Domestic or lunatic?

[DVV]

Hi Fisherman,





But this is turning very quickly into another generic George Hutchinson thread.



As good a suspect as you're likely to encounter at this remove in time, yes.

Best regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,
Eager to know your thoughts more precisely here:
Do you make Fleming a suspect to the sole extent that he can be Hutch? (And vice-versa.)

Amitiés, David

[DVV]

I am not missing your logic, DVV! I just find it too long a leap to read too much into it.

The best,

Fisherman

I don't particularly aim at presenting Fleming as the Ripper, but the circomstances, his connection to Mary and the fact that he died as a lunatic may allow us to put him in the already wide frame of various suspects, especially since there is a permanent debate about Mary's murder being a domestic affair or not, and since there was no active thread about Fleming for about...let's say 15 months!
Really "too long a leap to..."?
Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If we accept Fleming as her killer, though, it seems we are dealing with a different character that the man who claimed the other victims, since surveillance did not seem to be any obvious part of Jacks game.

Nor did killing indoors, but if we're prepared to accept that he altered the type of venue in which to commit his crimes, we ought really to make the same sort of allowances for the way in which he approached his victims. I'm obligated to point out that we don't know how much surveillance, if any, took place at earlier murders. I think "spur of the moment" may be pushing it a little, though, given the various sightings of men communicating with the victims beforehand.

Moving on, I have always had trouble with grasping a spectre involving Jack the Ripper – Fleming – going to the police to put them off the track. But that, of course is just a hunch.

...And as such, I can't argue with it. There's no arguing with a "hunch" and you're more than titled to harbour it. Having studied a number of other cases in which similar ploys have been adopted by killers, I'm inclinded to consider it a very realistic proposal, and similarly, if he was concerned about being seen and wanted to redirect police suspicion in a false direction accordingly, I have an easier time believing it was done to conceal his involvement in the murder. Someone killed her, and if we already have an idependent sighting of someone loitering and preoccupied with the murder scene an hour before its commission, he'll suffice as the most likely candidate for her murder, rather than positing yet another suspicious individual on th scene with no evidence.

But this is turning very quickly into another generic George Hutchinson thread.

Do you recognize Fleming as a real candidate for Jack´s role?

As good a suspect as you're likely to encounter at this remove in time, yes.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

DVV writes:

"Agree that his reasons for shifting to Whitechapel can be "innocent", yet the fact that he is known for ill-using Mary at "relatively recent times" (after or before August?...I still favour "before") doesn't enforce this view."

I am not missing your logic, DVV! I just find it too long a leap to read too much into it.

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I think I'm with you now, Fisherman"

Thank heavens for that! And of course murder could offer an incentive for being there on Flemings behalf, no doubt about it.

If we accept Fleming as her killer, though, it seems we are dealing with a different character that the man who claimed the other victims, since surveillance did not seem to be any obvious part of Jacks game. It is all much more spur-of-the-moment in them cases.

Moving on, I have always had trouble with grasping a spectre involving Jack the Ripper – Fleming – going to the police to put them off the track. But that, of course is just a hunch. Still that hunch makes it a lot easier for me to believe in an innocent man who has a trouble-spelling connection to the victim, and who feels that he has been seen at the murder spot, as a man who would try to redirect the interest of the police in another direction. I am having more trouble recognizing a man who has killed and who tries the same ploy. Of course it happens, and of course it could have come about in that fashion. It´s just that it does not sit well with me - for whatever that is worth ...

If Fleming just did the one murder, it becomes easier to accept than if we suppose that he was the Ripper. But, like I said, that´s just me.

Out of interest: You write ”the building, which he moved to in August 1888, was located very central to the murder district which afforded him easy access to the victims, including Kelly”. Do you recognize Fleming as a real candidate for Jack´s role?

All the best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

DVV writes:

"I firmly believe that somebody who pays visits to his ex-girlfriend and occasionnally ill-use her show a great interest...
So I see no good reasons to imagine that Fleming ceased to have an interest in Mary once he started living close to her."

Well, DVV, like you said yourself, Barnett´s and Venturneys remarks may be interpreted as pointing out that Flemings visits were perhaps not recent. And if we are to read a sinister plan of hidous murder into ceasing visits, I think we are moving quickly into the realms of pure fiction.

The fact that Fleming used the Victoria Home should does of course in no way amount to circumstancial evidence of him having decided to kill Kelly. The area was full of cheap boarding possibilities, and it was not very far from his old quarters, and he may have had completely innocent reasons for moving there.

All the best,

Fisherman

Agree that his reasons for shifting to Whitechapel can be "innocent", yet the fact that he is known for ill-using Mary at "relatively recent times" (after or before August?...I still favour "before") doesn't enforce this view.
Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Ah, I think I'm with you now, Fisherman, and yes, there may have been some confusion.

If I am correct, you are of the opinion that Fleming may have been involved in the murder/the actual killer of Mary Kelly. And in order to throw suspicion off, when he found out about Lewis´ statement, he decided to come forward masquerading as Hutchinson, making up a story about Astrakhan man

Yep, and if I've read you correctly, you're agreeing that much of that could well be true without him necessarily being the killer. I agree with that, it doesn't automatically follow that he was. I'd add only that murder would offer a reasonable incentive for his being there in the first place (and would remove the need to add another suspicious character on the scene).

