Scavenger or predator?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Although the chances of Joe the Burglar not being the Joe of Kelly notoriety are slim to non-existent. The extraordinary coincidence of geography would tend to eradicate all reasonable doubt as to the identification.

Not all burglars are psychopaths, I'd agree with you on that score, too. But if Fleming was the killer, as you've persuasively argued, then a previous conviction for burglary is of extreme interest given the number of serial killers who committed less serious crimes in adolescence, whether they were psychopaths or not. Burglary in isolation does not a psycho make, but it must be considered significant when taken in conjunction with all the other evidence that pinpoints Fleming as a very realistic suspect."

Of course, Ben. Not weighing these things in would be careless, and therefore I do ponder it in much the same fashion as you do. But I´m afraid I don´t buy the stuff about seeing a straight line stretching from burglary to full-blown psychopathy and bloodlust. We are dealing with far too many uncertainties to assert anything at all like that, at least to my mind.
And whichever way you look upon it, what I am throwing forward is that things may well point to him SETTING OUT as a scavenger, in connection with Tabram. That is what this thread is all about - was that how he started?

After that, it seems he was pretty resourceful when it came to procuring victims and doing away with them in a controlled fashion.
But, you see, that does in no way swear against what I am saying - he may well have had a set of norms implanted within him that made him suppress his urges until the Tabram opportunity came along. Up to that moment, he may have spent his time burglarizing for all I know.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"honestly, I'm pretty sure that the 1872 Joe is our Joe. Unproven, of course, but very likely."

Likely, yes - but no more than that so far, David. And even if he WAS the burglar, we know nada of his incentives. Stealing on his families orders, perhaps, to accomodate for a living? There is no flesh on them bones of yours, David, and no nourishing soup can be cooked using fleshless bones.

"In any case, Fleming was a resourceful "badman", as far as we can portray him."

No, David - there is the possibility to interpret things that way, just as there is the possibility to believe that he was NOT the burglar, and that his "ill-using" amounted no precious little - if, indeed, it was true. There´s no "In any case" applicable here, not yet anyways.

Your view is that, by extraordinary, Fleming witnessed the murder of Tabram, and that would have been the trigger for his subsequent killings...
How unlikely is that, Fish!

Unlikely. But the evidence existing offers the possibility for making an interpretation that gives us a fledgling Ripper, detail for detail, including an explanation for his MO, something that has always seemed to have been planned from the outset for some inexplicable reason, something that explains why there were two blades employed, plus it all took place sixty yards from where Fleming lived - Now, David, how unlikely would you describe THAT as...?

"The fact that Fleming went to live in Whitechapel in August, on the contrary, makes me think that he did so planning to murder prostitutes there."

It´s not, David, as if the hunting licenses for prostitutes were only handed down to those living in Whitechapel. He of course did NOT need to move there to kill. Having a place of your own in Bethnal Green would reasonably offer a better chance of not giving yourself away, than staying in the Victoria home with a fair amount of other guys.

"I can't see Fleming as a scary scavenger in a "spiral downwards"... That doesn't work... Look: a scary scavenger, with no money, that ill-used Mary... And still Mary were in love with him?"

I am not saying he stayed a scavenger, David - it´s patently obvious that he did not. What I AM saying though is that it would seem he may have started out that way. And who says he had no money - it´s just as patently obvious that he would have had money; how else could he have given Mary money? How much or how little - who knows?

And on Ada Wilson:
"A man of medium height (said to be 5'6, when JF was 5'7), white, aged 30, not to say anything about the location...
Not proven? Once again, of course!"

David, surely I do not need to tell you that 5 foot six was an average height, just like thirty years of age was an average age, white was THE average colour and being a man was a pretty average sex...?
If you succeed to convict Joe using this, I say damn the jury.
Plus I say that stabbing for the throat was NOT what "my" Ripper was interested in, priority-wise.

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[Ben]

But I believe it would be wise to wait with that verdict until we A/ know for sure that Joe the Burglar became Mary´s lover, and B/ know what it was that brought Joe the Burglars earlier verdicts upon him.

Agreed wholeheartedly, Fisherman.

Although the chances of Joe the Burglar not being the Joe of Kelly notoriety are slim to non-existent. The extraordinary coincidence of geography would tend to eradicate all reasonable doubt as to the identification.

