Domestic or lunatic?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

There´s a matter I have been giving some thought lately, and which may have bearing on the Fleming/Hutchinson issue. This is it:
When the Star found out that a witness (Schwartz) had been giving information to the police regarding the Stride killing, they sent out a reporter who found Israel Schwartz. The following article in the Star stated:
”Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police yesterday by an Hungarian concerning this murder. The foreigner was well-dressed, and had the appear- ance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane.”

My question is: How did that reporter find Schwartz, given that the name was not disclosed by the police? Surely he was not led to Backchurch Lane (where Schwartz lived, at 22 Helen Street) by instinct?

Of course not – I am a journalist myself, and I am well aware that the press has always had their connections inside the police forces. Combined with economical generosity, there are many ways an investigation can be caused to ”leak”, and something along these lines could have been what happened here, if I am correct.

With George Hutchinson, we seem to have a parallel. He too was run down by a (Times) journalist, and I think it may be fair to suggest that this too was the result of leaking investigation officials.

And this is where I offer a suggestion! The journalist who set out to find Schwartz looked for him in Backchurch Lane, obviously having been given that adress by somebody attached to the investigation.

So where would the guy who ran Hutchinson down look for him? In the Victoria Home, presumably, since that was where he had stated he lived! Moreover, the journalist would have a name too – George Hutchinson. And he obviously found his man, using the information he had been given.
Leaving us with the question: If Joe Fleming had been staying in the Victoria Home under his own name since August, and if (there are a number of if:s involved, as usual...) the reporter came looking for ”George Hutchinson”, presumably asking his way, how could a man, having stayed for months in a lodging house under another name, get away with masquerading as Hutchinson?

We know that the interwiew with the Times was conducted on the evening of the 13:th of November, and we know that it was conducted AFTER the time Hutchinson was searching the streets for Astrakhan man in company with the police, since he finishes the interwiew saying ”I have been looking for the man all day” - past tense, that is.

Was the interwiew made at the Victoria Home? Does anybody know? For if it was, it casts serious doubt on the possibility of Fleming and Hutchinson being one and the same, I think.

The best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
nothing indicates that they did their best to trace him, and if they did so, as some journalists also may have done, it would (perhaps) have been more to learn something about Mary's background than with the hope of catching a serious suspect.
What is sure, is that Fleming did his best to keep hidden (at least as "Fleming the ex-boyfriend")...

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Abberline believed him and this has always made me think Hutchinson was someone known to the police---eg a smalltime thief/someone who they used to grass on the villains in Spitalfields etc

If that was the case, Abberline would almost certainly have made reference to this in his internal, confidential police report. The fact that such a reference doesn't appear is a very compelling indication that Hutchinson wasn't known to the police before he made his statement on 12th November. The chances of knowing what a doss house-dwelling labourer was doing at a particular hour on the night of a murder six weeks previously were slim to non-existent. If Hutchinson wanted to lie about his movements for the previous murders, all he had to do was claim to have been asleep at a lodging house on those nights without possible fear contradiction.

Abberline was a good detective so there is no reason to think he hadnt looked at this startling fact and had good reason to dismiss it.

There's no evidence that he did dismiss the possibility of Hutchinson loitering outside Kelly's flat, and if we're ruling out the possibility detectives being hoodwinked by criminals, we're already straying into fantasy, m'afraid. It happens. But if you're talking about Hutchinson being considered a suspect or not, we have no evidence either way. He may or may not have been suspected. If he wasn't, there's nothing very suprising about that given the lack of precedence for offenders coming forward under false guises, especially serial killers, and if they did suspect him, there was no method by which to determine his guilt of innocence anyway.

I doubt they heard the evidence of witnesses and never bothered to look into an ex-boyfriend who was still visiting Mary Kelly in the months leading up to her murder ,a man cited by two people at Mary"s inquest

They no doubt did their best, but with Fleming using an alias in a busy lodging house, the chances of him being tracked down were incredibly remote. There's no evidence that he was ever traced. He very probably wasn't.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Bonsoir Norma, comment allez-vous?

I'm not sure the police took too much care of Fleming. In any case, there is no press report suggesting they did.
Why should they have pay great attention to that guy? Neither Barnett nor Venturney did mention he was living in Whitechapel (certainly they were not aware of this detail).

And Mary's murder was not at all, at that time, considered a domestic affair (the fact that they questionned Barnett was likely a matter of routine, or "acquit de conscience" more than a solid-based suspicion, I guess, since Barnett was quickly cleared).

