Who are the mostly likely suspects?

[curious]

Hello Velma. I know that feeling. Later, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

Sure. My little bitty mind is wandering off in a new direction, now.

[The Good Michael]

Peter Crouch

Squad No: 15
Position: Forward
Age: 31
Birth Date: Jan 1, 1981
Birth Place: Macclesfield
Height: 6'7" (2.01m)
Weight: 156 lbs (70.6 kg)

My God! He can't be healthy. Why, he's lower in weight than Fleming! Yeah, I know he plays professional football and he's been on the English national team, but he can't be healthy at that weight!

Mike

[Lechmere]

That must be a mistake - he must really be 5 feet 7 inches tall. It is clearly a misprint.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon, with respect, I'm tired with this. What the hell is that supposed to mean ?
Would you tell us why Fleming could not be a serial-killer ?
It's beyond me, honestly.

Dave.
I didn't say he couldn't have been. What I want is some reason to believe Fleming should be considered as a serial killer.

Look at it this way. If a killer murders his girlfriend, he doesn't do it last. He does not do this 'after' a string of killings.
The killer who chooses to kill his ex. does it first, then in order to cover up his relationship to the victim he might go out and commit other murders to make it appear his ex. was just an unfortunate victim of a serial killer.

Don't tell me Fleming plotted to kill Kelly since early August and had to go through some cockamamy ritual involving another five women before he decided to finally kill his intended victim!

Neither do we need to entertain the idea that Fleming just went mad and began killing random women, only to finally turn on his ex. and kill no-one else!

So, to entertain Fleming as a serial killer the hypothesis needs to come up with an exceptional scenario to explain his culpability.
1st. because Kelly was killed last, and 2nd. because no more murders followed. This is a problem for a man who was romantically involved with Kelly.
The same problem goes for Barnett.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

...
So, to entertain Fleming as a serial killer the hypothesis needs to come up with an exceptional scenario to explain his culpability.
1st. because Kelly was killed last, and 2nd. because no more murders followed. This is a problem for a man who was romantically involved with Kelly.
The same problem goes for Barnett. ...

While I am persuaded that Joseph Barnett did murder Mary Kelly, I have no opinion concerning his involvement in any other killing.

[The Good Michael]

That must be a mistake - he must really be 5 feet 7 inches tall. It is clearly a misprint.

Must be. That makes the other players around him about 4 feet 8. I can see that. I'm glad I didn't bring up Manute Bol from the NBA who was 195 pounds and stood more than 7 and a half feet... or was it three and a half? I get so mixed up when wading through nonsense.

Mike

[DVV]

Peter Crouch

Squad No: 15
Position: Forward
Age: 31
Birth Date: Jan 1, 1981
Birth Place: Macclesfield
Height: 6'7" (2.01m)
Weight: 156 lbs (70.6 kg)

My God! He can't be healthy. Why, he's lower in weight than Fleming! Yeah, I know he plays professional football and he's been on the English national team, but he can't be healthy at that weight!

Mike

Mike, that is a good example, in fact, that's the only one I know. Unfortunately for you, Crouch militates against your view that 6'7 tall men were almost common in 1888.

As you very well know, Crouch is a striking exception, he is considered kind of a freak, so extraordinary that every match he plays, TV commentators talk of his unbelievable height/weight. Because this is unique. And being aware that he is considered a freak (which makes him more famous than any other player of the same level), Crouch invented his "robotic dance", that fits him well - robot being here opposed as human, and that is soooo crouchitic.

It would have been therefore even most extraordinary in 1888. Far more, especially in the lower class, not to mention his trades (plasterer, ie harder job ever in the building trade, and dock labourer).

Being so extraordinary, this height/ would have passed from Mary to Venturney and Barnett. Undoubtedly. Even to Mary's landlord at the time she was with Fleming.
But it did not.

And more importantly, medics would have commented about this height. Their notes are extensive, Mike, but not a single word about such a freaky constitution. And to begin with, Fleming would have needed a made-to-measure bed, mind you.

You must have read many books about the LVP and JtR, Mike. I've read many as well, and thus have encountered many characters from the period, none of them said to be that tall.

