Scavenger or predator?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

In the new issue of Ripperologist, I put forward the suggestion that Jack started out as a scavenger, and not as a predator. My hunch is that he was responsible for two of Tabram´s wounds, whereas the other 37 were inflicted by a punter, probably in the shape of a soldier.

The wounds I ascribe to the Ripper are two: the cut to the lower body and the stab through the heart. Killeen has had us fooled for 120 years, saying that all of the 39 wounds but for one may have been inflicted by the same blade. It would apply to the 37 stabs, but not necessarily to the cut. Telling the shape and size of a cutting blade is nigh on impossible, since the width and thickness of the blade is not displayed in the wound in the same fashion as is the case with stabs.

This scenario was something I think offered itself readily at the moment when John Bennett published the picture of the back of George Yard Buildings that he found earlier this year – that tells us that there may well have been a public element to the Tabram slaying.

I also suggest that the Ripper´s MO was formed by his experience at in George Yard. He saw the soldier subduing and stabbing Tabram, only to flee the scene afterwards. That left the field open to Jack who crept up to the landing, raised Tabram´s skirts, put his knife to the lower abdomen and started to cut – only to realize that Martha was not dead, as testified by Killeen.
As she cried out or moaned or wriggled, he must have realized that he was in terrible danger, wielding a knife over the stabbed body of a woman, in very close proximity to a number of tenement doors. Anybody could come out to check what was going on at any time.
Therefore, he decided to run for it, but before he did that, he stabbed her through the heart, ensuring her silence.

From this, he would have learnt never again to take the risk that the woman he wanted to cut up had a chance of giving him away, and THAT is what made him decide to cut the throat next time over: it would ensure silence and death, leaving him the best option possible to succeed to eviscerate and procure organs.

I suggest that the rise of the Ripper took place in the early hours of August 7 on that landing. Such a scenario would enable us to fit Tabram in, in spite of the fact that her slaying looks like a frenzy (it WAS – but NOT on the Ripper´s behalf), just as it would provide us with a natural step along the progression line of the Ripper, plus it would give us the key to the riddle of Jacks chosen MO.

I look much forward to debate the subject, should anyone feel inclined to!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Killeen has had us fooled for 120 years, saying that all of the 39 wounds but for one may have been inflicted by the same blade.

Ah, Fish! At last you admit it!
...
Of course, I'm joking... I've read the whole post.
I guess I'm not the right person to discuss this rather bold hypothesis, though I would concede that the "scavenger" somehow matches our murderer alleged necro-sadism.
One question (certainly already answered in your article): where was Jack to have witnessed the murder?
Once again, my opinion is that Martha has been killed by one murderer, using one weapon. But we have not to discuss this again... Except that "bayonet" and "soldier" sound too much like an "associations d'idées" (sorry, don't know how to express this in English).
Let me just point out that Inspector Reid, who worked hard on the infamous soldiers trail (really, he did his best), simply believed Martha to be a JtR victim.
I also think that JtR started his career before August (Millwood and/or Wilson), and these attacks hardly suggest a "scavenger".

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Inspector Reid could only have thought Martha Tabram a "Jack the Ripper" victim after September 30th.

I wonder what he thought beforehand.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi David,

Inspector Reid could only have thought Martha Tabram a "Jack the Ripper" victim after September 30th.

I wonder what he thought beforehand.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
of course, but is that relevant? I merely meant that Reid did not believe in the "soldiers trail", though he had struggled hard on it.
He could very well, after 30 Sept, have thought: "Martha is not a victim of the man we called JtR, since I suspect a soldier was her murderer, uncaught because of this bloody Barrett..."

Amitiés,
David

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi David,

Inspector Reid could only have thought Martha Tabram a "Jack the Ripper" victim after September 30th.

I wonder what he thought beforehand.

Regards,

Simon

The Coroner said he was in hopes that the body would be identified, but three women had identified it under three different names. He therefore proposed to leave that question open until the next occasion. The case would be left in the hands of Detective-Inspector Reid, who would endeavour to discover the perpetrator of this dreadful murder. It was one of the most dreadful murders any one could imagine. The man must have been a perfect savage to inflict such a number of wounds on a defenceless woman in such a way. The inquiry would be adjourned for a fortnight.

EDIT>>> Direct from the inquest. You decide what he thought of it. The coroner gives us a clue.

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"One question (certainly already answered in your article): where was Jack to have witnessed the murder?"

I really don´t know, David. But this question, together with the one about how visible it would all have been in the night, are the two questions I anticipated.
My take on things is that John Bennetts picture proves the possibility of my hypothesis. I start from there, and we are left with a number of possibilities as to where Jack/Fleming was at the time. What is of importance to remember here is that he actually lived a mere sixty yards from George Yard Buildings, and that is some start!
Fleming could have known somebody in the block, he could have been makin a short-cut towards some unknown destination, he could have upheld some sort of nightly work there (perhaps as a night watchman in one of the warehouses opposite George Yard buildings, and there is of course another intriguing possibility that ties in nicely with the findings about the 14-year old "Joe the Burglar".
We know that Flemings life was taking a downward spiral, and that he could not keep his job as a plasterer, being forced into simpler jobs. Maybe he was simply forced to reenter his career as a thief - if he had ever left it.

