Domestic or lunatic?

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

We know that in fact Abberline avoided writing his memoirs on the Ripper which could have brought him some revenue

Yes, but if he wrote any memoirs, they would have been intended for public consumption. That's quite different from a police report intended only for the private consumption of his police superiors, including Anderson.

Withholding details from the public - yes.

Withholding details from police superiors - no.

No need, besides which it was his professional duty to pass them on. The fact that no such details were ever imparted is a near-certain indication that Hutchinson wasn't known to Abberline prior to his appearance on 12th November.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,



Yes, but if he wrote any memoirs, they would have been intended for public consumption. That's quite different from a police report intended only for the private consumption of his police superiors, including Anderson.

Withholding details from the public - yes.

Withholding details from police superiors - no.

No need, besides which it was his professional duty to pass them on. The fact that no such details were ever imparted is a near-certain indication that Hutchinson wasn't known to Abberline prior to his appearance on 12th November.

All the best,
Ben

Ben,I dont know whether you are familiar with the highly secretive nature of the secret service for which Abberline also worked [he was sent by Monro to arrest Cunningham in the tower of London in 1885 for example]-however I quote here from Professor Clive Bloom in his book "Violent London":
" They [the new "secret departments'] were highly secret and every effort was made to frustrate enquiries into their purpose and organisation.They were secret because they were a national police force,which carried out political surveillance and arrest when no such force was meant to exist,being against Victorian principles in policing.lastly they reported directly to the Home Secretary,their remit to destry Fenian and Anarchist networks."

There was an amusing example of Anderson in 1887 calling up Melville to spy on another British Agent ,Millen,planted in a Chicago Clan na Gael cell usually but who had come to Boulogne to meet up with Anderson"s other agent Thompson and his wife.This was wryly noted down in a diary of one of the Irish Nationalists Davitt!

[Brenda]

On another note, it strikes me that Julia Venturney was very brave to mention Fleming to police if he were a violent lunatic. I would think she would be worried for her safety if that were the case, that he would try to seek revenge. I feel that Mary and Fleming may have had a physical altercation or two, but nothing that would make Julia Venturney afraid that he would assault her.

[Ben]

Hi Brenda,

Nobody's suggesting Fleming was considered a "violent lunatic" by people who knew him in 1888, or that Venturney feared for her own personal safety. On the other had, the fact than Venturney specifically mentioned this "ill-use" in her police statement suggests that she considered it of some significance to the investigation.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi all,
it will perhapas be useful here to quote some data from the archives boards, especially the excellent researches by "Chris" and "Snelson".

16 nov 1889: Fleming admitted in Whitechapel Workhouse Inf, due to an injured leg. At this time he is refered as "Joseph Fleming, age 31, dock labourer from 41 Commercial Street (= Victoria Home)". It is stated that he lived there for 15 months (= starting Aug 1888)

1891 census: Joseph Flemming (sic), aged 32, born Bethnal Green, boot-finisher.

June 1892: admitted in the City of London Union Inf, Bow Road, his address again being given as the Victoria Home, but at this time he uses the alias of "James Evans".

4 July 1892: admitted at the City of London Asylum, Stone, still under the alias of James Evans. Here we have an interesting comment:
"On this admission to the City of London Asylum at Stone he was described as having a scar on his right temple, brown eyes, a vacant expression, and a pulse of 100. Under the headind 'bruises' is entered a skin abrasion of the front of the left tibia. The casebook also records that his mother Henrietta has informed the asylum that insanity had been in the family for 160 years.
Fleming/Evans medical records reveal that he was not considered dangerous but suffered from delusions of persecution and could become very abusive with little or no provocation. He resented being questionned or being interfered with and suffered from mania."

1901 census: "James Evans, age 45, single, dock labourer, born Bethnal Green, lunatic."

28 Aug 1920: death of "Joseph Fleming otherwise James Evans", at Claybury Mental Hospital, previous address unknown, dock labourer, 65 years."

Compare to GH, Fleming is far less elusive. I re-read the researches done by Sam Flynn re GH, the most likely to match "our" GH being a butcher from St George's East, the other a "glass cutter" born in Mile End (1881 census), then a "cabinet glass fitter" (1891 census).

Hope this will help the current discussion,
Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi DVV!

Thanks for that; always useful to have it in front of you!

One thing that I find slightly strange here is the passage "16 nov 1889: Fleming admitted in Whitechapel Workhouse Inf, due to an injured leg. At this time he is refered as "Joseph Fleming, age 31, dock labourer from 41 Commercial Street (= Victoria Home)". It is stated that he lived there for 15 months (= starting Aug 1888)"

Why on earth would the Whitechapel Workhouse ask a patient with an injured leg how long he had been living at his address? Since we obviously are lucky enough to have the note in the papers, they obviously did - but why? Common practice? Anybody who has an idea?

The "not considered dangerous" bit may seem to swear against him being the Ripper, but we know of many an extremely dangerous killer who made the same impression when incarcerated. Delusions of persecution and resentment of being questioned or even interfered with, plus suffering from mania is surely more than enough to make him quite an interesting prospect, if one only looks at what is left from his medical journals.

Ripper or not, it is such a sad and tragic read to see him sliding downwards.

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Yes, thanks for that, David. A great help!

Ripper or not, it is such a sad and tragic read to see him sliding downwards.

