Domestic or lunatic?

[DVV]

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

Hi Ben,
the last posts (especially yours and Sam's) seem a great achievement for this thread, given its very title.
As I said, I'd like to go further, but I may be wrong, and the question of "Flemchinson" has perhaps to be debated elsewhere. Just tell me.
In my view, there is place for the discussion here.
To me, Hutch is an incredible and artful liar, and far more a suspect than a witness.
I remember on one of his threads, your efforts to explain why he had injected himself and gone to the police on Monday evening. I have here to say that I was never fully convinced. To me, Hutch was so anonymous that, even if he was Mary's murderer, he had nothing to fear at this stage...
Not the same with Fleming, whose name appeared, quite unfavourably, at the inquest, and that's why I believe Hutch to be more Fleming-dependent than Fleming to be Hutch-dependent.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, mate.

Yes, there is an element of "he said", "she said", but a great deal of history deals with what people said they saw and heard. The researcher's task in to compare them with other accounts and see if some form of congruity can be established, and we can do precisely that here. For example, yes, Venturney doesn't give "Joe" a last name, but a study of other accounts tells us that it was certainly Joe Fleming. There are any number of reasons for Venturney mentioning the "ill-use" only in private to the police, including the possibility that she feared Fleming getting wind of this disclosure at the public inquest.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Hello Ben,

Certainly, Kelly's professed "fondness" for Fleming is corroborated by other
independent witnesses.

If there is such a thing, this is corroborated hearsay.

Julia mentioned the fondness in her inquest statement, in which she said nothing about "ill-used" and thought this other Joe was a costermonger. In neither statement did she know this Joe's last name.

Flemming was absent from Barnett's Nov 9 statement, but he did mention him and the fondness at inquest. In total, Barnett's inquest testimony contained:

7 She told me
4 She said
2 She did not tell me
1 She also said

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of hearsay involved in the Whitechapel murders, and often it's all we have to go on. In the absence of any compelling reason to suppose that either Kelly or Venturney conjured up the "ill use" detail entirely from the ether, we're rather compelled to take it seriously. It's worth noting again the alleged reason the the ill-use: "because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett)". Certainly, Kelly's professed "fondness" for Fleming is corroborated by other independent witnesses.

Hi David,

As you know, I believe a reasonable case can be made for all the propositions you list, with the possible exception of Fleming being Mr. Astrakhan....Flemstrakhan.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

Hearsay

Hi David,

This is an interesting thread you have begun. Thanks for bringing forward the info from the research done on Fleming you posted on #110. But isn't the juicy part all based on one (1) bit of hearsay?

From Evans & Skinner - Statement of Julia Venturney 9 Nov 1888

I occupy No 1 room Millers Court I am a widow, charwoman but now living with a man named Harry Owen. I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have know the person occupying No 13 room opposite mine for about 4 months. I knew the man who I saw down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her ["because" - deleted] going out on the streets, he frequently gave her money, he was very kind to her, he said he would not live with her while she led that course of life, she used to get tipsey occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett). I saw her last about ["1.40" - deleted] pm yesterday. Thursday about 10 A.M

"she told me"

The bold is mine.
-------------------------------------------------------
Definition of hearsay:

1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective

3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

[Origin: 1525–35; orig. in phrase by hear say, trans. of MF par ouïr dire —Synonyms 1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.

Roy

[DVV]

Yes Ben, Fleming is a possible Mary's murderer as well as a possible Ripper.
Aren't we here to explore and assess his candidacy?
Now, shall we be able to go a bit ahead?
Is Fleming BF?
Is Fleming "Wideawake Hat" seen by Lewis?
Is Fleming Hutch's suspect?
.....and...I know, Ben, Fleming is not Hutch-dependent....but shan't we ask the question?
Can Fleming be Hutch?

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Holiday was most enjoyable, thanks!

It is merely used to indicate that this is literally how the figure (word, name and so on) appeared in the primary source.

