was identified by two names (Fleming/Evans) might suggest he had nothing to hide from them, in particular?

Hi Jon,

a man who has been named at the inquest, who was the victim's lover, who used to visit her, to ill-use her out of jealousy, and who never came forward.... has nothing to hide ?

Maybe so, but that's not exactly what his behaviour does suggest.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

I found this new picture of Fleming in the archives. He played an early version of Football known as 'Winkies' guesting for the College team alongside M J Druitt (to his left).

[Robert]

Why is Fleming sitting?

[Robert]

Never mind fit into the equation. It's all they could do to fit him into the picture.

[caz]

...there must be many men who kill a wife, girlfriend, partner whatever, get away with it and do just that. I do not see why Barnett may not have killed MJK ONLY, and never killed again.

Hi Phil,

Why 'must'? I should have thought that 99.9% of domestic murders get cleared up pretty quickly, considering that very few murders tend to remain unsolved for long, and fewer still remain unsolved forever.

Obviously if MJK's had been the only prostitute murder in the area, and was still unsolved today, we wouldn't be looking for a serial killer who preyed on strangers (although it could have been a one-off by a disgruntled punter who completely lost it, for example).

But MJK was not alone - there had been several horrific murders of unfortunates in the near vicinity over the previous few months, so you should factor this in when considering how likely it is that her murder was domestic in nature and therefore, by pure coincidence, her killer wanted her dead at the height of this series, just when the world was waiting for "Jack" to up his game.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

But MJK was not alone - there had been several horrific murders of unfortunates in the near vicinity over the previous few months, so you should factor this

I do. And I am quite happy to consider MJK as a victim of "Jack" - just as I have scenarios where I include (say) Tabram or Mckenzie and others where I exclude Stride. I rule nothing in or out while I try to examine the case from a variety of angles.

when considering how likely it is that her murder was domestic in nature and therefore, by pure coincidence, her killer wanted her dead at the height of this series,

So you are saying that men, at any time reason, "I'm unhappy with my girlfriend, I'd kill her, I'm in a real frenzy but - oh but (silly me!) there's a serial killer around so I won't kill her now - I'll wait or won't do it? Come off it.

Equally (more IMHO) logical to argue, "I want to kill my girlfriend - I have been reading about the murders - I know what he did to that Eddowes woman. I'll kill Mary and make it look like "Jack" did it!"

I would go further, I believe that Liz Stride may have been a domestic during the series - but given the police focus on "Jack" she was assigned to him without much thought.

I don't buy the argument - sorry - that just because there is a serial killer about ALL murders in an area must be by him. Indeed, most Ripper students discount one or more of the murders before or after the "canonicals" for various reasons. So why not look again at the "canonicals" themselves - re-arrange the patterns, see what emerges?

I think there is good evidence to support a view that the press created the idea of the "series" (not from whole cloth) but that influence shaped our views of who was included, who not. I think you admit that when you write: just when the world was waiting for "Jack" to up his game.

The so-called "double event" is dramatic, but the idea had to be created. We should questioon it. If in 1888 the police had said - no, definitely not Jack's work - the idea would have died.

Again, the "world waiting" - as you describe it - died after MJK, when press reporting died away.

Now I am not indiscriminate in "deconstructing" the case - you might have seen my comments on Simon Wood's recent articles. But the cases of Stride and MJK are different enough to warrant (IMHO) review.

I reiterate, I do not rule MJK out as a Ripper victim, but I have no reason not to consider whether an intimate (Barnett, Flemming, Morgantone, A N Other) might have dun 'er in. I have a flexible mind, I can work with multiple scenarios.

The intimates are not the men who will be blamed for nothing.

Phil

[caz]

Back to Fleming...

Imagine you were measuring the height of a man who was 5 foot 7 inches, and you recorded his height while he was standing in front of you. I'm not sure it would be terribly likely that anyone would have written 6 foot 7 inches without immediately realising their mistake. The vast majority of adult male heights would have been 5 foot something, so it would have been an odd slip of the pen, and as we have constantly been reminded on this thread, 6 foot 7 would have been a remarkable, even unfeasible height for anyone used to recording such things to encounter.

