Domestic or lunatic?

[Ben]

Hi Cel,

It's possible, but there's no indication that Fleming's visits and those of Sarah Lewis ever coincided. In fact, the latter could well have been a "one off" of sorts. Fleming's height was 5 foot 7, although the entry was 6'7" (sic) - the "sic" naturally present to indicate an error. We're not sure how many, if any, of the other witnesses had either met Fleming or knew him by sight. We know that Julia Venturney did not.

Best regards,
Ben

[Celesta]

Hi Cel,



As I've already explained, though, the Victoria Home connection isn't the only factor that has led some to speculate that they may have been one and the same. It's been suggested that David Cohen was Nathan Kaminsky, but there are fewer known points of congruity between the two of them than there are between Hutchinson and Fleming.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I understand. Sarah Lewis was a visitor to the Keylers, who lived in the Court, and I have wondered whether or not she had ever seen Joseph Flemming. Is there a description for him? I have this vague notion of his being tall, but I haven't located the source for that. Tully talks about him but gives no description. He's not in Sugden's index. The threads for him here are gone. It seems that those who had met Fleming or knew who he was might have made a connection, if he resembled Sarah's description of the lurker.

Best,

Cel

[Ben]

Hi Cel,

As intriguing as the notion is that Hutch and Flem are the same guy, I have to agree with you.

As I've already explained, though, the Victoria Home connection isn't the only factor that has led some to speculate that they may have been one and the same. It's been suggested that David Cohen was Nathan Kaminsky, but there are fewer known points of congruity between the two of them than there are between Hutchinson and Fleming.

Regards,
Ben

[Celesta]

Just a quick cool-off:

IF Fleming killed Mary Kelly but NOT the others, we are left with a man who decided to kill his (ex?)fiancée Ripper style - only worse. I find that hard to accept.

IF on the other hand, Fleming killed Mary Kelly AND the others, we are left with a man who feels a need to get back on his (ex?)fiancée - but who for some reason decides to first have a go at a handful of other prostitutes who could have been Marys mother, agewise.

I find that hard to accept too.

...much as I enjoy that little twist of Hutch and Fleming apparently both being Victorian home residents at the same time. Coincidential, though, if you ask me.

All the best,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

As intriguing as the notion is that Hutch and Flem are the same guy, I have to agree with you. As for the coincidence of them both being Victoria Home residents...most of the people involved in these cases practically lived in each other's back pockets!

Best to you, Fisherman. Long time no talk to. Hope all is well.

Cel

[Ben]

If he was dispaying lots of outwards and visible signs of violence and "mania" in 1888, yes.

...displaying lots of outward and visible signs...

Can we increase the time limit for post-editing in order to accomodate tired and/or semi-sloshed people, please?

[Ben]

I keep hearing about Ed Gein.Well he sounds quite a different kettle of fish to me from the Ripper.

Doesn't matter, Norma.

It doesn't invalidate Fisherman's point that known serial killers didn't require excessive sedation once they were incarcerated in an asylum, and any assumption that Fleming's non-violence at Claybury somehow militates against him being the ripper has no inferential basis at all. In fact, such an assumption would militate very heavily against what we know to be true of other serial killers.

It's all very well to claim that Jack was "unique" and that other serial killers are therefore irrelevent for comparison studies (a position which every expert in the field would dispute very strongly), but it's a little crazy to expect others to dismiss those potential comparison studies in preference to your own personal assumptions as to how the killer would or wouldn't behave in X or Y circumstances.

There is absolutely no indication that Joseph Fleming was a violent man or that he had been up before the beak for being violent.

Wrong. Julia Venturney stated that Fleming used to ill-use Kelly for living with Barnett. That's a strong indication of violence. It's not "abolsutely no indication". You're using completely the wrong terminology.

Moreover,if Joseph Fleming was the violent character portrayed yesterday on this thread,then you can bet his behaviour would have been remarked upon by other lodgers

If he was dispaying lots of outwards and visible signs of violence and "mania" in 1888, yes. If not, no problem. And as for the police being in a position to question every single occupant of every single lodging house and rule them out one by one accordingly? Nah. Just nah.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Fisherman,
I keep hearing about Ed Gein.Well he sounds quite a different kettle of fish to me from the Ripper.
In fact I think it may be a mistake to keep quoting other murderers because they,like everyone else,are individuals,with their own particular quirks.Didnt Ed Gein skin and eat people or something ? Well that is"nt exactly a close fit to what we can glean about Jack.
But regarding the point about violent conduct.There is absolutely no indication that Joseph Fleming was a violent man or that he had been up before the beak for being violent.
It also seems absurd to think that in a lodging house right in the very heart of the murder area,such as the Victoria Home,the police would not have searched everyone living there and asked questions of all the residents when they were doing their October House to house searches of Wentworth Street and its environs.
Moreover,if Joseph Fleming was the violent character portrayed yesterday on this thread,then you can bet his behaviour would have been remarked upon by other lodgers.Everybody was on high alert during the Jack the Ripper murders and an oddball like that would have been sussed damn quick.
Best

[DVV]

Hi all,
violence or not when in asylum, years after, does not seem very relevant to me. Anyway, the term "abusive" indicates some kind of violence (verbal) - a reply to the supposed "persecution" he was suffering, I imagine.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

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

I wish! Sadly not

[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??

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

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

All the best,

Fisherman