Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

I cannot imagine anyone doing what JtR did - but then someone did!

Many people believe that another hand stabbed Martha Tabram 39 times.

Somone did the "Torso" murders, with all that entailed?

Do you really imagine that an average, ordinary person would be able to actually pull this off?

Could an "an ordinary Joe (or Tom, Dick or Harry)" have been "able to accomplish this, then continue his normal mundane life. . ."?

Unless caught and convicted for another crime, the three men I cite above presumably did exactly that? Chapman/Klosowski seems to have functioned normally until caught.

Just what kind of person could kill an intimate or even a stranger, then coolly set out to and accomplish this level of mutilation?

In my view a man driven to a distraction by a woman whom he loved deeply, passionately, but who was frustratingly unobtainable and may have betrayed him or humiliated him beyond bearing. Just one explanation, but it will do.

From what I understand, people often panic after a crime, esp. murder, then they get into trouble because they can't think straight.

And many remain in control.

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

Maybe that says something about your imagination... Maybe that as a decent person you cannot enter the mind of such a man. Not sure I could. But I try...

I think if the circumstances were a one-off; if the man got it out of his syetem; that it was an act of (in his view) justified homicide and would never be repeated - i see no reason that he could not have continued life.

i do not speak of the regrets, the nightmares etc he might have experienced...

Phil

[Phil H]

Wel Fisherman, what you find convincing would not satisfy me - so we'll have to go on differing.

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.

The cuts on Eddowes' face may have been there for other reasons. You'll be aware of the theory that the V-shaped wounds on the cheks result from attempts to cut off the nose. The nicks on the eye-lids might be just a touch of humour - a flick of the knife.

But the facial mutilations read about and contemplated might have inspired another separate killer, I suppose.

That means that whatever personal element there was, would have been involved in Kate´s facial mutilations, and not in Mary´s.

See my points above.

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

No we have "Jack" (the killer of at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and the killer of MJK.

That there may have been more than one killer is clearly not unreasonable, since Tabram, Mckenzie, Coles, the torso killer etc are widely seen as by other than "Jack's" hand. Yet some of those are not impossibly by him (Mckenzie especially) so either "Jack" killed more or there was at least one other similar killer (not, I believe the murderer of MJK) who was about at that time.

You may be right, Fisherman. Your own theories don't interest me, but then I do not claim to be "right". I am simply seeking to bring new perspectives to the case for my own personal satisfaction.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Phil

Your proposition is based on weak foundations.
Of the points you raise:

‘the fact that MJK was sleeping’
That isn’t a fact.

‘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.’
He could have been an average punter that she solicited in the street and took back to her place to conduct her business. That is actually in my opinion the most likely scenario.
He could have been a regular or a one off, we have no way of knowing.

‘the nature of the injuries:
‘To me these replicate but do not "match" those on Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes’
The injuries to Nichols do not match those to Chapman.
The injuries to Chapman do not match those to Eddowes.
So by that token all the murders are unrelated?

Barnett was interrogated for four hours and his clothing was inspected. He had an alibi.
He would have to have been a very cunning fellow to have murdered Kelly and escape detection.

[Fisherman]

Wel Fisherman, what you find convincing would not satisfy me - so we'll have to go on differing.

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.

The cuts on Eddowes' face may have been there for other reasons. You'll be aware of the theory that the V-shaped wounds on the cheks result from attempts to cut off the nose. The nicks on the eye-lids might be just a touch of humour - a flick of the knife.

But the facial mutilations read about and contemplated might have inspired another separate killer, I suppose.

That means that whatever personal element there was, would have been involved in Kate´s facial mutilations, and not in Mary´s.

See my points above.

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

No we have "Jack" (the killer of at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and the killer of MJK.

That there may have been more than one killer is clearly not unreasonable, since Tabram, Mckenzie, Coles, the torso killer etc are widely seen as by other than "Jack's" hand. Yet some of those are not impossibly by him (Mckenzie especially) so either "Jack" killed more or there was at least one other similar killer (not, I believe the murderer of MJK) who was about at that time.