And more important, as you wrote, Abberline believed Hutchinson, and was then on the trail of his wealthy-looking Jew...quite far from a plasterer living in Bethnal Green, or from a "costermonger" (according to Venturney's statement). Plus, as we see in 1903, Abberline believed the killer to have some medical knowledge - again we are far from a plasterer...
And Abberline couldn't know, of course, that Fleming was to spend years and even die in an asylum (I mention this for we know that the police was also tracking lunatics).

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi David,
They are worth discussing.But it has to be stated that despite Hutchinson"s declaration that he was outside Miller"s Ct virtually at the time of Mary"s murder,Abberline believed him and this has always made me think Hutchinson was someone known to the police---eg a smalltime thief/someone who they used to grass on the villains in Spitalfields etc.in which case one or two of the police may have known what he was doing at the time of other murders eg Polly"s or Annie"s.Because if it seems extraordinary to us that Hutch could have been waiting outside the crime scene that night,you can be sure it would have passed through the minds of some of the police,if not Abberline , too.But Abberline was a good detective so there is no reason to think he hadnt looked at this startling fact and had good reason to dismiss it.
As far as Joe Fleming is concerned,if Julia Venturney and Joe Barnett both referred to him at the inquest,as being a person who had visited Kelly recently,and had allegedly "ill-used" her,then they would have been well aware of this when they considered bringing people in for questioning.With many files lost we dont know whether they had him in or not.He possibly had alibis,but I doubt they heard the evidence of witnesses and never bothered to look into an ex-boyfriend who was still visiting Mary Kelly in the months leading up to her murder ,a man cited by two people at Mary"s inquest.After all,they followed up many other suspects ,including many with less of a link than Joseph Fleming, during their entire hunt for the ripper.

However,if they didnt bother,and this I very much doubt was the case,then that is suspicious in itself,and would point to someone high up actually knowing,by November 10th,who the Ripper was.And I dont believe they did.
Best
Norma

[DVV]

Hi all,
just an attempt to stop "ill using" Fleming and focusing exclusively on Venturney's statement, and some little thoughts about Fleming.

1- Mary Kelly's status is highly paradoxal in the case, for she is sometimes considered the crowning piece of JtR, and sometimes withdrawn from the canon.

If she 's been the victim of a domestic murder, Fleming seems more likely to be her killer than Barnett (not to mention Mac Carthy, Bowyer, etc).

On the other hand, Fleming can't be lightly dismissed as JtR: he moved to Whitechapel in August 1888, died in a lunatic asylum, did not go to the police after the murder, and proved to be somehow a cunning character (elusiveness, use of the alias "James Evans").

2- We've said several times in the above posts that Fleming was not "Hutchinson-dependent", and said this with good reasons.
But is the contrary equally true?
The main argument for Hutch to have injected himself in the inquiry (if one supposes him to be Mary's killer or even JtR) seems to be Lewis testimony, and much has been objected against this view (see GH extensive threads), since Lewis statement was too vague to be a serious risk to him.
But add to Lewis testimony those of Barnett and Venturney, and then...

"Here we are!" some will sigh...
I humbly think "Fletchinson" (or "Hutching" as put by Sam Flynn ) worth discussing.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Did you look at the examples? You're clearly wrong here, as they fully supported what Fisherman was stating and not the opposite.

Of the examples Fisherman provided, two supported the "violence" hypothesis, and the other two couldn't possibly have applied to the Fleming/Kelly situation. I fully accept that ill-use may not always mean violence, but in the context we're talking about, it seems more likely than not to have occured. The clue here is the purported reason for the "ill-use", which was the fact that she was co-habiting with Barnett. If you ill-use someone explicitly for that reason, as Fleming was alleged to have done, it was unikely to have taken the form of short-changing her or cheating on her, for example.

"Anything related to the Whitechapel murders" is going to be by its nature more about violence, just like saying that the word "rip" whenever used in context with the murders has strongly violent meaning.

Exactly, which is why I believe the context is important.

and it's just crazy to start insulting peoples' intelligence for disagreeing with you.

You're right, and I apologise again to Fisherman for that.

All the best,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

That's absolutle nonsense, as the examples you've provided have just demonstrated the opposite!

Did you look at the examples? You're clearly wrong here, as they fully supported what Fisherman was stating and not the opposite.

In every instance where the phrase ill-used crops up in anything related to the Whitechapel murders, it refers to physical violence on a higher scale to the type you're envisaging.

