Domestic or lunatic?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fish, you've been following me around a heck of a lot recently"

Ben, do me the favour of not regarding me as a "Follower of Ben". 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: he thought that I for some reason was after his own precious butt. I was not - he had been trying to press a point on the Stride case, and to my mind he was doing it in a way that did not concern itself with the factual evidence in too flattering a manner. That, however, was something he seemed much more reluctant to discuss than what he seemed to think was a fixation on my behalf to his person.

To me, that reeked of a self-picture that was, let´s say, slightly overinflated. Don´t step into that same trap, Ben. Though it is true that we have been debating the same subjects a number of times, let me assure you that it has had nothing to do with your person, no matter how fascinating a character you may prove to be. And that will apply in the future too. Just as it will apply that my being a Scandinavian does not automatically mean that I cannot make a point out here. If you have a problem with Scandinavians, I am sorry, cause there is precious little I can do about my heritage.

Now, as for the topic - which still interests me and which I will take the liberty to discuss with ANYONE who shares that interest, I stand by my thoughts that it is more credible to see a loitering Fleming as an innocent bystander than as Ripper/killer. If he was there, and if he was seen, surely he could have nursed a fear that the police would be much interested in a person who had been Kellys lover and who, added to this, had a reputation of having maltreated her. Therefore it would make perfect sense to swop Fleming for Hutchinson, as far as I am concerned.
As for the length of 5 ft 7, it equals 170 centimeters, and back then, that would not have made up a short man. That aside, it would not make a very long man either, admittedly opening up for a possibility that he WAS the man seen by Lewis.

The best!

Fisherman

[DVV]

I'm not a chemist, but I guess that if I mix ignorance with arrogance, I will obtain something ridiculous.
Like this funny troll.

[Ben]

Circumstancial Evidence Is Not Evidence!

Yes, it is.

Or else it wouldn't have "evidence" in the title, would it?

If you want to push Feigenbaum as a suspect, could you please do so on the appropriate thread?

[crj]

And It Obviously Does Not Rule Them In Either! Circumstancial Evidence Is Not Evidence! Try Facts Instead Of Fiction

[Ben]

Sigh....to feed the troll or not feed the troll?

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, so asylum records and infirmary records certainly count on that score. We don't know if Hutchinson or Fleming were ever arrested as suspects, and that lack of knowledge rules neither of them out.

[DVV]

evidence? or circumstantial evidence? the only suspect to actually struggle with aliby which the police could not disprove was genuine was Joseph Barnett who was a lover of said victim would he really have mutilated mjk in a more servere way than any other victim even if it was just to make it look like a ripper murder highly unlikely

What are you talking about?
That's a talk about Fleming as a suspect, and we don't claim to solve the whole case in every post we send.
If you want to do so, just open a new thread and expose your own theory, please.

[crj]

census records? not evidence, infirmary records again not evidence i said coroner inquiry and asylum records? again and what Police statements do you refere too about either of those men being suspects or arrested as suspects? was Hutchinson ever concidered a suspect by the police? or this elusive Fleming either? i suggest you try the docks and look for a German merchant sailor who immigrated to the USA

[crj]

evidence?

evidence? or circumstantial evidence? the only suspect to actually struggle with aliby which the police could not disprove was genuine was Joseph Barnett who was a lover of said victim would he really have mutilated mjk in a more servere way than any other victim even if it was just to make it look like a ripper murder highly unlikely

[Ben]

Fish, you've been following me around a heck of a lot recently. I realize that for some reason any thread involving Hutchinson or Fleming must have an obligatory Scandinavian nay-sayer, but it's getting a little ridiculous now.

You state that the Victoria home is "certainly not the only "coincidental" element between Fleming and Hutchinson", and of course there are other pointers, but not very much, is there?

Not enough to establish a conclusive identification, Fish, no, but more than enough to make it a reasonable possibility, which is why those who have actually studied the census records and explored the possible "George Hutchinson" candidates out there have also ajudged it a reasonable possibility, whereas those who rule it out unthinkingly are generally those who didn't do much groundwork first or are just looking to start arguments at any cost because their bored.

No, it does not automatically follow that "the killer is hidden in their identities" if they were one and the same. That too comes under the catergory of "reasonable possibility".

If Fleming was Hutch, and if he was watching Marys moves that night, maybe that was all he was doing? And when Lewis statement from the inquest dawned on him, he may have realized that he may get into trouble, and thus he invented Hutch. Sounds a lot more reasonable to me than to accept Fleming as Marys Ripper-imitating killer - or as Jack the Ripper.

There's nothing even slightly reasonable about that.

In that scenario, all you're doing is positing the existence of a legitimately suspicious character - a reportedly violent man who was ultimately committed to an insane asylum - loitering in close proximity to the crime scene shortly before it's commission, suggesting a good reason for being concerned about the possibility of him being seen, before deciding that this person wasn't the killer after all, and somebody else arrived on the scene and did it instead.

Sorry, your "lot more reasonable" is nothing of the sort.

Trouble is, we are left with Lewis describing her loiterer as a short man, and Fleming apparently was not.

Not true.

Fleming was 5"7'. Lewis described the suspect as "not tall". 5"7' is not tall, irrefutably so.

[DVV]

Ben writes:

"this isn't a Hutch-Fleming thread"


Fisherman

We can talk about Fleming/Evans without fanatically excluding Hutch, I hope...
Amitiés
David

[DVV]

Ben writes:

"this isn't a Hutch-Fleming thread"



Trouble is, we are left with Lewis describing her loiterer as a short man, and Fleming apparently was not.

The best,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
Do you suggest that "6feet 7inches" was not a typo???
Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"this isn't a Hutch-Fleming thread"

..but it seems to me that DVV, who initiated the thread, brought up the very subject of the two possibly being one and the same, Ben. Which is why I judged it completely legal to respond to that point.

You state that the Victoria home is "certainly not the only "coincidental" element between Fleming and Hutchinson", and of course there are other pointers, but not very much, is there?
If you ask me (and I realize that you haven´t, Ben) to come up with a possible explanation to how and why they could have been the same man, I would say that explanations along that line for some reason always seem to involve the acceptance that the killer is hidden in their identities, but I think that such a stance may have been reached a little too quick.
If Fleming was Hutch, and if he was watching Marys moves that night, maybe that was all he was doing? And when Lewis statement from the inquest dawned on him, he may have realized that he may get into trouble, and thus he invented Hutch.
Sounds a lot more reasonable to me than to accept Fleming as Marys Ripper-imitating killer - or as Jack the Ripper.

Trouble is, we are left with Lewis describing her loiterer as a short man, and Fleming apparently was not.

The best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

And their residence during the murders is certainly not the only "coincidental" element between Fleming and Hutchinson. But, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, this isn't a Hutch-Fleming thread.

Best regards,
Ben

Until I read your post above, that shows that Barnett and Venturney may have never seen Fleming's face, I could not see Fleming as a possible Hutch.
He obviously had taken too great a risk injecting himself if some witnesses had known him.

But now...afraid we'll have to struggle hard to keep Hutch away...

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Census records, infirmary entries, asylum records, press accounts, police statements, inquest evidence...that sort of thing.

[crj]

question

Where i would like to know have you recieved or found information on any of the so called suspects and witnesses outside of the factual coroners inquests from the time? as very little documantation from the time actually remains? during the thorough investigation in his book Trevor Marriott very little evidence and even less new evidence could be discovered the word clutching at straws severely come to mind! even documentation between the queen and her government show no new evidence relating to the Whitechapel murders so how does information about periferal figures imerge except for being made up.