We don't know how recent the visits were, but since they coincided with Kelly's co-habitation with Barnett, they must have been relatively recent, especially if someone like Julia Venturney - who had only known Kelly from Miller's Court - was mentioning them. Nobody's suggesting that the Victoria Home residence means he killed Kelly. It's just that the building, which he moved to in August 1888, was located very central to the murder district which afforded him easy access to the victims, including Kelly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

DVV writes:

"I firmly believe that somebody who pays visits to his ex-girlfriend and occasionnally ill-use her show a great interest...
So I see no good reasons to imagine that Fleming ceased to have an interest in Mary once he started living close to her."

Well, DVV, like you said yourself, Barnett´s and Venturneys remarks may be interpreted as pointing out that Flemings visits were perhaps not recent. And if we are to read a sinister plan of hidous murder into ceasing visits, I think we are moving quickly into the realms of pure fiction.

The fact that Fleming used the Victoria Home should does of course in no way amount to circumstancial evidence of him having decided to kill Kelly. The area was full of cheap boarding possibilities, and it was not very far from his old quarters, and he may have had completely innocent reasons for moving there.

All the best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

Indeed, David, especially if the reason for that ill-use was the fact that she now lived with Barnett.

Cheers,
Ben

...which would explain why Kelly did not inform Barnett that Fleming had ill-used her, and shared the "secret" only with the Venturney...
Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben!

"funnily enough, our recent exchanges did remind me of that"

Not me. Different thing altogether. When/if you are wrong and have it pointed out to you, you adjust to that. Tom Wescott - a man of vast knowledge and much fresh thinking on the case, and a man who I believe has truly advanced the case at numerous occasions - decided that he would rather call me names and yell at me than admit that he had been in error. That still stands.

I am having problems with your wiew on my suggestion of Fleming masquerading as Hutch. Actually, I am not sure if we misunderstand each other somehow.
If I am correct, you are of the opinion that Fleming may have been involved in the murder/the actual killer of Mary Kelly. And in order to throw suspicion off, when he found out about Lewis´ statement, he decided to come forward masquerading as Hutchinson, making up a story about Astrakhan man.

If so, I do not see why my suggestion should be so outlandish? If he knew that a person had been spotted, obviously watching the court, why would he go to the police and say "Hi, I am Mary´s former lover, who used to beat her up, and I am the guy that was seen outside Miller´s Court on the night of the murder." Even if he was innocent, surely that would have involved significant risks?

By the way, we may be jumping the gun if we speak of "violent, mad Fleming", since we do not really know his condition at the time of the crimes.

Like I said, we may have a misunderstanding here. So I don´t even know if it is time to agree to disagree. But one thing is for sure:

"I've no problem with Scandinavians. I'm descended from them."

...means that you have got a lot going for you!

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I firmly believe that somebody who pays visits to his ex-girlfriend and occasionnally ill-use her show a great interest...

Indeed, David, especially if the reason for that ill-use was the fact that she now lived with Barnett.

Cheers,
Ben

[DVV]

Hello Fisherman,
I firmly believe that somebody who pays visits to his ex-girlfriend and occasionnally ill-use her show a great interest...
So I see no good reasons to imagine that Fleming ceased to have an interest in Mary once he started living close to her.
All the best too,
Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

A year ago I had one heck of a brawl with Tom Wescott, and he did exactly the same thing as you are doing now

Well, funnily enough, our recent exchanges did remind me of that. I'm sure it's not intentional on your part, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to discuss various aspects of the case with me. It just seems that recently we've been getting into an awful lot of petty exchanges and derailing a lot of threads as a consequence.

If you're prepared to entertain the prospect of violent, mad Fleming loitering outside the victim's flat and then concealing his identity for self-preservation purposes, good, I agree that's a reasonable possibility, but I don't think it makes the slightest semblence of sense to then posit the existence of a completely new person and claim that he did it instead. No need. If we've got a legitimately suspicious character for Kelly's murder and/or the ripper, surely he'll do? We can't have too many stalker/weirdos descending on her at once.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree?

Best regards,
Ben

I've no problem with Scandinavians. I'm descended from them.

[Fisherman]

DVV writes:

"And if Fleming ceased to visit Mary once he was living near to her...that would obviously enforce suspicion, no?"

Only if the interest was still there on his behalf, I´d say. Let´s not forget the distinct possibility that ceasing to see people could - and normally would -point to a lost interest!

The best, DVV!

Fisherman

[DVV]

To get back to the point...
Fleming apparently shifted from Bethnal Green to Whitechapel 15 months before 16 november 1889...which gives the noteworthy date of August 1888.
Unfortunately, we don't know at which period nor how many times he did visit and / or "ill-use" Kelly.
But the fact that Barnett and Venturney are quite vague about him suggests that these "visits" were not that much "recent" (Houla! Broken-English comes back strong...sorry!).
And if Fleming ceased to visit Mary once he was living near to her...that would obviously enforce suspicion, no?

Amitiés,
DVV