You may be right, Fisherman. Your own theories don't interest me, but then I do not claim to be "right". I am simply seeking to bring new perspectives to the case for my own personal satisfaction.

Phil

Carry on, Phil - of course it is not unreasonable to suggest more than one killer.

Nor is it unreasonable to opt for just the one. Quite the contrary, I´d say.

I just thought it funny that the "personal element" in the Kelly slaying sort of migrated along with the theory of a copycat deed.

By the way, the V-shaped wounds will be collateral nosecutting damage, I agree a hundred per cent with that. The nicks on the eyelids, though, will be something more than a leisurely flick of the knife, if I am correct. The killer must have been rather meticulous inflicting them in that darkness, the way I see things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

‘the fact that MJK was sleeping’
That isn’t a fact.

Actually, whether she was sleeping or not is in fact beyond recovery, Ed, so we can no more say ‘that isn’t a fact’ than state that it is, I’m afraid.

It’s a plausible premise though, which fits easily with witness accounts at the time. I think that's about as much as we can say.

He could have been an average punter that she solicited in the street and took back to her place to conduct her business. That is actually in my opinion the most likely scenario.
He could have been a regular or a one off, we have no way of knowing.

Well of course you think so – you have a man in mind for the job, eh?

Let’s suppose for a minute that Crossmere really did do her in then – he could have ‘known’ her as well as anybody else, no?

Apart from a few named individuals, we don’t know who she knew, in fact. I personally think that the evidence does lend itself to the view that she was, at least, acquainted with her killer - although I recognise that it takes us absolutely nowhere except to more speculative fun.

The injuries to Nichols do not match those to Chapman.
The injuries to Chapman do not match those to Eddowes.
So by that token all the murders are unrelated?

Apparently, yes. And ‘Jack’ was the killer that never was (well, if you subscribe to the current trend here on Casebook, that is...)

Barnett was interrogated for four hours and his clothing was inspected. He had an alibi.
He would have to have been a very cunning fellow to have murdered Kelly and escape detection.

All true. And there is really nothing – nothing - in anything Barnet said, or did, that indicates that he was any more cunning than your average badger.

There truly are some interesting Joes out there – but Barnett isn’t one of them.

[Lechmere]

Sally
All we can say is that we have no idea whether she was asleep or not, so to present a case based on it being a fact that she was asleep is 100% wrong.
You – or Phil - may think it is a plausible premise. That is your prerogative.

Charles Lechmere could easily have known Kelly.
His children went to Betts Street School until June 11th 1888 – just over the road from Breezer’s Hill and the same school attended by Stephen Maywood’s (he of 1 Breezer’s Hill) children until 1888.
A bit of a coincidence.

However all the murders seem to have initiated as a punter-prostitute street proposition, with the pair then going off to a place of business which was also a suitably discrete location for murder. I see no reason to deviate from this scenario in case of the Kelly.

[caz]

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

Hi curious,

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Phil's intellectual exercise is all very well, but psychologically (and when looking in vain for a single similar example in the history of crime) it stinks to high heaven, and although I don't claim to have a degree in psychology, I don't think Phil does either. Nothing wrong with my sense of smell, however.

Phil is free to consider my opinion of his speculation irrelevant, but if he chooses to communicate it to the readership he must expect reactions, positive or not so positive. He need not read my responses, they are designed for anyone to read.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Exactly, Fishy. You put it better than I did.

I don't think the 'this time it's personal' theorists can have it both ways. They need to decide whether one of Kelly's lovers is meant to have a) read about the recent murders and calculated where, when and how he should tackle the butchery to make it seem Jack's deed, b) mutilated her face through the sheet and ripped out her heart in a "rit of fealous jage" (because those things strike them as being 'personal' in nature), or c) pulled off a distinctly odd, if not unique combination of a face-saving exercise and an emotional breakdown.

