The Madness of Joseph Fleming

[perrymason]

Hi again Suz,

I should state up front that for myself, Fleming being a known consort of Marys previously and suspected of still being one while she is living with Joe Barnett....plus the imminent debilitating madness, makes him a very viable maybe on the list for at least this one murder. I do not myself wonder about his performing some identity swap with Hutchinson, because for me, Hutchinson is just the most vivid witness that is discarded. His profile is so high here due to the likelihood that the first and suspected last killings of a serial killer will offer the best insights on him. Some people may well have been convinced earlier that Mr Packer was on the level, yet historically we know... he's been suspect from the get go.

There are lots of witnesses that seem to have value and then just fade away, and some that have seemingly no value whatsoever that make it to Inquest.

But Fleming is a known ex-lover, he is on the scene according to what Mary has told Julia, and he will be certifiably insane within a few years.

And that takes us back to where I mentioned he might be the type to pop in late at night after Joe has moved out, he may be giving Mary some money as JB is, and might be expecting late night booty visits as a trade off. She might be visited by such a man the night she is murdered..and vocally showed dismay at the arrival.

All the best.

[Varqm]

If we examine the timing and congruity of detail, there is a very strong inferential probability that Hutchinson only came forward when he learned of Sarah Lewis' potentially incriminating evidence. That is based on my rejection of the idea that that sequence of events was random, freak coincidence.
Ben

First you have to establish that he was there.If not all these actions of George has not nothing to do with the him being a possible murderer.The cart cannot pull the horse.

[Ben]

First you have to establish that he was there.If not all these actions of George has not nothing to do with the him being a possible murderer.

Not true,

If it can be logically inferred that he was probably there - which it can - than "all these actions of George" have a crucial and direct bearing on "him being a possible murderer". That's not the same as being able to "prove" he was there, but then you can't do that will the vast majority of suspects.

[perrymason]

If we examine the timing and congruity of detail, there is a very strong inferential probability that Hutchinson only came forward when he learned of Sarah Lewis' potentially incriminating evidence. That is based on my rejection of the idea that that sequence of events was random, freak coincidence.

Hi Varqm,

If he does come forward on that basis, then its likely that he was there and suspected that Lewis's Wideawake was himself being seen, doesnt it?

Im not so far down the road on him, I know he falsified his tale, his embellishments tend to be extravagant and rather easily identified....but why he did so Im not as sure.

I think your logic is sound if he was there and thought he was seen by Sarah over the weekend, but why not show up in the morning and square everything up at the Inquest if he was just scared and was hoping to stay out of the proceedings over the weekend. We dont know he even knew of Wideawake either.

I believe he waited for the Inquest to end, and that convinces me that he may have thought someone at that Inquest might recognize him....maybe as someone whose name he isnt using at that moment. I think its possible under those circumstances that Joe Fleming might have been Hutchinson, and that he was "adding" a sighting of himself as Hutchinson in case anyone else who had not come forward yet also saw him clearly that night. Meaning he was in fact there in the middle of the night.

Best regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
I hope the party balloon is not about to burst, for unless we have clarification that Joseph Flemings height was a foot less, then to suggest that he was infact Hutchinson is a non starter.
What have we got to date.
We have a man admitted in 1892, going under the name of James Evans, height 6'7'' weight 11'7lbs[ bean pole] clearly a most striking individual, he does not appear violent , but believes he is being hunted, this mans age on admittance is 37 years, this man real name is infact Joseph Fleming and he lived untill 1920 when on death his age, when compared to his records confirmed his D.O.B as 1855, although the Fleming of 1888 fame , appears to have been at least four years younger.
Question .
Are we looking at the man that had a relationship with Mjk, or a completely different person.?
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Are we looking at the man that had a relationship with Mjk, or a completely different person.?