So it seems unlikely that a mistake was made at that stage. Moving on, it's only slightly more likely in my view that if the height was recorded originally as 67 inches, or 5 foot 7 inches, or perhaps even 6 foot 1 inch, it was badly written and therefore mistranscribed later in Fleming's absence, by someone who apparently didn't think to question what they had copied down as 6 foot 7 inches, and didn't seek out this giant for a good old gawp.

To my mind it would not be too far removed from someone recording or reading that an inmate had pink hair or red eyes and simply accepting it without question, or without at least doing a double take and checking back with the inmate concerned.

The 55 foot entry was a misleading red herring, as Debs showed by posting the document concerned. Nobody in that instance was recording a height of 55 foot by mistake; it was a simple doubling up of 5 foot 9 inches to read 5 5 foot 9 9 inches. If the person thought they were recording 55 foot 99 inches, that would make it 63 foot 3 inches.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

The important thing to remember with the 6 foot 7 inch entry is that it was in a working book. It was not in a record that was completed once then put away in a cabinet never to be referred back to.
It was a working book that was used and added to repeatedly. The Fleming page was revisited and added to very regularly and the 6 foot 7 inch record was always there - staring them in the face when they added details of Fleming's weight changes and update on his well being.
It is a rough book, with crossings out, amendments, writing in a variety of coloured inks and different handwriting. Sometimes scruffy and quickly scrawled, sometimes neat.
But the supposed error of his height was never noticed and never changed.

[caz]

Hi Lech,

Yesterday's paper coincidentally mentioned that a new study has found men are now on average four inches taller than a hundred years ago, due to better living conditions, health and nutrition and so on.

But of course, as you have said previously, genetics will determine whether a man is going to be tall or short, ie there will be a minimum and maximum height possible for each individual, while those other factors will merely determine where the grown man will finish up between the two. A very tall man today, say 7 foot, would still have been a very tall 6 feet 8 a hundred years ago, while a short man of 5 foot back then, would still be short today at 5 foot 4.

It would be a mistake to conclude that anyone naturally tall today would have been short or even average if they had grown up in the poorest conditions in the LVP.

But I do think anyone recording heights back then would have been so used to writing 5 foot something in nearly every case, that their instincts would have strained against writing 6 foot anything, unless they had reason to think it was correct. It would be like me signing off:

Love,

Baz
X

[caz]

So you are saying that men, at any time reason, "I'm unhappy with my girlfriend, I'd kill her, I'm in a real frenzy but - oh but (silly me!) there's a serial killer around so I won't kill her now - I'll wait or won't do it? Come off it.

You didn't wait for me to answer, Phil, so you come off it. The question was daft and no, I wasn't saying that.

I'm merely saying that few murderers are lucky enough to have the urgent need or desire to rip their lovers to shreds at quite such an opportune point in time and space. Yes, it's possible that Kelly's butcher was one of the few (even the one and only), but why should it be remotely likely?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Equally (more IMHO) logical to argue, "I want to kill my girlfriend - I have been reading about the murders - I know what he did to that Eddowes woman. I'll kill Mary and make it look like "Jack" did it!"

Hi Phil,

I didn't have time yesterday to address any other points in your post.

Are you saying here that if there had been no serial killer mutilating unfortunates in recent weeks, Kelly's boyfriend would have had nobody to take the blame, so he would have been able to control himself and kill her in a more restrained fashion, or not all? If so, I find that incredibly unlikely. It would mean that all the ripping in that room was done for that purpose; the facial mutilation, the organ and breast removal and so on, and not for emotional reasons after all - which would rather spoil the whole argument for this one being 'personal', would it not?

A paradox.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

No caz, that is not what I am saying. I have explained this many times.

I don't really think you want to understand - just to disagree...

But let me try once again from a different angle.

