Domestic or lunatic?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[crj]

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

[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?

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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