Domestic or lunatic?

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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"

Not really. The fewer the changes the more credible, as far as I´m concerned, Ben. If we use the logic that every change opens up for accepting more changes, we´ll have Lizzie Borden as a suspect sooner or later.

But that is just a general look upon the phenomenon. Specifically there is of course space to allow for changes. And I take your point on my "spur-of-the-moment" suggestion, although I actually entertain the possibility that the deeds may well have been very much exactly that - we do not have Long´s or Lawendes men nailed to the exact murder spots and we have rough time estimates in most cases. And anyhow, I think that the difference between 45 minutes surveillance from a spot where you could be readily seen differs a whole lot from the type of deeds the other killings were.

DVV still does not think it is a long stretch to accept that moving into a common lodging house in August 1888 on Flemings behalf points to a murderous disposition.
I still do.
One thing to consider is that it is said that Fleming and Kelly were still fond of each other, whereas it has often been suggested that Barnett meant nothing much more to Kelly than money.
But Flemings job as a plasterer would have earned him a nice salary, comparatively. So why settle for a fish porter?
Could it be that Fleming for some reason was out of job? Maybe that was what urged Mary to accept Barnett´s advances? And if Fleming WAS out of job, could that be a very handy explanation to why he was forced to spend his time in a common lodging house like the Victoria Home?
Just a thought, DVV. But not too long a leap ...

All the best,

Fisherman
(who will be leaving the computer for now, but I shall return early tomorrow - with interest)

[Ben]

Hey David,

I'd say not. As you sensibly acknowledged at the beginning of this thread, Fleming's candidacy is not Hutchinson-dependant. It's not even Kelly-dependent. As a locally-based man who moved to Whitechapel when he did, the references to violence, the subsequent committal to a mental asylum, the superficial similarity with witness sightings, he has enough going for him already to put him ahead of most named suspects. Adding in the Kelly factor, and the possibility of a link with Hutchinson only enhances it.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

DVV still does not think it is a long stretch to accept that moving into a common lodging house in August 1888 on Flemings behalf points to a murderous disposition.

All the best,

Fisherman
(who will be leaving the computer for now, but I shall return early tomorrow - with interest)

Well, if Fleming has something to do with the case, his status has to be that of a suspect...
As far as I know, he is not a victim, not a police official, and not a witness (at least by the name of Fleming).
And since we discuss here his suspect's status, and only since this, it is not a so long stretch...etc etc...

As to your suggestion why Mary swould have left Fleming, it sounds, especially because Fleming seems to have sometimes changed work (plasterer, costermonger, dock labourer...)

Amitiés,
David
Da

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Not really. The fewer the changes the more credible, as far as I´m concerned, Ben. If we use the logic that every change opens up for accepting more changes, we´ll have Lizzie Borden as a suspect sooner or later.

No, no. My point is that you can't have Jack the Ripper changing only in the way that you want him to change, and rule out the possibility of him changing in other respects too. That goes for all of us.

And anyhow, I think that the difference between 45 minutes surveillance from a spot where you could be readily seen differs a whole lot from the type of deeds the other killings were.

Firstly, we only have it on the dubious authority of Hutchinson himself that he was there for 45 minutes, and secondly, we don't know how much surveillance took place at earlier crime scenes. We just don't have the relevent information. It follows, however, that different crime venues often call for different approaches, as we learn from Ted Bundy and others.

And if Fleming WAS out of job, could that be a very handy explanation to why he was forced to spend his time in a common lodging house like the Victoria Home?

Possibly, but it wasn't the case that the Victoria Home was a mecca for anyone who found themselves out of a job. There were hundreds of other lodging houses in the locality, including many nearer Bethnal Green. Any number of factors could have prompted Fleming to relocate to the Victoria Home, including a desire to be closer to a woman he ill-used for living with another man.

An interesting tidbit here is that Daniel Barnett, Joe's older bro, lodged in the Victoria Home at the same time.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hey David,

I'd say not. As you sensibly acknowledged at the beginning of this thread, Fleming's candidacy is not Hutchinson-dependant. It's not even Kelly-dependent. As a locally-based man who moved to Whitechapel when he did, the references to violence, the subsequent committal to a mental asylum, the superficial similarity with witness sightings, he has enough going for him already to put him ahead of most named suspects. Adding in the Kelly factor, and the possibility of a link with Hutchinson only enhances it.

Best regards,
Ben

Agreed 200 percent!

[DVV]

And then we would have 2 names ([B]Fleming, Hutchinson[B])
3 suspects (Fleming, Hutchinson and "Fletchinson"
and 6 (more or less)different theories:
1: Fleming as Kelly's murderer
2: Fleming the Ripper
3: Hutch as Mary's murderer
4: Hutch the Ripper
5: Fletchinson as Kelly's murderer
6: Fletchinson the Ripper

Lost my head a little bit, here, hmm?
Need a more rationnal-minded person than I, for sure!