Not all burglars are psychopaths, I'd agree with you on that score, too. But if Fleming was the killer, as you've persuasively argued, then a previous conviction for burglary is of extreme interest given the number of serial killers who committed less serious crimes in adolescence, whether they were psychopaths or not. Burglary in isolation does not a psycho make, but it must be considered significant when taken in conjunction with all the other evidence that pinpoints Fleming as a very realistic suspect.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Harry asks "why is it no blows were executed through the clothing.The disarangement of the clothing shows thought on the killer's part, an action to bring the flesh itself open to stabbing"

Harry, the clothes were pushed up around the waist, and so I believe we must accept that the lung-piercing stabs, for example, DID go through her clothes. And it is hard to tell how many of the stabs that did so.
A killer intent on destroying another human being, and who resorts to stabbings to reach his goal, would have no reason to disarrange the clothes to do so. And certainly, if he chopped away at the upper part of the torso without opening her clothes there first, it would make little sense if he did so on the lower part.
It has been suggested that she may have done it herself, accomodating for sex, lying down on the landing, and I guess that is a possibility, but I lean to believing that she would not have laid down on a hard concrete landing, reasonably dirty, for sex. Most of it would have been knee-tremblers.

I feel there is a good possibility that Jack was the guy who lifted her skirts; and he DID have a motive for doing so.

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't see why Fleming could not have been a cunning and organized offender, if he was the killer."

I think, Ben, that there is room for such an interpretation of him, without disallowing that he could have set out as a scavenger in Tabram´s case. My reasoning goes along the line that as she lay on that landing, stabbed and badly bleeding, she offered a possibility that met his inner desires - desires that he had managed to suppress up to that night.
Once he had put the knife to her abdomen, only to realize that she was NOT dead, and therefore forcing him to silence her , stabbing her through the heart, Pandoras´ box was wide open. After that, he may well have employed a cunning and stealthy manner as he procured his following victims. And he may well have displayed a number of those things that you mention as being often connected with serial killers.

When you write "Fleming meets more than a few of these critera, and given his prior history of criminal activity, it would seem reasonable to catergorize him as largely organized and anti-social", it is easy to see where you are coming from. But I believe it would be wise to wait with that verdict until we A/ know for sure that Joe the Burglar became Mary´s lover, and B/ know what it was that brought Joe the Burglars earlier verdicts upon him. We cannot ascribe it to the disposition of either a sociopath or a psychopath just like that, can we? The underlying reasons to whatever criminal activities he may hav been into are of the outmost importance. For instance, given the conditions under which the average poor Eastender grew up, I think it is reasonable to believe that quite a few of those who stole, did so to improve the chances of surviving for both themselves and their families. Oliver Twist - though not a figure from real life - was not a psychopath, was he?
More research is needed here!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[DVV]

David, excuse me for being such a party-killer, but I really can´t remember when we received proof of Wilson being attacked by Fleming.

Fish, you're not a party-killer, and everything is all-right!
Simply, knowing that Fleming is your favorite suspect, I'm a bit surprised that you dismiss a bit lightly the possibility that he was the one who assaulted Wilson.
A man of medium height (said to be 5'6, when JF was 5'7), white, aged 30, not to say anything about the location...
Not proven? Once again, of course! What can be proven in 2008?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

Actually, though I concur with the wiew that it is likely that Joe the Burglar was "our" Joe, that is pretty much unproven too.

Hi Fish,
honestly, I'm pretty sure that the 1872 Joe is our Joe. Unproven, of course, but very likely.
More likely and far less far-fetched, IMHO, that the "scavenger/37 stabs + 2 theory".
In any case, Fleming was a resourceful "badman", as far as we can portray him.
Barnett loved Mary and wanted her to live a decent life. He played whist, were unable to help her with little money and to find a new job for months.
Fleming ill-used her for being with a kind guy like Barnett. He was able to pay his rent in the VH for years, he wasn't afraid of hard jobs, he still gave money to Mary even after he had shifted to Whitechapel.
Your view is that, by extraordinary, Fleming witnessed the murder of Tabram, and that would have been the trigger for his subsequent killings...
How unlikely is that, Fish!
The fact that Fleming went to live in Whitechapel in August, on the contrary, makes me think that he did so planning to murder prostitutes there.
Not proven, of course, but just simple and very likely.
I can't see Fleming as a scary scavenger in a "spiral downwards"... That doesn't work... Look: a scary scavenger, with no money, that ill-used Mary... And still Mary were in love with him?
No. As far as I can guess, Mary prefered "bad boy Fleming" to the kind Barnett, with his speech-impediment and good intentions. A man who, after being forced to move out for Miller's Court, said to her "Sorry darling, I have no money for you". A weak and pitiful man who wasn't respected by Mary.
On the contrary, Fleming ill-used her, but still Mary said to her friends that she was "very found of him".
God forgive her...