First, I do not seek to claim Barnett was JtR, nor that he MUST be the killer of kelly. I simply think there are indications that she might have been killed by an "intimate" of which Joe Barnett is one.

The factors I seek to take into account are:

a) the dissimilarities to the other murders:

* the time gap since eddowes
* the fact that it took place indoors
*the fact that MJK was sleeping
* the devastating nature of the injuries (far worse than any of the other murders accredited to JtR)
* the seeming attempt to destroy MJK's identity and personality - even her femininity.

b) access to the room, the question of the key, the fact that MJK must have been comfortable with her killer, or that he could gain access without disturbing her.

c) the nature of the injuries:

To me these replicate but do not "match" those on Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes. One explanation (to me) might be that the killer of MJK had READ about the other murders (especially Eddowes) but seen no body or pictures and tried to copy what he THOUGHT had been done. But in doing so, maybe reflecting the sensationalism surrounding the earlier murders, MJK's killer goes too far - dismembering.

We know from his own words that Barnett had read accounts of the earlier killings to Mary.

Now I accept that there are other explanations for some of these factors but collectively I think it is worthwhile piecing it all together to see what different "patterns" emerge. I believe, as an intellectual exercise at least, that a case can be made along the lines I have explained previously.

I think it worth holding in mind in parallel with the conventional wisdoms 9which frankly do not take us very far).

End of what I need to say. Whether you agree with my reasoning caz is frankly irrelevant to me.

Phil

[curious]

No caz, that is not what I am saying. I have explained this many times.

I don't really think you want to understand - just to disagree...

But let me try once again from a different angle.

First, I do not seek to claim Barnett was JtR, nor that he MUST be the killer of kelly. I simply think there are indications that she might have been killed by an "intimate" of which Joe Barnett is one.

The factors I seek to take into account are:

a) the dissimilarities to the other murders:

* the time gap since eddowes
* the fact that it took place indoors
*the fact that MJK was sleeping
* the devastating nature of the injuries (far worse than any of the other murders accredited to JtR)
* the seeming attempt to destroy MJK's identity and personality - even her femininity.

b) access to the room, the question of the key, the fact that MJK must have been comfortable with her killer, or that he could gain access without disturbing her.

c) the nature of the injuries:

To me these replicate but do not "match" those on Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes. One explanation (to me) might be that the killer of MJK had READ about the other murders (especially Eddowes) but seen no body or pictures and tried to copy what he THOUGHT had been done. But in doing so, maybe reflecting the sensationalism surrounding the earlier murders, MJK's killer goes too far - dismembering.

We know from his own words that Barnett had read accounts of the earlier killings to Mary.

Now I accept that there are other explanations for some of these factors but collectively I think it is worthwhile piecing it all together to see what different "patterns" emerge. I believe, as an intellectual exercise at least, that a case can be made along the lines I have explained previously.

I think it worth holding in mind in parallel with the conventional wisdoms 9which frankly do not take us very far).

End of what I need to say. Whether you agree with my reasoning caz is frankly irrelevant to me.

Phil

Hi,
While intellectually this might make sense and a person might even believe he could accomplish this, do you really imagine that an average, ordinary person would be able to actually pull this off?

Just what kind of person could kill an intimate or even a stranger, then coolly set out to and accomplish this level of mutilation? From what I understand, people often panic after a crime, esp. murder, then they get into trouble because they can't think straight.

I can't imagine an ordinary Joe (or Tom, Dick or Harry) being able to accomplish this, then continue his normal mundane life. . .

curious

[Fisherman]

What I find interesting with the suggestion that Mary´s killer may have thought "Hey, why don´t I copy the Eddowes killing?" is that if this was what took place, then the facial mutilations to Kelly would not have been there because it was a personal deed - they would have been there since the killer copied the Eddowes slaying.
That means that whatever personal element there was, would have been involved in Kate´s facial mutilations, and not in Mary´s.

So then we have Jack, a personal killer and a copycat.

That´s two too many in my book.

The best,
Fisherman