Domestic or lunatic?

[Ben]

Agreed, Fisherman, and thanks for the kind words.

The only reason I mention blood-strewn walls and the like is because the term "ill-use" tended to crop up in association with that sort of violence, as witness the Bury incident and others.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

That's absolutle nonsense, as the examples you've provided have just demonstrated the opposite!

Did you look at the examples? You're clearly wrong here, as they fully supported what Fisherman was stating and not the opposite.

In every instance where the phrase ill-used crops up in anything related to the Whitechapel murders, it refers to physical violence on a higher scale to the type you're envisaging.

Part of that is just an assumption on your part, as the phrase typically isn't explained when used. Part of it is the nature of how you frame your knowledge and experience. "Anything related to the Whitechapel murders" is going to be by its nature more about violence, just like saying that the word "rip" whenever used in context with the murders has strongly violent meaning. But both terms also have much less violent meanings, and if someone is using it and you aren't sure what they mean, it's a bit over the top to always assume it meant the worst.

I don't know what exactly Fleming did to be described as ill-using Mary, and it certainly could have involved violence (that wouldn't be out of character for the time and place by any means), but the term in the context being discussed could also possibly mean "cheated on," "took advantage of" and so forth. Just because you've always read it to mean "physically assaulted" doesn't mean that that's correct, and it's just crazy to start insulting peoples' intelligence for disagreeing with you.

[Ben]

Did you look at the examples? You're clearly wrong here, as they fully supported what Fisherman was stating and not the opposite.

Of the examples Fisherman provided, two supported the "violence" hypothesis, and the other two couldn't possibly have applied to the Fleming/Kelly situation. I fully accept that ill-use may not always mean violence, but in the context we're talking about, it seems more likely than not to have occured. The clue here is the purported reason for the "ill-use", which was the fact that she was co-habiting with Barnett. If you ill-use someone explicitly for that reason, as Fleming was alleged to have done, it was unikely to have taken the form of short-changing her or cheating on her, for example.

"Anything related to the Whitechapel murders" is going to be by its nature more about violence, just like saying that the word "rip" whenever used in context with the murders has strongly violent meaning.

Exactly, which is why I believe the context is important.

and it's just crazy to start insulting peoples' intelligence for disagreeing with you.

You're right, and I apologise again to Fisherman for that.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi all,
just an attempt to stop "ill using" Fleming and focusing exclusively on Venturney's statement, and some little thoughts about Fleming.

1- Mary Kelly's status is highly paradoxal in the case, for she is sometimes considered the crowning piece of JtR, and sometimes withdrawn from the canon.

If she 's been the victim of a domestic murder, Fleming seems more likely to be her killer than Barnett (not to mention Mac Carthy, Bowyer, etc).

On the other hand, Fleming can't be lightly dismissed as JtR: he moved to Whitechapel in August 1888, died in a lunatic asylum, did not go to the police after the murder, and proved to be somehow a cunning character (elusiveness, use of the alias "James Evans").

2- We've said several times in the above posts that Fleming was not "Hutchinson-dependent", and said this with good reasons.
But is the contrary equally true?
The main argument for Hutch to have injected himself in the inquiry (if one supposes him to be Mary's killer or even JtR) seems to be Lewis testimony, and much has been objected against this view (see GH extensive threads), since Lewis statement was too vague to be a serious risk to him.
But add to Lewis testimony those of Barnett and Venturney, and then...

"Here we are!" some will sigh...
I humbly think "Fletchinson" (or "Hutching" as put by Sam Flynn ) worth discussing.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi David,
They are worth discussing.But it has to be stated that despite Hutchinson"s declaration that he was outside Miller"s Ct virtually at the time of Mary"s murder,Abberline believed him and this has always made me think Hutchinson was someone known to the police---eg a smalltime thief/someone who they used to grass on the villains in Spitalfields etc.in which case one or two of the police may have known what he was doing at the time of other murders eg Polly"s or Annie"s.Because if it seems extraordinary to us that Hutch could have been waiting outside the crime scene that night,you can be sure it would have passed through the minds of some of the police,if not Abberline , too.But Abberline was a good detective so there is no reason to think he hadnt looked at this startling fact and had good reason to dismiss it.
As far as Joe Fleming is concerned,if Julia Venturney and Joe Barnett both referred to him at the inquest,as being a person who had visited Kelly recently,and had allegedly "ill-used" her,then they would have been well aware of this when they considered bringing people in for questioning.With many files lost we dont know whether they had him in or not.He possibly had alibis,but I doubt they heard the evidence of witnesses and never bothered to look into an ex-boyfriend who was still visiting Mary Kelly in the months leading up to her murder ,a man cited by two people at Mary"s inquest.After all,they followed up many other suspects ,including many with less of a link than Joseph Fleming, during their entire hunt for the ripper.