You really need to think it twice, because this 6'7 appears only once (while his weight is almost always decreasing at Stone) and is never alluded to, neither by Barnett and Venturney, nor the medics, and also because Debs suggestion is not only enlightening, but based on something she has observed in similar sources from the same period.

I'm not telling you to believe in Fleming, Mike, but stop serving this 6'7 argument for which you're far too smart.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Dave.
I didn't say he couldn't have been. What I want is some reason to believe Fleming should be considered as a serial killer.

No, it cannot work like that. YOU should tell me why a paranoiac with (perhaps) early criminal records, who died in the loony bin after having been locked 28 years cannot be a serial killer.

So, to entertain Fleming as a serial killer the hypothesis needs to come up with an exceptional scenario to explain his culpability.
1st. because Kelly was killed last, and 2nd. because no more murders followed. This is a problem for a man who was romantically involved with Kelly.

Jon, you should read Kemper's story, really. And as you would easily find out, serial killers sometimes kill their friends or relatives.

Make no mistake : if Fleming was Jack, he didn't become a serial killer because of Mary. He was a serial killer who had an affair with a woman named Kelly.

The same problem goes for Barnett.

Absolutely not, because Barnett has been interrogated and cleared, because he didn't hide after the murder, and because he didn't end up at Claybury.
As far as I know, that guy could have been caught red-handed stealing a fish, at best. And was apparently afraid of Fleming. Two different characters, Jon.

[DVV]

Back on thread...

Viable suspects (descending order) : Flemtchinson, Fleming, Hutchinson, Bury, Kosminsky, Cutbush, Chapman, Peter Sellers.

[DVV]

Notwithstanding the exception of Crouch, which by the way does not explain why Mary would have cancelled this "detail" if I can call it so, 201cm for 70 kilos makes and will ever make an incredibly thin person, especially when the guy in question worked as a plasterer and dock labourer.

It means : 0.348 kilo/centimeter.

Now I'm 180 cm tall and believe me, I would immediately consult if my weight was 62.68 kilos.

[The Good Michael]

You really need to think it twice, because this 6'7 appears only once (while his weight is almost always decreasing at Stone) and is never alluded to, neither by Barnett and Venturney, nor the medics, and also because Debs suggestion is not only enlightening, but based on something she has observed in similar sources from the same period.

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

[DVV]

Neither Barnett nor Venturney spoke about the height of anyone.

Oh, this I know, Mike. And I tell you that if the guy was 6'7, Mary would have told them, and they would have told the inquest. Clearly, they told the police all they knew about Fleming.

Venturney never mentioned Fleming and Barnett never said he met the man.

Another argument you shouldn't use. Problem isn't about them having met the guy, they most probably did not, problem is, once again, that if the guy was so extraordinary tall, Mary would have told them.
As for Mary having two Joes visiting her, two Joes that she was "very fond of" (they use the same expression), it's just unbelievable, or let's say, very unlikely.

But it's just up to you to stick with these weak and poor arguments.

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.

How dishonest is this. Fleming said his NAME was Fleming and that he was a plasterer from Bethnal Green. And believe it or not, no other plasterer named Fleming, from Bethnal Green, has ever been found.

So, unless you have a better candidate for Barnett's Fleming, plasterer from Bethnal Green, don't go there, you're ridiculous.

but to make facts out of this mere conjecture tarnishes the whole field of ripperology, as if it wasn't tarnished enough.

Oh, dear Mike, you're funny again. Fleming was in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, he was mad, he was the ex-fiancé of the only victim murdered indoors, his age fits perfectly, he never came forward although he was named at the inquest and lived in the area, so don't tell us he is tarnishing ripperology, you are ridiculous again.

Stick with the facts.

My pleasure. All you have against Fleming is an obvious mistake that you are desparately trying to justify with Peter Crouch. Unfortunately, Crouch is more famous for his height and thinness than for his game, therefore you're just wrong hammering 6'7 was nothing remarkable in 1888, for it still is today (as proven by Crouch fame itself).

Now answer this : if Fleming the ex-fiancé was 6'7 tall, do you think it's more likely that Mary had told her friends, or not ? Do you seriously think she would not have mentioned that "detail" ? And how you explain the medics complete silence regarding this height/thinness ?