Not really, or else every other height entry would have a "sic" appended to it. The word "sic" is also - and more commonly - used to highlight a known error, and since the registrar in question unquestionably had a means of ascertaining the patient's actual height, it seems unlikely in the extreme that it was used in a "Hey, I dunno, maybe this could be wrong?" sense. Given the context, I think we can safely rule out a height of 6ft 7ins for Fleming, and accept that the original scribe made an error. I appreciate that caution is necessary, but given the context, it's highly unlikely that we're dealing with a giant here. A useful "overview" is offered up by the ever faithful Wikipedia:

The word sic may be used either to show that an uncommon or archaic usage is reported faithfully: for instance, quoting the U.S. Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker...

or to highlight an error, sometimes for the purpose of ridicule or irony, as in these examples:

Warehouse has been around for 30 years and has 263 stores, suggesting a large fan base. The chain sums up its appeal thus: “styley [sic], confident, sexy, glamorous, edgy, clean and individual, with it's [sic] finger on the fashion pulse.”[2] It is also sometimes used for comic effect:

The Daily Mail was the first newspaper [sic] …

So, given the context, we're obviously dealing with the second one: "to highlight an error". Nothing about an "apparent" error - just an error. Unless our registrar knew that Fleming's height was written in error, he or she had absolutely no business flinging "sic"s about. Sensible deduction? Our registrar was cognizant of the correct application of "sic", and plonked it on the form because he knew that the hefty height was in error.

What about the possibility of verbal and mental abuse, in the absence of anyone witnessing any actual slapping around?

Not really feasible, because we know the term wasn't commonly used in that context unless verbal bashings were specified. In which case, you'd hear something like "He ill-used me with his words". Take a phrase like "injure" for example. In isolation, it invariably refers to physical violence, but add "...with his forked tongue" or some variation on that theme, and the word takes on a new meaning. The same thing happens with expressions like "ill-use" as we learn from contmporary souces; it usually refers to violence when used in isolation (which is how Venturney phrased it), but can potentially acquire a non-violent meaning if, and only if, something else (like cruel words) are specified. Fisherman's examples more than bear this out, for which I'm most appreciative.

We're dealing with the phrase as a verb, and whenever its used as a verb (as in "he used to ill-use me) it generally refers to physical violence. "Don't ill-use the poor girl" said William Bury's sister-in-law after the former pelted his wife with brute force and drew blood; used in similar context - a man and his other 'alf in a domestic situation with "ill-use" being used as a verb. The phrase crops up very regularly in that context in the Old Bailey records too.

In any case, it seems to me that anyone considering Fleming as a reasonable suspect for Mary’s murder has to get their act together and decide whether they want him to be a physically violent domestic abuser who kills Mary in a rit of fealous jage that produces a fair old mock-up of a genuine ripper crime that had everybody fooled at the time; or a cool, apparently harmless, under-the-radar serial mutilator, who went on, after making Mary his final act, to be recognisably mentally unstable.

Firstly, I'm utterly agast and agog that anyone could seriously reject Fleming as a "reasonable suspect" for the Kelly murder, at the very least, given what we know of him, especially in comparison to the usual dross that occasionally get churned out as suspects. Secondly, there's not mutual exclusivity between Fleming as a sexual serial killer endowed of some degree of cunning, and a mentally unstable man known to resort to violence on occasions. If people think that a proposed convergence of the twain is somehow tantamount to wanting to have our cake and eat it, I'm sorry, but the cake's beginning to taste rather good.

"But I don’t believe anyone could have committed the ripper crimes - all at night and in relative privacy and quick succession - while in the throes of a mental illness and been able to retain total anonymity."