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[harry]

Agreed that a blade type knife could have inflickted the slash as well as all the other stabs bar the one in doubt.
It is the 'Bayonet likeness'effect that seems to have been questioned in the other wound.Could not that have been because in that one instance,the knife was used differently?A bayonet,(blade type)if twisted before withdrawing,will show a difference to a clean stab,so why not a knife?And as you say,Fisherman,if that wound was meant to cause more damage,why not use the knife that way.I go for only one weapon,and a predator.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

As I have stated at numerous occasions, I don´t feel that Killeens testimony leaves us in any doubt on the issue of the two blades.
Let´s say that just the one blade was used, Harry, and lets speculate along the lines you suggest. We then have a knife that is used to stab 37 times, to slash at the abomen once, and to thrust through the sternum and wriggling it so as to cause a large hole.
If this was the case, we would not have been left with a clear impression of the blade - we would have had an irregularly shaped hole, and damages to the heart that corresponded with this irregularity. And if that really was what Killeen was left with - then he would have had no need to make the somewhat awkward statement that two blades were involved, would he? He would only have said that the hole through the sternum was something that had been produced in such a manner as to render it impossible to conclude what weapon had been used, leaving the opportunity open that all wounds had been inflicted by the same blade.
What he said, though, was that the hole in the sternum did not correspond with the others, and that the 37-time-stabbing blade would not even have posessed the strength to pierce the sternum. Therefore it could not have been used for creating a hole there at all - it would have been to weak and frail to stab through, and wriggling it afterwards would cause much more severe pressure on the blade.

The question of scavenger or predator is of the outmost importance to our interpretation of Jack, I feel. My hunch is that Tabram offered him a dream scenario - a freshly killed woman, ripe for harvesting. After having come so close to succeeding to procure her organs, and after having become a murderer, there were not incentives enough left to keep him from doing the necessary killing either - but I genuinely feel that part of it all was just something needed to reach the ultimate goal - evisceration and organ procuring. If, theoretically, the possibility had been offered, I think he may well have stayed a scavenger. The subduing, the throat-cutting; everything that was involved in the killings and that was not part of the actual evisceration phase, was something that was led on by pure necessity, and not by a predatory disposition, if I am right.

One thing that I find interesting here is the impact my scenario would have on the Double Event. It has long been accepted that he set out after a second slaying since he was unsatiated by the Stride murder and the evisceration gone amiss.
But what about Tabram and Nichols? If I am right, then in both these cases he reached agonizingly close to procuring organs, but was interrupted in the last second before reaching his ultimate goal. Still, this seems not to have led on any such expeditions of unsatiation that is suggested in the saga of the Double Event...?
Strange, is it not?

The best, Harry!
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
While I see the possibilities of two attacks as described by you,I feel that Kileen's descriptions leave a little pause for thought.I would not say his words leave no room for doubt about a different weapon.The sternum wound,'must have been made with some kind of dagger or sword bayonet' might only indicate he was not sure of the nature of the wound and how it was made,or what with.Not a positive statement on his part.
As it appears to be the exception,to fit your account it must also have been the first thrust, by a different person.In that case,if done in anger or with out thought,I would have expected it to also have penetrated the clothing.Killeen makes no mention of any wounds through the clothing.Note however that the clothing had been disarranged to expose the parts attacked.
As none of the wound,by themselves,are cited as the cause of death,and two attackers would neccessarily leave an interval of time,w hy didn't she seek help,or cry out.The sternum wound itself would not have prevented this.
As regards the penknife,it did at least cause one slash and thirty seven stabs,so must have been of a sturdy make.How far it penetrated the sternum is not stated,maybe the knife only encountered it ,with no deep penetration,but still caused a difference of wound on withdrawl.
So your explanation,to me,does not indicate two attackers and two different weapons,though I still allow for the possibility of such.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Hello there, Harry!

You write:

"The sternum wound,'must have been made with some kind of dagger or sword bayonet' might only indicate he was not sure of the nature of the wound and how it was made,or what with.Not a positive statement on his part."

Well, what Killeen actually says is that the wound on the Sternum does not correspond with the others. That is a pretty clear indication that he had an "imprint" to go on, an imprint that was incomparable with the other entrance wounds.
The fact that he may have felt uncertain about dagger or bayonet may simply be due to the fact that a dagger could have the same shape of the blade as a bayonet!

"As none of the wound,by themselves,are cited as the cause of death"

Harr, Killeen states that the wound through the heart would itself be enough to ensure death. From that I think the most logical deduction is that it was the very LAST wound. Killeen stated that Tabram lived thorugh the attack, and the only way he could have established that is by looking at how much the wounds had bled. If the killer had set out by stabbing her through the heart, then no more blood would have been pumped through her veins, and thus Killeen would not have had the bleeding to lead him ti his conclusion.

Therefore, when you write "How far it penetrated the sternum is not stated", I´m afraid you are forgetting that we know that the heart was pierced - that blade went deep, Harry!

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

[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,
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

[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.

[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