I'm almost certain that we are, Rich - and I've given some of the reasons why on the Stone Asylum thread, which seems a more appropriate place to discuss his family background than this one.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

We have a man admitted in 1892, going under the name of James Evans, height 6'7'' weight 11'7lbs[ bean pole]

Which seems most peculiar if the height was correct, just as the "160 years" seems most peculiar and oddly precsie estimate for the numer of years insanity had been in the family...if that was correct. Don't read anything into the fact that he didn't behave violently or dangerously when incarcerated - nor did Ed Gien, and don't read anything into the fact that the nature of the delusions were not particularly "ripperish" - Robert Napper believed he had won a Nobel prize for Maths.

this mans age on admittance is 37 years, this man real name is infact Joseph Fleming and he lived untill 1920 when on death his age, when compared to his records confirmed his D.O.B as 1855, although the Fleming of 1888 fame , appears to have been at least four years younger

But we know they're the same man because of the congruent details (Bethnal Green, Henrietta Fleming etc), and we know that the age of 37 is wrong, as I explained to you on the other thread.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It appears from replies on this thread that we should ignore the facts given on the records.
For exsample.
His height[ surely a mistake]
His age [ cannot be right]
His reported state of mind[ dont be fooled]
It appears that when Casebook members research any census /documents, if trifle details like age, physical description, or personality, appear not to match , it all is down to their mistake, not the modern day researcher.
Best regards,
Richard.

[Ben]

Oh for feck's sake, Richard.

How on earth can discrepencies in the primary sources be attributed to a "mistake" on the part of a "modern day researcher"? I never claimed that either his height or mental state is "surely a mistake". I simply noted that several of his particulars appear to in error, not necessarily on the part of the registrar. If a man is capable of giving a false name, he is certainly capable of giving an erroneous age.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello all.
I hope the party balloon is not about to burst, for unless we have clarification that Joseph Flemings height was a foot less, then to suggest that he was infact Hutchinson is a non starter.
What have we got to date.
We have a man admitted in 1892, going under the name of James Evans, height 6'7'' weight 11'7lbs[ bean pole] clearly a most striking individual, he does not appear violent , but believes he is being hunted, this mans age on admittance is 37 years, this man real name is infact Joseph Fleming and he lived untill 1920 when on death his age, when compared to his records confirmed his D.O.B as 1855, although the Fleming of 1888 fame , appears to have been at least four years younger.
Question .
Are we looking at the man that had a relationship with Mjk, or a completely different person.?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard

like you I don't buy Fleming as Hutchinson. However I have been convinced for some time that these murders were commit by a Paranoid Schizophrenic. And it is curious that an ex-boyfriend appears to have been suffering the condition.

As I have stated repeatedly on the kosminski thread, the fact that Fleming appears completely harmless would be consistent with what we know of Paranoid Schizophrenics when locked up. Besides do we not have one witness claiming Fleming abused MJK and an entry in his asylum records claiming he had been abusive? Schizophrenics can turn for the strangest of reasons. Plus we don't know if he was using other drugs like Alcohol, which is common with the condition.

I couldnt help laying awake last night and wondering how close the attack on Emma Smith was to the time MJK met Joe Barnet? werent they around the same time?

Just a thought

Pirate

[Chris Scott]

Hi Pirate
The two incidents were about a year apart
The attack on Emma Smith took place on 3 April 1888 and Barnett testified that he and Kelly had first met at Easter weekend 1887
Regards
Chris

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate
The two incidents were about a year apart
The attack on Emma Smith took place on 3 April 1888 and Barnett testified that he and Kelly had first met at Easter weekend 1887
Regards
Chris

Yes that will teach me to keep my A to Z in front of me, my mistake, thanks for pointing that out.

Pirate

[perrymason]

Its a funny date, I believe its on Easter 1889 that Hitler is born.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Its a funny date, I believe its on Easter 1889 that Hitler is born.

Funny? It's Hitlarious!

[Robert]

So now we know : the Fuehrer was simply ransacking Europe to find his eggs. He never did find the one hidden in London.