Domestic or lunatic?

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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,

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

[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

[Observer]

Hi David

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

Presuming that Kelly was not a victim of Jack the Ripper, and was indeed a copycat, why did the other killer on the loose at that time, the killer of Nichols Eddowes and Chapman, and possibly Stride suddenly stop after Eddowes? Did he also adopt the "my work is done" after Eddowes? In short the abrupt ending of the crimes is a problem poses quite a problem.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hi Observer,
I personally believe Mary to be a Ripper victim. My sentence about "copy-cat work" refered to the McKenzie's murder.
On the contrary, with Fleming becoming insane (or progressively showing signs of insanity), and being at large after the Miller's Court affair, there is a (slight) possibility that the murders did not have an abrupt end (ie: McKenzie being, as an example, the work of a debilitated Ripper).
But I may have misunderstood your post, and if so, I apologize in advance.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi David,

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.

Oh indeed, this is as good a place as any to explore that angle, and as you know, I believe a plausible argument can be advanced for identifying Fleming with Hutchinson. It's just a pity that the original extensive discussion, "Alias Fleming and Hutch", was lost in the relatively recent "crash". As far as Hutchinson's possible motivations for coming forward, it needn't necessarily have been fear of imminent capture that spurred him into action. Quite possibly, he wanted to "spike their guns in advance" - to appropriate a phrase coined by murderer Nathan Leopold - thus ensuring him with a degree of real or imagined security if and when his name or description cropped up in a "suspect" capacity as somebody seen near the crime scene or someone who knew one of the victims (or whatever). "It obviously wasn't me. I contacted you. I was helpful", rather like serial killer John Eric Armstrong's "I called you guys, remember?" when he came forward with a claim to have "discovered" a body.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
on balance, I believe he had better stay away from from the inquiry. Lewis, half dozing in front of Miller's Court, merely saw a man with a hat, rather short and stout... Clearly not enough to scare Hutch, even if he was rather short and stout.
Another possiblity, however, is that Hutch injected himself just to satisfy this kind of twisted desire displayed, as we nowadays know, by some serial killers.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi David,

Another possiblity, however, is that Hutch injected himself just to satisfy this kind of twisted desire displayed, as we nowadays know, by some serial killers.

Very true, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Hutchinson being wary about Lewis' evidence. We know what the totality of Lewis' evidence amounted to, but Hutchinson didn't. For all he knew, the police could have suppressed her full description as they did with Lawende's. At the inquest, Lawende mentioned only a "rough and shabby" appearance, but by the 19th November, the full description was published (neckerchief, cap, height, age and all) and circulated. Whoever the killer was, he must have alarmed him to know that his physical particulars were suddenly and unexpectedly doing the rounds weeks after he committed the murder* Same could have happened with Lewis' evidence.

The other thing to bear in mind is that a "description" is different from a "sighting". For example, a witness can remember a man's face without necessarily being able to describe it very well, whilst forgetting about clothes altogether.

Best regards,
Ben

*It could even account, in part, for the October lull. Who knows?

[DVV]

Yes Ben, but I don't think Sarah Lewis had seen the man's face. She said "he was looking up the court", so she may have seen his back, and in any event, she's more describing a figure (not tall, a hat, waiting for something).

Amitiés,
David