I wouldn't mind so much if anyone could take me through the scenario they can envisage, from before the attack to the moment the killer leaves the room, explaining when he is in blame-shifting mode and when he is responding to his own vengeful feelings. But nobody ever does. They just get a bit cross instead.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Exactly, Fishy. You put it better than I did.

I don't think the 'this time it's personal' theorists can have it both ways. They need to decide whether one of Kelly's lovers is meant to have a) read about the recent murders and calculated where, when and how he should tackle the butchery to make it seem Jack's deed, b) mutilated her face through the sheet and ripped out her heart in a "rit of fealous jage" (because those things strike them as being 'personal' in nature), or c) pulled off a distinctly odd, if not unique combination of a face-saving exercise and an emotional breakdown.

I wouldn't mind so much if anyone could take me through the scenario they can envisage, from before the attack to the moment the killer leaves the room, explaining when he is in blame-shifting mode and when he is responding to his own vengeful feelings. But nobody ever does. They just get a bit cross instead.

Love,

Caz
X

Please tell me that the "face-saving" pun was unintended ...!

Oh, and thanks for the kind words, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I dont get the whole such and such knife wounds indicate a personal aspect to a murder. All murder by knife is personal. whether victim and killer knew each other or not.

Its fantasy and dime store pychology. same as the concept of copy cat killing.

But worse than that it also obcures the true meaning behind why a certain type of wound is inflicted. I think it would behoove people to research murder that involved facial mutilations to see if the killer confessed to there motivation behind doing it. I think that would shed some true meaning to the quetion why in this particular case, the ripper murders ,that it may have been done.

i think you will find the reason is more along the line that the killer was bat **** crazy and had some wacky reason for doing it or for the simple fact that it gave them pleasure.

[caz]

* the seeming attempt to destroy MJK's identity and personality - even her femininity.

Just to explain further what I'm getting at, the above would be the 'personal' bit, suggesting someone very close to the victim. I get that. I really do. There would obviously be no practical reason for a boyfriend to try and disguise/destroy her identity in her own room, then leave her there.

But then you argued that going that far may have reflected 'the sensationalism surrounding the earlier murders'.

So I'm just wondering how it could be both an emotional need to utterly destroy the woman who had wronged him, and a practical need to match, nay surpass, the goriest details in the papers.

No need to respond, I'm just thinking this through aloud.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

i think you will find the reason is more along the line that the killer was bat **** crazy and had some wacky reason for doing it or for the simple fact that it gave them pleasure.

Oh for your clarity and certainty.

Phil

[Phil H]

Phil is free to consider my opinion of his speculation irrelevant, but if he chooses to communicate it to the readership he must expect reactions, positive or not so positive. He need not read my responses, they are designed for anyone to read.

I did not say that anyone was not free to comment on my posts - my remark on your views was addressed to you, based on previous exchanges we have had. We have different approaches, I'm pleased to say.

So don't try to characterise me as not welcoming comment and you as being open to it, please.

There would obviously be no practical reason for a boyfriend to try and disguise/destroy her identity in her own room, then leave her there. AND So I'm just wondering how it could be both an emotional need to utterly destroy the woman who had wronged him, and a practical need to match, nay surpass, the goriest details in the papers.

Which just shows that you still don't understand what I am saying. I don't think you want to.

Phil

[caz]

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.

Just one more point I wanted to address yesterday but had no time.

The fact is, the police did not say the double event was "definitely not Jack's work" and they would have been acting very unprofessionally had they done so. The idea may be 'dramatic' for people who have not read up on all the genuine double events involving serial offenders over subsequent years, which the author of the postcard could not possibly have imagined or predicted. I doubt Mark Dixie's double event - or Ted Bundy's - was inspired by an idea created by a hoaxer, or the media, in 1888. For Dixie and Bundy the idea was created by their inner compulsion to finish a job that had not gone well on their first attempt.

Better on another thread though.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Please tell me that the "face-saving" pun was unintended ...!

Oh, and thanks for the kind words, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

It was unintended but, as always, gratefully received, Fishy. So I left it in.

Love,

Caz
X