However,if they didnt bother,and this I very much doubt was the case,then that is suspicious in itself,and would point to someone high up actually knowing,by November 10th,who the Ripper was.And I dont believe they did.
Best
Norma

[DVV]

Bonsoir Norma, comment allez-vous?

I'm not sure the police took too much care of Fleming. In any case, there is no press report suggesting they did.
Why should they have pay great attention to that guy? Neither Barnett nor Venturney did mention he was living in Whitechapel (certainly they were not aware of this detail).

And Mary's murder was not at all, at that time, considered a domestic affair (the fact that they questionned Barnett was likely a matter of routine, or "acquit de conscience" more than a solid-based suspicion, I guess, since Barnett was quickly cleared).

And more important, as you wrote, Abberline believed Hutchinson, and was then on the trail of his wealthy-looking Jew...quite far from a plasterer living in Bethnal Green, or from a "costermonger" (according to Venturney's statement). Plus, as we see in 1903, Abberline believed the killer to have some medical knowledge - again we are far from a plasterer...
And Abberline couldn't know, of course, that Fleming was to spend years and even die in an asylum (I mention this for we know that the police was also tracking lunatics).

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Abberline believed him and this has always made me think Hutchinson was someone known to the police---eg a smalltime thief/someone who they used to grass on the villains in Spitalfields etc

If that was the case, Abberline would almost certainly have made reference to this in his internal, confidential police report. The fact that such a reference doesn't appear is a very compelling indication that Hutchinson wasn't known to the police before he made his statement on 12th November. The chances of knowing what a doss house-dwelling labourer was doing at a particular hour on the night of a murder six weeks previously were slim to non-existent. If Hutchinson wanted to lie about his movements for the previous murders, all he had to do was claim to have been asleep at a lodging house on those nights without possible fear contradiction.

Abberline was a good detective so there is no reason to think he hadnt looked at this startling fact and had good reason to dismiss it.

There's no evidence that he did dismiss the possibility of Hutchinson loitering outside Kelly's flat, and if we're ruling out the possibility detectives being hoodwinked by criminals, we're already straying into fantasy, m'afraid. It happens. But if you're talking about Hutchinson being considered a suspect or not, we have no evidence either way. He may or may not have been suspected. If he wasn't, there's nothing very suprising about that given the lack of precedence for offenders coming forward under false guises, especially serial killers, and if they did suspect him, there was no method by which to determine his guilt of innocence anyway.

I doubt they heard the evidence of witnesses and never bothered to look into an ex-boyfriend who was still visiting Mary Kelly in the months leading up to her murder ,a man cited by two people at Mary"s inquest

They no doubt did their best, but with Fleming using an alias in a busy lodging house, the chances of him being tracked down were incredibly remote. There's no evidence that he was ever traced. He very probably wasn't.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
nothing indicates that they did their best to trace him, and if they did so, as some journalists also may have done, it would (perhaps) have been more to learn something about Mary's background than with the hope of catching a serious suspect.
What is sure, is that Fleming did his best to keep hidden (at least as "Fleming the ex-boyfriend")...

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Thereīs a matter I have been giving some thought lately, and which may have bearing on the Fleming/Hutchinson issue. This is it:
When the Star found out that a witness (Schwartz) had been giving information to the police regarding the Stride killing, they sent out a reporter who found Israel Schwartz. The following article in the Star stated:
”Information which may be important was given to the Leman Street police yesterday by an Hungarian concerning this murder. The foreigner was well-dressed, and had the appear- ance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police station accompanied by a friend, who acted as interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch Lane.”

My question is: How did that reporter find Schwartz, given that the name was not disclosed by the police? Surely he was not led to Backchurch Lane (where Schwartz lived, at 22 Helen Street) by instinct?

Of course not – I am a journalist myself, and I am well aware that the press has always had their connections inside the police forces. Combined with economical generosity, there are many ways an investigation can be caused to ”leak”, and something along these lines could have been what happened here, if I am correct.

With George Hutchinson, we seem to have a parallel. He too was run down by a (Times) journalist, and I think it may be fair to suggest that this too was the result of leaking investigation officials.

And this is where I offer a suggestion! The journalist who set out to find Schwartz looked for him in Backchurch Lane, obviously having been given that adress by somebody attached to the investigation.

So where would the guy who ran Hutchinson down look for him? In the Victoria Home, presumably, since that was where he had stated he lived! Moreover, the journalist would have a name too – George Hutchinson. And he obviously found his man, using the information he had been given.
Leaving us with the question: If Joe Fleming had been staying in the Victoria Home under his own name since August, and if (there are a number of if:s involved, as usual...) the reporter came looking for ”George Hutchinson”, presumably asking his way, how could a man, having stayed for months in a lodging house under another name, get away with masquerading as Hutchinson?

