Domestic or lunatic?

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy, concerning Fleming, that's hearsay, it's true, but corroborated hearsay, and I honestly see nothing to suspect a mythomania. Do you?

Hello, David

Part of it is corroborated. Ill-used stands alone. But I agree with you, Fleming is interesting.

There is a connection, however small, to the murder of Martha Tabram. From the Met Police report of Aug 24 by Insp Reid: "Henry Turner, Victoria Working Men's Home, Commercial St East, proved living with the deceased about 12 years, until about three weeks prior to her death when he left her."

So it seems both Turner and Fleming were recently hanging their hat at the Vic.

Roy

[DVV]

Hi Roy,
an interesting link, thank you.

Amitiés,
David

[Roy Corduroy]

David, do you think he murdered only Mary Kelly for unrequited love, or do you suspect him to be the Ripper? After all, you started this excellent thread, I would value your opinion.

Roy

[caz]

Hi All,

Perhaps someone like Stewart could advise on police practice in the 1880s, but would they not have sought to confirm Hutchinson's personal particulars, even if they considered him to be a perfectly truthful witness, given the importance they felt compelled to attach to his account, at least initially? I mean, if he had not been able to prove who he was, or they had got the slightest whiff, while investigating his story, that he could have come to them using an alias, and then found he had given the papers an enhanced and altered version, surely that would have led to a shedload more questions that they would have wanted to put to this VIW (very important witness) when he failed to find 'chummy' again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Perhaps someone like Stewart could advise on police practice in the 1880s, but would they not have sought to confirm Hutchinson's personal particulars, even if they considered him to be a perfectly truthful witness, given the importance they felt compelled to attach to his account, at least initially?

They may well have "sought" to make inquiries in that regard, but they could only have occured after Abberline penned his 12th November approval missive and, in any case, the likelihood of any inquiries establishing the identity of the witness beyond any reasonable doubt was very remote indeed. They just didn't have the "checking" power that a modern police force will undoubtedly have at their disposal. The best they could have acheived in 1888 was an inquiry at the Victoria Home as to his identity and character, and if the response was simply that, yes, he was known to the deputies as "George Hutchinson", and no, he wasn't of known bad character, that's all they had to go on.

Of course, if Hutchinson wasn't his real name, it's potentially rather useful and convenient that he was currently unemployed, with no boss to vouch for him, and yet he can't have been out of work for very long at all if he "usually" slept in the fourpence a night Victoria Home.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

4 years older

2years ago, on the thread "Alias Fleming and Hutch?", a poster pointed out that the man called "Fleming otherwise Evans" who died in 1920 couldn't be "Mary's" Fleming, whose birth certicate proves that he was born in 1859, and not in 1855.
It was answered that such a discrepancy was meaningless. That was a fair answer, but the problem, in fact, is elsewhere.
First, we know that the lunatic who called himself James Evans (when he was caught at the end of June 1892) was, without doubt, Joseph Fleming born in Bethnal Green in 1859, his mother Henrietta having visited and identified him at Stone.
Simply, when Fleming was found insane, he presented himself as "James Evans, aged 37".
Beside questions about the name (why an alias? why "James Evans"?), questions about the age: why did he make himself 4 years older?
I don't know the reason, but at least we see that James Evans was probably a little bit more than an alias. Something like a character.
Indeed, James Evans didn't vanish, although Henrietta Fleming had long recognised her son. In the 1901 census, there is no Fleming, but one "James Evans, aged 45".
In 1920, the death certificate still gives to Fleming the age of Evans (65).
Does that mean that the medical team or the other patients would have always called him James, or Mr Evans, during 28 years ?
Maybe...
And no wonder if he never recovered!

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

questions about the age: why did he make himself 4 years older?

Hi David,

4 years is really nothing, at a time when some people weren't really sure how old they were anyway. The variations in age from census to census and other records (see, for example, the Whitechapel Infirmary registers) can be much greater than four years.

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
I see what you mean, but I'm not really talking about the census. I'm just saying that Fleming certainly knew his age but decided, God knows why, to give 37 years of age to "James Evans" in 1892, when he was caught by the authorities. In the 1891 census, he had given his name as Fleming, aged 32, which was correct. One year later, he said he was 37 and called Evans.
The later documents that mention "James Evans", or "Fleming otherwise Evans", and that systematically make the man about 4 years older than he was, are simply based on how Fleming introced himself when found mad.
Curiously, the false name and the false age did survive Fleming's identification by his mother.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

David, do you think he murdered only Mary Kelly for unrequited love, or do you suspect him to be the Ripper? After all, you started this excellent thread, I would value your opinion.

Roy

Hi Roy,
sorry for so late a reply, I may have missed the post.
I'm sincerely not sure that my opinion is of any value, but I clearly see MK as a Ripper victim. A possible scenario discussed above (the Kemper scenario in fact) seems plausible to me, in which case we have not to choose between a domestic affair and the whole ripper's case.
Then the answer of this thread's title would be: both.

Amitiés,
David