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[harry]

Fisherman,
If the 37 wounds,which it is presumed are not in dispute as to same blade used, were committed while in rage or feenzy on the killer's part,why is it no blows were executed through the clothing.The disarangement of the clothing shows thought on the killer's part, an action to bring the flesh itself open to stabbing.So if you say the slash and sternum wound were done independently by another person,and they were committed after the 37 deliveries it would rule out any frenzy or rage on the part of both your attackers.
One killer one weapon seems the only way to accept Kileens findings,and if there is one fault to find ,it is that Kileen description of the weapon as a penknife might have been wrong,and it's ability to cause a different looking wound, not appreciated.
Regards,
Harry.

[Ben]

Interesting discussion chaps and sound observation from all sides, but on balence I'm inclined to agree with David.

I don't see why Fleming could not have been a cunning and organized offender, if he was the killer. The fact that he ended up in an asylum is only indicative of the extent of his mental instability at that time. The majority of known serial killers are either sociopaths or psychopaths, whose diagnostic traits will often include impulsivity, repeated lying, use of aliases, stealing, a history of misdemeanors in childhood, an inability to hold down a job, superficial charm (interesting in light of Kelly's alleged affections for him), aggression and verbal abuse.

Fleming meets more than a few of these critera, and given his prior history of criminal activity, it would seem reasonable to catergorize him as largely organized and anti-social, rather than asocial. If that behavioural culminated, eventually, in serial murder, I don't think it would be a loopy or psychotic affair.

Just for jolly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisoc...ality_disorder

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"The cause of death was haemorrhage"

...and yes, that was the given cause. But Killeen also said that the pierceing through the sternum and heart in itself would be enough to cause death. Therefore, Harry, I think we are left with the only possible solution that it was the last blow, and not the first. Had it been the first, then there would have been no reason to surmise that she died from blood-loss, would there?

"As killen implies it was the only one different,all others must have been caused by the same person,including the slash wound."

Ah, but he never did say that the 37 wounds MUST have been by the same instrument to begin with - what he said was that the wounds all COULD have been inflicted by the same blade, but for the one through the sternum. And indeed, although the 37 stabs would reasonably have been made by the same blade, there is of course no way to be sure that they were not inflicted by 37 blades that were similar in shape.
The cut, though, is another thing altogether: no way to measure blade width from an entrance hole, and no way to establish the thickness of the blade. It could have been made by the smaller blade and it could have been made by the wider one. Try and cut a loaf of bread with a number of different blades, and then tell by the appearance of the cuts which blade made which cut - can´t be done, I´m afraid. But stab the loaf with a small, thin blade and with a sturdy, wide-bladed dagger and anyone can tell which blade made which stab.

"If the sternum wound was the last given,and not done by the same hand,that would mean another attacker after she was dead or nearly so,a very implausible situation"

...which is why the obvious possibility to fit the wounds in with BOTH a frenzied attacked and a man interested in eviscerating has illuded us for so long a time. Together with John Bennetts find of that pic of George Yard Buildings, it makes for a very compelling scenario, I believe.

All the best, Harry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DAvid asks:

"does the 1872 story indicate a "scavenger"?
Certainly not.
Does the assault on Ada indicates a "scavenger"?
No, Fish, and it shows that Tabram's murder was not the starting point of his career, which,as far as I understand your post, is one of the relevant points of your article."

David, excuse me for being such a party-killer, but I really can´t remember when we received proof of Wilson being attacked by Fleming. Actually, though I concur with the wiew that it is likely that Joe the Burglar was "our" Joe, that is pretty much unproven too. And I really don´t think that we can decide whether the purportedly same Joe would be a scavenger or a predator, turning to murder sixteen years later. What would you want to agree? That he sat down in the street and waited for someone to pry a window open?
Come, now, David...!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
The cause of death was haemorrhage
'consequent upon the punctured wounds',is the wording I have.In other words,Tabram bled to death.My opinion of the Sternom wound being the first,is only relevent if there had been another attacker,because that wound is the one that showed a difference as to the weapon used.As killen implies it was the only one different,all others must have been caused by the same person,including the slash wound.
If the sternum wound was the last given,and not done by the same hand,that would mean another attacker after she was dead or nearly so,a very implausible situation,and if it was done in between stabs,well??????
Regards
Harry.

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
as you can guess, I completely disagree...
Being a plasterer/ mason, JF could easily get money with no regular employment.
Spiral downward? Who knows? - But we know that Kelly still loved him, to the point that she talked of him to her friends, and even to Barnett, and she loved him though he ill-used her.
Therefore there are more hints to support my (clumsy and incomplete, of course) portrait than yours.
And one more thing: does the 1872 story indicate a "scavenger"?
Certainly not.
Does the assault on Ada indicates a "scavenger"?
No, Fish, and it shows that Tabram's murder was not the starting point of his career, which,as far as I understand your post, is one of the relevant points of your article. So, if you believe Ada to be a JF/JTR victim...
I myself believe that Hutch and Fleming are one and the same person, and in any case, none of them can be portrayed as a scavenger.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

" the first floor landing, is a particularly secluded one."