Part of that is just an assumption on your part, as the phrase typically isn't explained when used. Part of it is the nature of how you frame your knowledge and experience. "Anything related to the Whitechapel murders" is going to be by its nature more about violence, just like saying that the word "rip" whenever used in context with the murders has strongly violent meaning. But both terms also have much less violent meanings, and if someone is using it and you aren't sure what they mean, it's a bit over the top to always assume it meant the worst.

I don't know what exactly Fleming did to be described as ill-using Mary, and it certainly could have involved violence (that wouldn't be out of character for the time and place by any means), but the term in the context being discussed could also possibly mean "cheated on," "took advantage of" and so forth. Just because you've always read it to mean "physically assaulted" doesn't mean that that's correct, and it's just crazy to start insulting peoples' intelligence for disagreeing with you.

[Ben]

Agreed, Fisherman, and thanks for the kind words.

The only reason I mention blood-strewn walls and the like is because the term "ill-use" tended to crop up in association with that sort of violence, as witness the Bury incident and others.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"Sorry to snap"

We do make an art of it at times, Ben, and that is a shame. I have stated before and will gladly do so again, that you are a very knowledged participator on these boards, and an excellent guide to the events of 1888.

When you write that Ventuneys "ill-use" "fairly obvious" included some sort of violence, it represents a commendable step-down from cracked skulls and blood-strewn walls, and I welcome it. I think that is a perfectly resonable way of trying to asses what was involved.
In them surroundings, it is perhaps a wise guess to throw forward that it took more violence to make people come up with a verdict of "ill-use", and maybe it is reasonable to think that it would have extended beyond slaps in the face and such. Maybe nobody would care much about being slapped in the face. Such thoughts are of course perfectly reasonable, and just as they lead you to suspecting significant violence, they tend to lead me in the same direction, no doubt about it. But I always try to be cautious when it comes to matters like this. Maybe it means that I succeed in avoiding stepping on the wrong train sometimes, whereas it hinders me to move along at other occassions, I don´t know. But that´s the way I do things.

I will make one final addition: You write about the way Venturney would have used the expression as a verb in a specific, active way, and it seems a correct estimation to me. But I think that if we move to the western parts of London, if somebody said that they had been ill-used by a friend, it may have meant that somebody had, for example, taken advantage of them economically. I think that the term would apply to differing things depending on the surroundings and cultural behaviour of the people involved. Thus I mean that much as I believe in a physical violence scenario in Venturneys evidence (she was of German extraction, incidentally, if I am correct, and maybe that could have played a part too? Maybe different nationalities had differing wiews on illúsing? Good Lord...), I think we must stay aware of the fact that - much as in the case of salt and pepper jackets - we are dealing with moving borders and different shades.

All the best, Ben!

Fisherman

All the best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

My GUESS - for neither me nor you can make anything more than a guess as evinced from the material i used to exemplify the many possible interpretations of "ill-used" - is that when Venturney used that phrase, she was referring to physical abuse.

And a very commendable guess it is, Fisherman, though I feel you shortchange yourself when you describe it as a "guess". A guess is similar to the dreaded "hunch", and hunches tend to be unreasoning. Rather than a guess, I'd say we're left with a fairly obvious inferential probability that ill-use referred to some sort of violence on Fleming's part.

The trouble with the other non-violent examples of "ill-use" you provided was that they were wholly inapplicable in the context of Fleming and Kelly, interesting though they were. For example, you can make "ill use" of something, such as money (by spending it willy nilly or whatever), but then the whole essence of the phrase changes; it ceases to become a verb in the way that Venturney used it.

Sorry to snap.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It's all perfectly simple."

Wish it were, Ben; but it´s not. It´s complicated and multi-facetted as life always is.

There are a few things to get straight here, Ben. The first being that you seem to believe that I am convinced that Kelly suffered no physical violence. This owes to the fact that you cannot control your sentiments, and it is deplorable, the way I see it.

My GUESS - for neither me nor you can make anything more than a guess as evinced from the material i used to exemplify the many possible interpretations of "ill-used" - is that when Venturney used that phrase, she was referring to physical abuse.

What we CAN NOT establish is:

A/ Whether this holds any water - for there is a possibility as evinced by my examples, like it or not - or whether "ill-used" meant something that did NOT include physical violence.

B/ To what extent that physical violence would have reached, if it was there.

Thanks to you, Ben, I have a very good example - from the Old Bailey and all - where we have a man pointing out that he has been struck by another man, describing at as "ill-using". Now, we do not know WHERE the man was struck. We do not know HOW HARD the man was struck. We do not know if ANY PHYSICAL DAMAGE came from it, at least not by the bit you quoted.