So you're saying Jack the Ripper couldn't have evaded detection if he was mentally ill? Wow. Again, we've historical aplenty here that should give the ripper-researcher cause to reassess their beliefs. There's nothing in Fleming's known record that would remotely cast doubt on his ability to pull off a series of crimes. He was caught "at large" in 1892 at a time when his the outward and visible signs of his mental instability were then in evidence. That doesn't permit us to conclude that they were especially so in 1888. It's since become popular to bash the likes of John Douglas of the FBI, but for whatever it may be worth (which I think you'll agree is more than the average hobbyist like you or I), he expressed the view that the serial may have ended because the offender was nearing the end of his "emotional rope".

However, his example is not strong enough to sway me when it comes to putting any of Mary’s associates in the frame as Jack

Wait a minute. It's one thing to caution against putting Kelly-acquaintances in the frame purely for the Kelly factor, but quite another to rule out potential suspects because they happened to know one of the victims.

We may as well start looking for other associates of Polly, Annie and Kate, who could well have ill-used them at some point, or been in some sort of institution, and add them to the list of potential rippers.

Good luck finding any. If you can find one who moved into the centre of the murder district in August 1888, all the better.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
I like the "My job is done at last" scenario. However, since Fleming was still alive and at large after Mary's murder, his candidacy may force us not to forget the murders after MJK, especially the case of McKenzie.
Certainly, it can be a copy-cat work, but the idea of a debilitated Ripper (by his mental condition and /or the fact that Mary was a part of his motive) is then not to be discarded.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

We may as well start looking for other associates of Polly, Annie and Kate, who could well have ill-used them at some point, or been in some sort of institution, and add them to the list of potential rippers.

A good point, Caz, although (a) Fleming seems to be unique amongst acquaintances of the victims - at least we know a bit about him; (b) Kelly was the last Whitechapel evisceration victim, so any "My job is done at last" scenario would likely refer to her, and not her predecessors; (c) the others were old soaks who'd already been around a bit, hence unlikely to have had a jealous old flame stalking them; (d) any former partner of the others would likely be in his late 40s or older which doesn't seem to tally with any witness descriptions of [potentially] the Ripper.

In short, if any of the "C5" had a ghost's chance of inspiring an jilted former beau who may have gone off the rails, and was fit enough to do something with his obsessions, it was Kelly.

[caz]

Fleming's height was 5 foot 7, although the entry was 6'7" (sic) - the "sic" naturally present to indicate an error.

Hi Ben,

Hope you enjoyed those hols. I’m still trying to catch up after mine!

Although I’m not for one second trying to make a case for Fleming being a whopping 6 foot 7, you have to be careful when interpreting sic. It is merely used to indicate that this is literally how the figure (word, name and so on) appeared in the primary source. It doesn’t invariably indicate a known error, nor indeed a knowledge of the correct information. In other numerical contexts a mere sic would be totally inadequate for correction purposes. How would we know, for instance, if 7 minutes past 6 o’clock [sic] was telling us that the time was actually 7 minutes past 5 o’clock?

Sic is also used to indicate an apparent mistake, or to suggest there may be doubt over the accuracy of the original, in the absence of a proven resolution either way. In fact I don’t think the person putting sic after Fleming’s height would have known that the man was in reality 5 foot 7; it would have been an educated guess on their part, just as it is on ours. The problem is that sic can also be attached unwittingly to a genuine anomaly, eg one of the tallest (or shortest or heaviest) men alive in the LVP, whose vital statistics will look highly unlikely when faithfully recorded. Where does that leave all the genuine extremes if they are all put down to clerical errors?

Another problem is that if the original scribe could make a Fleming Giant out of a Mister Average, by writing 6’ instead of 5’ (figures which can look very similar but make a big difference when it comes to height), he could even more easily have written 7” in mistake for 1” or 11” (7 looks similar to 1, and seven rhymes with eleven), in which case the real Fleming in stockinged feet could have measured 5 foot 7, 5 foot 11, 6 foot 1 or 6 foot 7, or pretty much anything in between.

