Domestic or lunatic?

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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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!

[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 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.

[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

[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]

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 (it´s all them if:s again).
Still, I think it is an interesting issue!

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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