...and THAT is precisely why I am telling you it is not "simple" at all, Ben - unless you are desperate for it to be so.

As for "Pick on a weaker opponent, and a weaker suspect": don´t do such things to yourself, Ben. It´s not worth it.

All the best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

What I have presented is four examples from Victorian days where "ill-used" meant something entirely different from what you are implying.

Errr...no Fisherman.

No, we didn't.

We had two examples that absolutely reinforce my point - thanks - and two others that were wholly inapplicable in the context of Fleming and Kelly. I've just noticed how much of a classic your third one was, and I can just picture the scene: "Oi, woman" Stop living with Barnett or I'll use words in the wrong context"!

Come on...

Moreover, in the cases of Schwartz, Bury and Pizer, we have reasonable assesments of exactly what was meant by ill-use AT THESE SPECIAL OCCASIONS, whereas we have nothing more than verbal mentioning of ill-use in Kellys case.

Yes, it referred to bodily violence, and the term ill-use was mentioned.

Whenever we see the term "ill-use" crops up in relation to the Whitechapel murders, it's talking specifically about bodily violence. It's all perfectly simple. They also all referred to men in altercation with women, and Venturney is referring to the same thing in Kelly's case. Gee, I wonder what the most reasonable explanation is...

And when you do so, you must try and isolate sources from the relevant period in time.

Oh, you mean like this?

CAPPS'S Defence. I was coming down the court - this man was coming down with another female; he took my cap off, and put it in his pocket, struck me, and asked me for drink - I had half-a-crown in my hand - the other woman went away; and when I refused to give him drink, he said I had robbed him of 4 s. These women seeing him ill-use me, came up, and he struck them.

From the Proceedings of the Old Bailey.

Gallent though you're efforts have been, you're making an unsuccessful attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pick on a weaker opponent, and a weaker suspect.

[Fisherman]

Calm down, Ben!

What I have presented is four examples from Victorian days where "ill-used" meant something entirely different from what you are implying. And I´m afraid that clear-cut examples from the actual period DO count, no matter if they give you ulcers or not, Ben.

Seriously, there is no way we can have an unbiased discussion on these boards if you won´t allow for other posters to publish relevant information, Ben. In this case we have the three examples you refer to, and that is all good and well. But they do not mean that OTHER examples cannot be used, do they? There is no monopoly on your, or any other posters, behalf, when it comes to interpreting the signs left in the case, nor should there be!

Moreover, in the cases of Schwartz, Bury and Pizer, we have reasonable assesments of exactly what was meant by ill-use AT THESE SPECIAL OCCASIONS, whereas we have nothing more than verbal mentioning of ill-use in Kellys case. It is not as if we had a medical report, is it?

And that is when one has to go to the sources - or "frantically google" to put it in your words - to find out just how broad a spectre we are dealing with. And when you do so, you must try and isolate sources from the relevant period in time. Which is what I did. And the last thing you must do is to solemnly promise not to let yourself be bullied around by someone who has already made his mind up on too meagre evidence. That is what I am doing now.
There is homework to be done at all occasions, Ben.

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

It is pretty obvious that the term ”ill-used” in Victorian days need NOT have ANYTHING at all to do with physical violence!

That's absolutle nonsense, as the examples you've provided have just demonstrated the opposite! Once again, you're just being a tiresome zealot looking to start arguments at any cost, but you lack the intelligence and the ability to gather your thoughts coherently and articulately to pull it off. In terms of an altercation between a man and women in Victorian times, it invariably refers to physical violence on a heightended level.

In every instance where the phrase ill-used crops up in anything related to the Whitechapel murders, it refers to physical violence on a higher scale to the type you're envisaging.

It was used in relation to the bodily assault witnessed by Schwartz.

It was used in relation to the alleged bruality of Leather Apron.

It was used in relation to William Henry Bury's punching his wife over the head and leaving blood traces on the nearby walls.

That's what conteporary cources from the period were using in relation to the term "ill-used". Each carry considerably more weight than whatever you've frantically "googled" to force-fit into your conclusions. Then you dredge up a laughable "example" from fiction and try to claim that it occured in Fleming's case. What? You're saying Fleming "short-changed" Kelly for living with Barnett?

You made a perfectly reasonabler last post yesterday. I agreed with a great deal of it. Please have the nouse in future to cultivate an "amicable agreement" awareness rather than looking for any opportunity to set the sh*t storm brewing again.

Go fishing.