Venturney's reference to ill-use on Fleming's part on the grounds that Kelly was living with another man point very strongly in the direction of physical abuse, but how often and how severe we don't know.

What about the possibility of verbal and mental abuse, in the absence of anyone witnessing any actual slapping around? If he turned up one minute pressing money on Mary, then showed up the next to slag her off for taking it off him and then accused her of all sorts of other imagined wrongs, because he had already begun to delude himself about their relationship, she could well have felt ill-used by the mentally fragile man he was soon to become, while retaining her original fondness for the man she met.

I’m afraid I agreed with Dan over the contemporary examples of ill-use that Fisherman provided. I don’t understand which ones you thought were related to actual physical violence and why. Could you elaborate? As far as I could make out, the woman had ill-used the man by jilting him and he was doing a Jack Point, and none of the others had any violent connotations either.

In any case, it seems to me that anyone considering Fleming as a reasonable suspect for Mary’s murder has to get their act together and decide whether they want him to be a physically violent domestic abuser who kills Mary in a rit of fealous jage that produces a fair old mock-up of a genuine ripper crime that had everybody fooled at the time; or a cool, apparently harmless, under-the-radar serial mutilator, who went on, after making Mary his final act, to be recognisably mentally unstable.

I do appreciate that a killer can suffer from any mental condition that can afflict a non-killer, without it necessarily being a cause of their murderous behavour, or manifesting itself while the behaviour is going on. But I don’t believe anyone could have committed the ripper crimes - all at night and in relative privacy and quick succession - while in the throes of a mental illness and been able to retain total anonymity. Two mutilators, one for the older victims and one for Mary, is really stretching things in my view.

If we are to look away from the rest, Fleming really is the most convincing suggestion mentioned for Kellys death, no doubt about it. But when we bring the other victims on stage, we are faced with something quite different from a domestic scenario. And if we accept that the same killer is responsible for all the killings (Stride aside, as usual...), we are left with something that resembles crime fiction if we try to nail Fleming as Jack. If someone tried to force-feed me a plot like that in a crime novel, I would use said novel for toilet paper.

I think you were right here, Fisherman, although you were also right to reconsider when Kemper was mentioned. However, his example is not strong enough to sway me when it comes to putting any of Mary’s associates in the frame as Jack. We may as well start looking for other associates of Polly, Annie and Kate, who could well have ill-used them at some point, or been in some sort of institution, and add them to the list of potential rippers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Back from hols, and I've thoroughly enjoyed digesting and chewing over the last few pages. Some interesting ideas floatin'.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Bailey writes:

"...regardless of who was identified and by whom, that person may not necessarily have been the Ripper."

Correct, of course, Bailey. That has to go into the equation too. Incidentally, the man (B S man) who tussled with – and who perhaps/probably killed – Stride, was not the Ripper in my book. But just like you say, there is a possibility that cannot be discounted that she met with more than one aggressive man that day.

Probabilities is what it boils down to, never certainties ...

All the best, Bailey!

Fisherman

[Bailey]

Hello again, Glenn!

One of the things that can flaw it all, is of course if the Seaside Home identification did take place as some belive it did, with Lawende pointing out a man of Jewish descendance. But that identification has left many a Ripperologist baffled, and there seems to be very little certainty about the details involved, so I don´t see it as to much of an obstacle, at least not as it stands.

Fisherman

Then of course there's the point (I had originally typed fact, but of course we can't be sure of that, can we? I am learning...) that regardless of who was identified and by whom, that person may not necessarily have been the Ripper. After all, whichever witness it was did not (at least to our current knowledge) witness a murder, just men standing with - possibly assaulting, but not killing - women. So while there may have been an ID of the man seen with Eddowes or tussling with Stride, that man was not necessarily the killer. And even if he was Stride's killer, he may not be Jack...

B.

Hey look, I'm a constable now!