Absolutely, Fisherman, and that goes for his employment prospects as well as his sanity. Indeed, one wonders if a decline in the latter precipitated a decline in the former, as it did with James Kelly. To go from earning a respectable wage as a plasterer to roughing it as a costermonger and subsequently a docker is quite a downward spiral, especially if he "lost" Kelly around the same time...

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

So it is, Ben - and pondering whether he to some extent blamed Kelly for it all - given his later evinced delusions of persecution - is of course something that lies close at hand.

The best!

Fisherman

[Septic Blue]

Why on earth would the Whitechapel Workhouse ask a patient with an injured leg how long he had been living at his address? Since we obviously are lucky enough to have the note in the papers, they obviously did - but why? Common practice? Anybody who has an idea?

Right of Settlement

Excepting cases of extreme urgency; a Poor Law Parish/Union (e.g. Whitechapel Poor Law Union) was not compelled to provide Poor Relief (e.g. admission to its infirmary) to anyone who did not reside within its boundaries.*

Settlement of one year (+) afforded the inmate the right to refuse removal to the care of some other Parish/Union.

*Fleming's admission to the City of London Union Infirmary, in light of his residence in Whitechapel (i.e. 39-41 Commercial Street, St. Mary Whitechapel), was probably the result of some sort of exceptional circumstance.


Colin

[Fisherman]

...and there it is! Thanks, Colin - most helpful and much appreciated!

All the best,

Fisherman

[DVV]

Find definitely striking the statement of Fleming's mother upon the admission of Joseph to the City of London Asylum (1892): "Insanity had been in the family for 160 years".

If she really said "160" years, this must refer to a precise event that the family kept in memory as a tradition.
Then which family?

Henrietta Fleming's maiden name was Masom, and she was born in Camberwell, Surrey, in 1822.
Something serious may have occured in Surrey about 1732...who knows? (Rollcall for a local historian!!!).

More important is the fact that she did not say that her son has previously shown sign of insanity, and that, instead, alluded to an ancestral atavism.
How fascinating is this Joe Fleming! Who said his case was far too flimsy?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Apologies to Fleming if this wasn't him...

...but I found this, against a certain "James Evans" in the Old Bailey records for April 1891:



No further details, although a Jane Lane of the correct age was living in Bethnal Green at the time.

Incidentally, seeing the name of the Mayor, James Whitehead, atop the page reminded me that I was at university with his great-great granddaughter. Although I've known of James Whitehead being the Lord Mayor for as long as I've studied the Ripper case, it's only now that the penny's dropped, as I recall her mentioning her illustrious ancestry. She was a very beautiful girl, by the way - in addition to which she was intelligent, down-to-earth and utterly charming.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi DVV!

Thanks for that; always useful to have it in front of you!

One thing that I find slightly strange here is the passage "16 nov 1889: Fleming admitted in Whitechapel Workhouse Inf, due to an injured leg. At this time he is refered as "Joseph Fleming, age 31, dock labourer from 41 Commercial Street (= Victoria Home)". It is stated that he lived there for 15 months (= starting Aug 1888)"

Why on earth would the Whitechapel Workhouse ask a patient with an injured leg how long he had been living at his address? Since we obviously are lucky enough to have the note in the papers, they obviously did - but why? Common practice? Anybody who has an idea?

The "not considered dangerous" bit may seem to swear against him being the Ripper, but we know of many an extremely dangerous killer who made the same impression when incarcerated. Delusions of persecution and resentment of being questioned or even interfered with, plus suffering from mania is surely more than enough to make him quite an interesting prospect, if one only looks at what is left from his medical journals.

Ripper or not, it is such a sad and tragic read to see him sliding downwards.

The best,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
I think its important to recognise that huge advances have been made during the last 118 years regarding the use of drugs to calm down dangerous behaviour --on admission if need be.A drug like bromide has been used for many years for example to calm excitement in the less dangerous but there are now much more powerful drugs than that may allow certain dangerous individuals to present a masque of normality.Such drugs werent yet in use in the 1890"s so had someone like Joseph Fleming been considered "dangerous to others", he would have been placed under restraint, either in a padded cell orby being put in a straight jacket until the danger had passed -[this can still be method of control ].So my guess is that if he,like the suspect Kosminski, was not considered dangerous,then probably he wasnt.
Best

[Fisherman]

Hi Natalie!

You are correct that drugs will have made many a violent man a meeker such. But to state that an 1880:s judgement of "not dangerous" would have been a correct assesment in each case is something I do not believe all that much in.
The most striking example to point to a type of character that goes against this suggestion of yours would perhaps be Ed Gein. He was a model inmate throughout his time in jail, a shy, silent, smiling, compliant man who never hurt a flie while incarcerated.
Moreover, there would have been no need to sedate him with any drugs at all to reach this, if my guess is correct - for he was precisely the same kind of man OUTSIDE jail. He lived in a state where hunting was popular, but he was never taken hunting by the other guys in town, since he was considered to weak-hearted and kind a man to hurt - let alone kill - any animal.
That did not stop him from killing and gutting his neighbour, though, afterwards hoisting her up in a shed like a slaughtered deer.

Put a man like Gein in an East end asylum, and I assure you that a verdict of totally harmless would have been returned!

All the best, Natalie!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam , a very interesting find on "James Evans". It´s a pity Fleming did not use Saulus Begginwhale or something like that for an alias ...

Well done!

The best,

Fisherman

PS. That Whitehead girl - did you marry her??