The Madness of Joseph Fleming

[Fisherman]

Varqm writes:
"unless we know more about him we can't go flying"

Correct. But he is the only suspect that offers a decent take-off stretch so far...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

While that may be so, it all sounds rather too convenient (and precariously so) for a man who suddenly feels compelled to come under the spotlight and identify himself (using an alias) and explain his presence in case Lewis should recognise him again

Hang on. Didn't I just explain that Fleming had only arrived in the murder district in August of 1888? We know that he was in the habit visiting her, and we know he was in the habit of resorting to an alias, so it certainly isn't a stretch to fathom that he may have done either or both of those things around the time of the murder. He was also known to have ill-used Mary Kelly simply for living with Joe Barnett, and to have been committed to an asylum for the rest of his life, so he's hardly a weak candidate in her murder.

No "stretches" so far.

There are no viable George Hutchinsons to be found in the census records, and every reason to suggest that a man who comes forward to give a demonstrably bogus account is more than capable of giving a false name to police. Joseph Fleming is simply the only known individual associated with Kelly who best fits the particularls described by Hutchinson; from his claims to have visited her, the fact that he was a known user of an alias, to the length of time he claimed to have known Kelly - three years, which takes us back to 1885 when she was living some considerable distance from the murder locale. Yes, Hutchinson could have been lying about any of those details, but it's a trifle too coincidental that those particular fibs just happened to coincide with those of a real person.

Fleming was certainly no stranger to being seen loitering outside his crime scene before attempting entry, as we learn from recent research.

It's extreme folly to argue that Fleming couldn't have come across as "amenable and normal" or that he must have exuded outward and visible signs of being "mad as a box of frogs" in 1888. Kelly seemed remarkably "fond" of him, so he was hardly a frothing lunatic.

Hutch as Hutch the Ripper was complex and unlikely enough for me. Fleming as Hutch the Ripper takes it to a new level of stretching.

You've never argued either of those positions very successfully, though. Any naysaying than relies to a large extent on a faith in the validity of their own judgements as to what constitutes prudent serial killer behaviour can only fail in any attempt to expose a chink in their opponent's armour, and a rather obstinate refusal to acknowledge directly comparable cases is similarly doomed to failure.

But let's have that argument all over again.

Could not even establish the simplest requirement, whether Hutch was actually there at 2:30 A.M.

You can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but it's certainly the strong probability as far as the evidence goes, Varqm.

[Neal Shelden]

I think it's not an impossibilty that Flemming was Hutchinson. Nothing can be found on Hutchinson and I still think about that entry in the Thames Police Court records, where a woman made a complaint against a George Hutchinson (I think?) for assault. And I think it it was 1888???

There is nothing that points to Hutchinson in the records?

[caz]

You've never argued either of those positions very successfully, though.

Sorry Ben. But it's up to you to argue successfully for Flem-Hutch the Ripper. I only have to keep asking for evidence that it's even possible, let alone remotely likely.

Successfully convincing yourself isn't enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[Suzi]

Hi Caz and all-
I've been reading through this and can't dismiss the fact that surely when Mary was with said 'Flemming' she must have been seen around and about with him and it always seemed to me that Hutch was a well known local figure at the time too...shurely they couldn't have been mistaken.....OMG NOT a conspiracy amongst the locals!!!

Suz xx

[Ben]

Agreed wholeheartedly, Neal. If you can find that police court reference, that would be excellent. I only know of one George Thomas Hutchinson of Cottage Grove, Bow, who was arrested for stealing a gold watch.

Hi Caz,

I've not convinced myself of the identity of Jack the Ripper, successfully or otherwise. Is the proposition "possible" from what we know? Yes, in the absence of any alibi, of course it is. I've only been responding to some of the naysaying that doesn't quite cut it, to my mind.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Suzi,

I've been reading through this and can't dismiss the fact that surely when Mary was with said 'Flemming' she must have been seen around and about with him

True, but that was some years earlier and in a different part of the East End. It's unlikely that anyone in Whitechapel or Spitalfields recognised him visually as "Mary's Joe". I'm not at all convinced that Hutchinson was ever a "well known local". There are no other references to him from any other locals in the district.

Cheers,
Ben

[Suzi]

Yep I know- what an embuggerance 'eh- some Joes too many I reckon!

xx

[Ben]

embuggerance

Fantastic expression!

I may steal it.

[Suzi]

Pleasure!!!...Also used by (Sir!!) Terry Pratchett when diagnosed with 'Old Timer's Disease'!!!

[perrymason]

Hi Caz and all-
I've been reading through this and can't dismiss the fact that surely when Mary was with said 'Flemming' she must have been seen around and about with him and it always seemed to me that Hutch was a well known local figure at the time too...shurely they couldn't have been mistaken.....OMG NOT a conspiracy amongst the locals!!!

Suz xx

Hi Suzi,

Im not part of the FlemHutchinson position here, but I dont see why if Joe Fleming was not mentioned as being seen by anyone in that courtyard personally, or Barnett,... yet was mentioned as being someone Mary sees occasionally, why would it be a given that she is ever seen out in public with him? We dont know this Hutch knew her, he just says he did, so he is another character, or maybe the same, that we dont have any courtyard witnesses identify as someone seen with Mary.

If Fleming is a Friend with Benefits at this point, why couldnt he just come to her...late at night for example, when no-one is around. No, he couldnt do that while Barnett lived there, but since there are zero witnesses that say they ever saw Mary with either Joe F or Hutchinson, I dont see why he couldnt be both.

Cheers Suz.

[Varqm]

You can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but it's certainly the strong probability as far as the evidence goes, Varqm.

You can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt...
People who accuse need it more.

but it's certainly the strong probability as far as the evidence goes
Absolutely false. A total reverse from what is on record. I do not know what evidence are you talking about.

Anyways this is a Fleming thread...

[Varqm]

Correct. But he is the only suspect that offers a decent take-off stretch so far...!

Hi Fish,

Agreed. Interesting.
I kinda hope though that his mental illness is not a plus on his being a suspect.

[Suzi]

Hi PM
Hmmmmmm

I quite like the idea of Joe F coming to Mary late at night,after Joe B had left- or maybe even during the day when Joe B was at work before he left!...Bet Julia and Maria knew about him though!

As Hutch is such a 'shady' figure - despite his statement(s) and Joseph's 'photo' in 'The Ripper and the Royals' etc etc etc etc I guess they could be one and the same- BUT it doesn't sit right with me though somehow..doesn't feel right IMHO

...Joe F didn't have relations (!) in Romford did he?

Suz x

[Ben]

Varqm, can you at least try to make clear when you're quoting another poster and when you're making your own observations? No, I've never started any discussion with the intention of "accusing" anyone of being a killer.

Absolutely false. A total reverse from what is on record. I do not know what evidence are you talking about.

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.

Anyways this is a Fleming thread...

Exactly, so ssshhh...