[Fisherman]

Cap´n Jack writes:

"You swedes and turnips do my head in, attempting to apply murder cases from your own barmy communities where you only see sun light for half a year, and to get at alcohol you have to take a ferry to the Fatherland.
You bastards designed the Volvo to cause accidents."

Last week, Cap´n, I returned from Denmark - not the Fatherland - with a cartrunk full of nice wine. So you are close to being spot on there!
As for my sentiments about Britain, us Swedes love that country to bits. Started with the vikings, I believe!

All the best, Cap´n!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello again, Glenn!

Good ol´Cap´n Jacks words on us Swedes about going to the Fatherland to get alcohol do not apply in my case - I find it intoxicating enough that Fleming CAN be fitted into a credible scenario, supported by numerous other cases showing similarities on important points. Up til yesterday, I did not find that credible.

In itself, it means that I shall have to give it all some afterthought before rushing into something that may hold no water at all (let alone alcohol). But weighing it all together, I will say that Fleming is moving up my list of possible Rippers at an impressing speed.

That said, I have always held the wiew that the Ripper´s name still awaits mentioning.

On the issue of what fondness meant in the case of Fleming/Kelly, I will merrily admit that we have little chance of knowing. But as long as there was a strong bond between the two – at least if you asked Fleming about it – I will settle for any variety.

Glenn, when we have discussed Kelly, you have always held the conviction that this killing displays many factors that tally well with a domestic slaying. Your guess has been that the man who killed Kelly knew her intimately, if I have understood you correctly.
You are a cautious man, Glenn, and thus you will normally not name suspects, but I know that you favour Fleming over Barnett in the Kelly case, and I also know that you see a possible motive in Kellys rejecting Fleming and taking up with Joe number two instead, since he earned a better wage. Please correct me if I am wrong!

This has all lead you to see Kelly as a one-off, unconnected to the other killings, meaning that if Fleming DID do Kelly, it would be very hard to explain why he did the others first.

But what if there was no willing and no motive at all to kill Kelly from the outset?
If it was all about jealousy, one must say that Fleming took his time! On the other hand, if he was the Ripper, and only decided to kill Kelly to spare her the shame, THEN we find ourselves with a very plausible timeline.
It would explain why Kelly disresembled the other victims.
It would explain why there were great, great similarities inbetween the killings (I know that you find the notches in the backbone of both Chapman and Kelly a distressing factor).
It would provide us with a killer who moved to the Victoria Home in August.
It would give an intriguing answer to the question why a killer who normally looked for organs from the abdominal cavity suddenly went for the heart instead.
It would create a scenario where the killer believed that he was found out - only to later evince that he suffered from delusions of persecution.
It would explain why Kelly was found in her undergarments, lying on her bed - as if she had gone to bed with someone she knew.
It would give us a killer who very probably knew all there was to know about the latch and lock mechanisms of the door of number 13 Millers Court.

We do not even need to have him killing Kelly because he did not want to shame her - maybe he crept down into her bed that night, convinced that he had been spotted and recognized as the Ripper, and that the game was up.
Maybe he desperately tried to explain it all to her in that bed, whereupon she was terrified and told him that she wanted him out of her life. That would leave us with the oldest motive in the world (if I can´t have her, noone else will), plus it would leave us with time enough for her to cry out "Oh, murder!" and try to fend his attack off.

Turning the timetable and the events this way, recognizing that Kelly was not an intended victim at all, offers us the possibility to fit Fleming in as the Ripper in a very compelling manner, I feel.

One of the things that can flaw it all, is of course if the Seaside Home identification did take place as some belive it did, with Lawende pointing out a man of Jewish descendance. But that identification has left many a Ripperologist baffled, and there seems to be very little certainty about the details involved, so I don´t see it as to much of an obstacle, at least not as it stands.

Tell me, Glenn - or anybody else on the boards - are there any other major flaws around? Or could Fleming have been the Ripper along these lines?

The best, Glenn!

Fisherman