Who are the mostly likely suspects?

[DVV]

I can explain all the above.
Mike

Clearly you can't. You can't even answer simple questions you were asked :

-Why this silence about the height (from Mary /Barnett / Venturney) ?

-Why the same silence from the medics ?

And quite simply : Why this absolutely uncorroborated 6'7 wouldn't be a mistake ?

[DVV]

I can explain all the above. You won't listen, however. You have been a Flemming fan for many years and now that there are tidbits, you throw away what you don't like. This makes you a horsesh%t investigator. No joking here. You are too emotionally involved and either medication or a rest is warranted. Really, I wish I were 10 years old again too. Have a nice day.

Mike

Poor Mike, your posts on this thread are clear for all casebookers.

You are the 10 years child hammering "6'7 !" while any reasonable person would find that height at odds with his weight, witnesses testimonies and medical notes.

So, 6'7 aside, could you tell us why Fleming shouldn't be a viable candidate, please ?

You can't, of course. Fleming is as viable as Kosminski, Bury, Hutch and a few others. The rest is a matter of opinion and speculation, and cannot be proven.

Have a nice day, and don't forget your afternoon snack.

[DVV]

Hi Richard, thanks for that excellent post :

We are still rambling on about Fleming's height, being realistic it was 67'', and as the upper range of his weight was 163lb's, quite a stocky guy, especially in 1888.
I was 5'10'' in my teens [ a fraction shorter now] and weighed in at 168 lbs, and I was considered tubby for the 1960s ....
If Fleming was five feet seven, and stocky, he would fit several witnesses accounts, his height and weight would also give him the broad shouldered look from the rear.
Enough of his shape, he must be a serious candidate

Agreed. Back in the sixties again, you may have seen plasterers working "à l'ancienne" (with a ruler). Tough job, isn't it ? I remember watching one plasterer named Charlot when my father was building his house. Such a strong and stocky guy, indeed. No thin man can do this job, and as far as I'm aware, plasterers don't work "à l'ancienne" anymore, cos it's really too hard. So no surprise if a plasterer son of a plasterer was rather stout. Especially when his mother's name is Mason.

that is of course if it could be ascertained that he was Kelly's ex .

Sorry to be redundant, Richard, but no better candidate than Fleming-the-son-of-Richard-and-Henrietta has ever been found. He only fits the bill.

Back in the 1970's on Barlow and watt, there was a interview with a elderly nun, who revealed the following.
''When I was a young novice back in 1915, the subject of the murders arose, and a elderly sister who was present, made a comment,''If it were not for that Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened.''
The elderly sister was resident in the Dorset street refuge in 1888.
Whilst I accept the nuns interview might have been fictional[ a actor etc] we have no conformation of it being so, and I find it [albeit oral history] fascinating.
I have from that day believed that Mary Kelly was the reason for the killing spree, and once the killer had despatched her, there was no incentive to continue, he may even have blamed her for his previous actions, and in killing her, he was eliminating his guilt, as she had been to blame, and that autumn could be laid to rest.
Regards Richard.

I'm with you again, Kelly is the key. That the only victim butchered indoors was also the last victim (at least in a true ripper style), and the only one in her twenties, must mean something. If not, there would be too many coincidences, imo.

I thus believe JtR stopped for the same reason Kemper called the police after he killed his mother. Both are necro-sadists, btw.

[The Good Michael]

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 ?

I can explain all the above. You won't listen, however. You have been a Flemming fan for many years and now that there are tidbits, you throw away what you don't like. This makes you a horsesh%t investigator. No joking here. You are too emotionally involved and either medication or a rest is warranted. Really, I wish I were 10 years old again too. Have a nice day.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
We are still rambling on about Fleming's height, being realistic it was 67'', and as the upper range of his weight was 163lb's, quite a stocky guy, especially in 1888.
I was 5'10'' in my teens [ a fraction shorter now] and weighed in at 168 lbs, and I was considered tubby for the 1960s ....
If Fleming was five feet seven, and stocky, he would fit several witnesses accounts, his height and weight would also give him the broad shouldered look from the rear.
Enough of his shape, he must be a serious candidate, that is of course if it could be ascertained that he was Kelly's ex .
Back in the 1970's on Barlow and watt, there was a interview with a elderly nun, who revealed the following.
''When I was a young novice back in 1915, the subject of the murders arose, and a elderly sister who was present, made a comment,''If it were not for that Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened.''
The elderly sister was resident in the Dorset street refuge in 1888.
Whilst I accept the nuns interview might have been fictional[ a actor etc] we have no conformation of it being so, and I find it [albeit oral history] fascinating.
I have from that day believed that Mary Kelly was the reason for the killing spree, and once the killer had despatched her, there was no incentive to continue, he may even have blamed her for his previous actions, and in killing her, he was eliminating his guilt, as she had been to blame, and that autumn could be laid to rest.
Apart from Fleming, I find what possibly could be McCarthy's suspect, a candidate.
According to Fiona Kendall lane, she claimed that her great grandfather knew who the killer was, and the motive, and although she never revealed more , gave us all a major clue.
A man called at the court to see Mary Kelly, and being a nuisance was despatched in ''true McCarthy style'' this man claimed that Mary had stolen something of his[ a watch?] .
Was this the killer of Kelly, and was this the motive?
So in these two suspects we have the former being[ possibly] a ex of the dead woman, who was confined as a lunatic.
The latter being a very viable suspect , especially if it was McCarthy's suspect albeit it would have been a nameless one, and that event possibly would have been told to the police after the murder, but not absolute, it could have been an after thought, not initially connecting it , to what appeared to have been a Ripper murder.
Because of McCarthy's attitude towards him , and if the stranger was the killer, he may have targeted Millers court as a venue, to get his own back on McCarthy, with all the aggravation it would cause.
I feel that the above points are more viable then naming a lot of unrealistic suspects, simply because they much discussed , and were in many cases put forth for commercial success.
Regards Richard.

[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.

[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]

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]

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 ?

[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

[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 Grave Maurice]

Flemingos.

Very funny, Ben.

[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!

[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.

[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.