Trust me, Mike : a 6'7 lunatic inmate is something remarkable for a medical staff, especially when the guy turns out to be an incurable and frequently abusive paranoiac.

Lastly, that you exclude the possibility of a mistake for this amazing 6'7 that has only ONE occurrence surely tarnishes ripperology more than Fleming's candidacy, which is obviously viable, as are a few others.

Once again, researchers who are dealing for years with censuses, records, etc, do entertain the possibility of a mistake. Guess why.

[Ben]

Any particular reason why only one part of the asylum records was reproduced, i.e. when Fleming was the heaviest? We seem to be mysteriously glossing over this inconvenient bit, for example:

July 1st: Weight 11st 1lb
Mentally rambling and incoherent. many delusions about persons. Works well in Dining Hall and Mess Room. Health good.
Oct 1st: Weight 11st
Rambling and incoherent. Works in D.H. and Mess room. Good health.

That’s between 8 and 11 pounds lighter (equivalent to a decent-sized carp) than the 6’7” Peter Crouch, who, as David has already explained, is of widely noted extremes in terms of height and weight – more so than any other individual in the public eye in this country. What is more likely: that Fleming was even more extreme than this, or that he was rather closer the physical norm? 6'" and 11 stone is firmly "underweight" according to the BMI index that Mike was referring to.

With all due respect to those who cling to the 6’7” detail out of an obvious if inexplicable desire to discredit Fleming as a possible suspect, none of them appear to be as familiar with either independent research or archival documents as Debs is. As such, I’m inclined to listen far more attentively to her when she suggests that an error was likely to have occurred, than I am to the naysayers’ unconvincing insistence to the contrary. Sorry.

There is certainly not a “good” reason to think this was not Kelly’s Joe. There’s a remote outside chance at best. But we should reasonably conclude that Kelly’s Joseph Fleming - the mason’s plaster with Bethnal Green connections, was also the son on Richard and Henrietta Fleming, i.e. Joseph Fleming the mason’s plaster with Bethnal Green connections.

The offerings of Mrs. McCarthy and Julia Venturney are obviously more scant on detail, but it is nonetheless clear that they were referring to the same person – Joseph Fleming from the building trade, of whom Kelly was ostensibly “fond”. There is no reason to think that Julia Venturney was “biased”, contrary to the above fascinating assertion. Biased in favour of whom? And why would this mysterious bias, for which we have zero evidence, have prompted her to invent the ill-use story?

[Malcolm X]

.
Oh, doux Jésus....

You "doubt" JtR was a jealous ex-boyfriend ? Errr, serial killers don't have ex-girlfriend ? They can't be jealous ??

yes but not JTR, he's killed far too many other women to be ``only`` a jealous ex...... because to be a jealous ex, there is no reason to target the other women as well, only MJK.

I dont see how hard this is for you to understand, because many family murders are committed by jealous ex lovers/ husbands...... but they only murder within their family, they might indeed murder the children too, and we see this often, but they dont become serial killers.

these killers usually stab like crazy, going from room to room, or they beat them instead like Bundy/Sutcliffe and it's just very sad and unfortunate that they kill their kids too, this is because they're in a blind rage.... this is not how MJK was killed, she was not murdered by someone in a rage, but cold, quiet and calculating, her killer was not a Jealous ex, he was neutral !

with JTR we are seeing something completely different, he's killing strangers only.

[Ben]

So, to entertain Fleming as a serial killer the hypothesis needs to come up with an exceptional scenario to explain his culpability.

Only if people feel the need to weave a silly Kelly-centric motive around such a hypothesis. But if we avoid that trap, and explore something much more in alignment with other serial killer behaviour, i.e. something akin to what Curious outlined in post #34, the need to search for something "exceptional" is effectively eradicated. It would amount largely to speculation, of course, but at least we have some sort of starting point - residence in the heart of the district, history of mental illness, and ill-use of Kelly - which is wholly absent with most suggested "persons of interest".

Obviously, it would be wrong to adopt the view that unless a suspect can be shown to have an association with a victim, they must be discarded. That would be silly. But it would be even sillier to dismiss a potential suspect because they have a connection to one of the victims.