On the contrary, David - it was a landing that opened up to a gallery on the back of the building, and may arguably, since it took place some feet up, have been the LEAST secluded murder spot! It carries resemblane to a stage at a theatre company.

On your picture of Fleming, I would say that I disagree just as much as I am fascinated. Here goes:

"Would you have written exactly the same article, knowing how a serious suspect Fleming was in Ada's case?"

Academic question, since I fail to see what exactly should implicate Fleming in that particular case, David. But yes, I do believe that I would write the exact same article since it reflects the exact same wiew of mine.
Fleming gave Kelly money at times, it is alledged. How many times and how much is a matter we know nothing of. It did not keep her from falling arrears with the rent, anyhow. And the money he earned could have come from burglary - drug addicts today steal to find the opportunity to buy drugs, and I don´t see that making them any Rockefellers... Plus, David, the money he gave her could have been his last pennies; as far as I´m concerned, he was very probably posessed by Kelly.

"So a man like Fleming couldn't be, from a professional point of view I mean, in a "downward spiral". Quite the reverse: the fact that he worked later as a dock labourer indicates a self-confident man, sure of his strenght (see the way people had to rush to get employed in the docks: only the fastest and the strongest got the "chance" to get one day work)."

Of course he could be in a downward spiral, David. Just like you say, a plasterer enjoyed a nice and decently payed job. So why did he not stay a plasterer? Moreover, the fact that he was alledgedly a dockworker does not necessarily imply that he got all the jobs there was to get. It´s not as if we have any payrolls with his name written all over them, is it? He may well have been a very unsuccesful dockworker - having to try and find other outcomes as he went along.


Your wiew of him as a predator, cunning, clever and strong and with a light-hearted solution to any problem that may have come along is, as I say, fascinating. But where is the substantiation, David? Where is the one scrap of evidence that tells us that he enjoyed the kind of life you are hinting at?
He was a man who eventually ended up in an asylum, professing serious psychological difficulties and prone to believe that he was being persecuted. He did not exactly take his parting with Kelly with a smile - he secretely kept adorning her, though it would have been pretty obvious that she had dumped him. Why did he not take that with the ease and happy mind you suggest, and settle for the next girl that came around, and the next, and the next...?
To me, this does not suggest any self-confident success in social life and on the job-market. Quite the reverse, actually.

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish and Harry,
1- about Tabram's murder: I agree with Harry: 1 weapon, 1 predator. Especially since the location of Tabram's murder, on the first floor landing, is a particularly secluded one.

2- about Fleming supposed "downward spiral": here, Fish, I must say that I have a completely different picture of our man.
Fleming was a plasterer, as was his father. That means to me that he could easily survive in the East End without a regular employment. Myself, when I'm broke, I never worry, cause I always can find little jobs like painting, doing little masonry etc. Moreover, being a plasterer is not nothing. It's a wonderful handicraft, which supposes strength and technical ability. And in the building trade, when you can work as a plasterer, there are many other things you can do. So a man like Fleming couldn't be, from a professional point of view I mean, in a "downward spiral". Quite the reverse: the fact that he worked later as a dock labourer indicates a self-confident man, sure of his strenght (see the way people had to rush to get employed in the docks: only the fastest and the strongest got the "chance" to get one day work).

Remember also, Fish, that Joe Fleming used to give money to MK, and lived in the VH. In 1891, he seemed to live also in Bethnal Green. That's a moving man. And as you said, he could be a thief as well. Believe me, Fish, this man knew how to survive and how to swim.
A real bad man.
I know you have followed the thread "Fleming in 1872". I know you haven't missed the fact that Ada Wilson has been assaulted in the very headquarters of Fleming. By a man about 30, of middle height, just like Joe.
This attack doesn't suggest a scavenger, but a violent predator, and a resourceful one, who made his escape good.
Frankly, Fish, I know that your article has been written before these facts were discussed (ie Fleming and Ada)... Would you have written exactly the same article, knowing how a serious suspect Fleming was in Ada's case?
Of course, Fish, I make these objections with all due respect, and I'm sincerely thankful for the original thoughts you always share on boards.

But really, as a conclusion, and since Fleming is one of your favorite suspects, I must point out that this man is far from a scavenger. He's ruff and tuff, definitely.

Amitiés mon cher,
David