We know that the interwiew with the Times was conducted on the evening of the 13:th of November, and we know that it was conducted AFTER the time Hutchinson was searching the streets for Astrakhan man in company with the police, since he finishes the interwiew saying ”I have been looking for the man all day” - past tense, that is.

Was the interwiew made at the Victoria Home? Does anybody know? For if it was, it casts serious doubt on the possibility of Fleming and Hutchinson being one and the same, I think.

The best,

Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

just a quick note to Ben regarding Hutchinson-will get back to thread later.I wasnt thinking of something the police would keep "on file"-they had about 600 extras during the Fenian business which was still going on.Of these a number were plain clothes,some,just like Jenkinson"s "illegal" spy ring had been were people "keeping an eye out" in pubs/at certain Spitalfields Lodging houses---especially in the aftermath of the Mitre Square bombers of 1885 etc.For more on this read Prof Clive Bloom in his book, "Violent London".Not all their activities wererecorded but that there were upwards of 600 such "informers"-women who worked in pubs and even brothels are recorded to have been amongst these as well as spies who spied on spies.
Best

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Leaving us with the question: If Joe Fleming had been staying in the Victoria Home under his own name since August, and if (there are a number of if:s involved, as usual...) the reporter came looking for ”George Hutchinson”, presumably asking his way, how could a man, having stayed for months in a lodging house under another name, get away with masquerading as Hutchinson?

It's a good question, but the answer is very easily indeed. Firstly, we don't know what name he was going under when he entered the Victoria Home. If he was going under the name George Hutchinson (or any other name), he'd be known there as "George Hutchinson" if he was "known" at all, so the risk of being exposed as Joe Fleming (if such he was) was very remote. Secondly, if the individual in question was solitary in his habits and, in keeping with the habits of 400 other lodgers on an average night, only used the home to sleep in (as opposed to developing a huge social network) who's to say he'd be known to anyone at all?

Could a reported have tailed Hutchinson to the Victoria Home? Yes, that wouldn't be unlikely at all, but he could just have easily met the reporter in a pub or on the streets or at work. Something to consider, though: Hutchinson was unlikely to have been tracked down by a lone "rogue" reporter as Schwartz was because the account was apparently distributed by a press agency (hence it's appearance in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Pall Mall Gazzette, The St. James Gazzette). In Schwartz case, he clearly was the victim of a reporter "running him to earth", since the account only appears in The Star - nowhere else.

For if it was, it casts serious doubt on the possibility of Fleming and Hutchinson being one and the same, I think.

No, but I appreciate your bringing up the subject of the manner in which Hutchinson approached (or was approached) by the press. We don't know that he was "run down" at all. Hutchinson may have been more proactive and sought the press himself.

Who did he or the police speak to if the account was circulated by a press agency?

Hi Nats,

I see what you mean, but it would make little difference if it was on file or not. The salient point is that Abberline was at liberty to say anything he wanted in a a missive intended only for the eyes of his police superiors.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

You write:

"Firstly, we don't know what name he was going under when he entered the Victoria Home."
Sorry if I am stupid here, but if he entered the Victoria Home as George Hutchinson, how do we know that Fleming stayed there in the first place? What source puts him there, originally?

On the rest of your post, I will say that you are correct - there is no knowing how the press got wind of him and where they found him (itīs all them if:s again).
Still, I think it is an interesting issue!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Sorry if I am stupid here, but if he entered the Victoria Home as George Hutchinson, how do we know that Fleming stayed there in the first place? What source puts him there, originally?

Initially, it was his 1889 entry in the Whitechapel Infirmey Register when he suffered an injured leg. There's no evidence that he gave that name to anyone other than the infirmery. The address is also mentioned in the asylum records; either Stone or Claybury, I forget.

An interesting issue it is indeed!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Ben!

One has - on the one hand - to make the reflection that it would be a strange thing to do, to use one name where you live, and another where you seek medical attention. On the other hand, though, was it not in 1889 that Fleming turned into James Evans?

Curiouser, and curiouser, said Alice...

The best,

Fisherman

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,
Abberline may have been at liberty to do so in terms of the Ripper but I doubt he would have gone ahead and reported stuff on Hutchinson"s movements for the secret Irish underground work that was going on.Say George Hutchinson was a part time bar or lodging house informer on fenian activity in the Spitalfields area for example and certain detectives knew of his work on nights in question.[There were numbers of such people as this about at that time and he may have been one of them].There are examples of times when the British agent Millen,working mostly in a New York fenian cell,was "spied on" by another British Spy,unbeknown to himself- Melville was sent to spy on him in Boulogne and double checked him for Anderson in 1887 .In such a case I doubt very much whether Abberline would have been free to record whatever he liked.We know that in fact Abberline avoided writing his memoirs on the Ripper which could have brought him some revenue,importantly he also was involved in secret Irish work.