Who are the mostly likely suspects?

[Robert]

I don't see Blotchy as the Ripper at all. To my mind, Jack wanted to kill and mutilate - not sit back and enjoy a cabaret.

[GregBaron]

Can't be certain...

As I think Lawende saw the ripper, I don't think Blotchy can fit the bill.

Still a suspect for Miller's Court, but the Hutchinson episode, hours after, seems to militate against Blotchy (even if Hutch was lying).

There descriptions seems slightly at odds but I don't think we can rule out the rough sailor and the shabby blotchy as being the same dude.

I'm a bit dense but I don't see how a lying Hutchinson precludes Blotchy?

I don't see Blotchy as the Ripper at all. To my mind, Jack wanted to kill and mutilate - not sit back and enjoy a cabaret.

Good one Robert but don't forget the Jews were singing in Dutfields. Perhaps, like Frankenstein, Jtr gets furious when the music stops....

All kidding aside, we don't know when Blotchy fled or when the murder occurred. Perhaps they both passed out and woke up at 4 when Blotchy realized it was now murder time or he was well into the carving phase when Hutch and Lewis were doing their dance outside the court. Not saying its likely but still...


Greg

[DVV]

Hi Greg, I believe Blotchy was Mary's last punter, but not her murderer.

[Abby Normal]

I don't see Blotchy as the Ripper at all. To my mind, Jack wanted to kill and mutilate - not sit back and enjoy a cabaret.

Hi Robert
perhaps he was enjoying the opening show before the headliner.

[Bridewell]

Blotchy

Hi RN


Right now if forced to pick just one suspect as Mary Kelly's killer and therefore Jack the Ripper I would have to go with Blotchy.

Hi Abby,

I hate to be pedantic (no, actually I love it, it's my raison d'etre) but isn't "Blotchy" a description, as opposed to a suspect?

Yours with tongue firmly in cheek.

Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

If 6' 7" is a "obviously" mistake, why must it be that he was 67"? Perhaps he was 7' 6"?
Then again, perhaps 6' 7" means something like, oh I don't know - 6' 7"?

Cue howls of protests from the Flemmingites, Flemmingists, or whatever the technical name is.

[Ben]

Cue howls of protests from the Flemmingites, Flemmingists

Flemingos.

I couldn't help but notice that after a marked lull in the Fleming discussion, you decide to bring up the issue again, despite being the one to complain a few posts ago that the debate over him was hijacking the thread.

No, Fleming was probably not 6'7" or anything close, and for the reasons discussed ad nauseam, the entry was almost certainly in error.

[Debra A]

Neither Barnett nor Venturney spoke about the height of anyone. Venturney never mentioned Fleming and Barnett never said he met the man.

The other point is, you have no idea if this is the Fleming. You assume that because the man was in an asylum that he must have been 'Joe' (a rare name, I might add) who ill-used Kelly, an anecdote from a biased and pretty ...useless...no, not so important source.

It's fine to have a pet theory, but to make facts out of this mere conjecture tarnishes the whole field of ripperology, as if it wasn't tarnished enough.

The last point is that this Fleming in Stone Asylum, though on the slender side, is not considered scientifically to be an unhealthy specimen for his size. Beside this, we see that he continuously lost weight while in hospital. Can we even remotely believe that he only was losing weight beginning the day he entered the asylum? You are too smart to say that. You know that mental illness doesn't happen just one day out of the blue and a person say, "gee, I think I'm nuts. Better head to the asylum now." It had to have been months or even years of illness prior to his being admitted. He may even have weighed as much as 175 at one time for all we know.

Stick with the facts.

Mike

Go back, Mike. Chris Scott, who transcribed these records originally wrote 6'7" (sic)...you won't see it now cos it's edited but Richard will fill you in on his objections further along the thread I'm sure...plus we have the height described as 'problematic' by the transcriber, Chris S.
Mine was a suggestion, after looking through height files for soldiers!

[The Grave Maurice]

Flemingos.

Very funny, Ben.

[lynn cates]

If I hear just one more chorus . . .

Hello Abby. If Blotchy killed MJK, it must have been after about 45 minutes (or more) of regaling him with Irish folk music.

Why did he wait so long?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Go back, Mike. Chris Scott, who transcribed these records originally wrote 6'7" (sic)...you won't see it now cos it's edited but Richard will fill you in on his objections further along the thread I'm sure...plus we have the height described as 'problematic' by the transcriber, Chris S.
Mine was a suggestion, after looking through height files for soldiers!

Deb, I read the original posts here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2079

Chris doesn't say it's problematic. He says, "Possibly" problematic, and it seems to me he says this to cover a few different possibilities. The transcription itself is obviously 6 ft 7 in.

And of course I haven't an issue with someone making a mistake through carelessness writing something differently from what he/she read. I just see no proof of that. The problem is, there are people who have believed in a certain suspect or another for so long, that as soon as a banana is thrown at them, they can no longer see the trees for the banana, and soon the work put into the planting of the trees is forgotten as they run off with their fruit. I thought a monkey analogy worked well here.

Mike

[DVV]

And of course I haven't an issue with someone making a mistake through carelessness writing something differently from what he/she read. I just see no proof of that. The problem is, there are people who have believed in a certain suspect or another for so long, that as soon as a banana is thrown at them, they can no longer see the trees for the banana, and soon the work put into the planting of the trees is forgotten as they run off with their fruit. I thought a monkey analogy worked well here.

Mike

Be honest one minute, Mike.

What are you talking about ?

If the only "banana" in Fleming's candidacy is that "6'7", then there is probably no banana at all, since there are excellent reasons to believe Fleming wasn't that tall, but rather 5'7. There are two odd 6 in JF records : "160 years" and 6'7, which made one thinks it was perhaps 150 years and 5'7. Now, interestingly, Debs suggestion will put Fleming at 5'7 as well, or let's say : 67 inches.

Therefore, that you put so much faith in a likely mistake to mock a theory you dislike is both pathetic and inamical.

You can't explain why such a height would have been cancelled by Mary. You can't explain why such a thin guy could be a plasterer and a dock labourer. You can't explain why the medics never alluded, even not once, to this bizarre constitution.

But still you grab this poor 6'7 and hammer it like a tantra-mantra. Who is biased on this ?

[DVV]

Flemingos.

I couldn't help but notice that after a marked lull in the Fleming discussion, you decide to bring up the issue again, despite being the one to complain a few posts ago that the debate over him was hijacking the thread.

No, Fleming was probably not 6'7" or anything close, and for the reasons discussed ad nauseam, the entry was almost certainly in error.

Hi Ben,

agreed, as usual. Bridewell must be another top-researcher whose knowledge is so vast that he doesn't have to pay attention to Debs reasoning and suggestion.

Peter Crouch in the loony bin, 1892...Sigh.....

[DVV]

Is that ?

Ben, it is an ascertained fact (!) that at 5'7 for 70 kilos, Fleming would make an interesting medium-built Gentile, aged 29 in 1888. Add to this his link to the only victim murdered indoors (the only victim in her twenties), the fact that Fleming moved to Whitechapel at a crucial period, never came forward, his madness, and you'd easily understand Mike's panic.

Dvvvv

[DVV]

Chris doesn't say it's problematic. He says, "Possibly" problematic, and it seems to me he says this to cover a few different possibilities.
Mike

No, false !

Chris Scott said : "On the basis that another possible reading of the problematic height..."

"Possible" qualifies "reading" and does not affect the "problematic" height.

Once again, Debs is right.