The records from Stone Asylum for Joseph Fleming - transcription

[DVV]

No problem, Curious,

you know, I'm always pleased with Henrietta...
We have a sole sentence from her...
But what a sentence!

Amitiés,
David

[curious]

Hi Curious

Henrietta married Richard Fleming in Lambeth in 1842.
She was 20 years old.

Amitiés,
David

David,

I should have read a few posts further along before I posted.

curious

[DVV]

Is it possible she was already married? perhaps to an Evans?

curious

Hi Curious

Henrietta married Richard Fleming in Lambeth in 1842.
She was 20 years old.

Amitiés,
David

ps: Lynn, must be tired, couldn't find...

[curious]

Henrietta Masom, mother of Joseph Fleming

However, I have been unable to find Henrietta Masom in the 1841 census

Is it possible she was already married? perhaps to an Evans?

curious

[lynn cates]

Isaacs

Hello DVV. I read it above on his observation record. He referred to his interviewer as "Isaacs" and mentioned his work for him and the game he played.

Perhaps it was part of his raving and mumbling after admission?

The best.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn,

what's this ? Where is it from ?
And when ?

Amitiés,
David

[lynn cates]

Isaacs

Hello All. The observation:

"Today whilst being examined previous to discharge, he was found to express many delusions stating that the writer's name was Isaacs, he was an old friend of the writer and frequently played at cocoanut shying with him in the Mile End Road and that he also repaired the writer's house."

is quite unusual. has anyone researched who this "Isaacs" might be?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

So does this mean Fleming may not have arrived and settled in ripperland until mid-September?

Possibly, although Scott Nelson gave slightly different dates when he first mentioned the Infirmary record on the "Alias Fleming and Hutch" thread. It may be that he came across a different entry.

had he tried to rip up one of the staff on admission, for example, clearly nobody thought he was off his trolley, or even close to the edge, when he was treated for his inflamed leg, just over a year after MJK’s murder.

Indeed, although this is likely to signify more than anything else that Fleming was not as outwardly and visibly "mad" at that stage, and that his condition deteriorated more noticeably over the ensuing months and years. It's not as if mad people never have other ailments or injuries unrelated to their mental instability.

That’s the problem when assuming that whoever killed Mary must have been seriously mentally ill at the time, and then going haring after a former boyfriend (who may or may not have been a whopping 6 foot 7) because he ended up in the bin.

Sorry, you didn't make clear what's the problem with the assumption? He was "found" wandering in 1892, which doesn't permit us to conclude that he wasn't wandering at any stage before he was "found". It's quite possible for a mentally ill individual to become more visibly so as their condition worsens, and there has never been any rule that asserts that mentally ill murderers must only kill when their mental illness is at its most visible and extreme.

Even when Fleming started showing the symptoms that got him admitted he was reported as being not dangerous.

But then nor was Ed Gein after he was captured and confined to an asylum. He was hardly putting on any great acting performance at that time either.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi All,

Just catching up here.

So does this mean Fleming may not have arrived and settled in ripperland until mid-September?

The thread just seems to have fizzled out.

There has never been any mutual exclusivity between a sufferer of some form of psychosis and a criminal who has no idea that his actions were wrong. So no, that hasn't removed "one of the main planks in the case against Fleming" because there was never any "plank" that required Fleming to have been completely oblivious to the criminal nature of his actions if he was the ripper.

Hi Ben,

I see what you mean. And of course, even if the good people at Stone considered that Fleming was ill enough to be classed as legally insane, had he tried to rip up one of the staff, for example, clearly nobody realised he was off his trolley, or even close to the edge, when he was treated for his inflamed leg, just over a year after MJK’s murder.

That’s the problem when assuming that whoever killed Mary must have been seriously mentally ill at the time, and then going haring after a former boyfriend (who may or may not have been a whopping 6 foot 7) because he eventually turns up in an asylum. Even when Fleming started exhibiting the symptoms that got him admitted he was reported as being not dangerous.

I don’t know what the ripper would have considered the greater achievement: entering the police station and convincing everyone he was a brilliant witness at best and a harmless liar at worst, or entering the asylum and convincing everyone that he had become a harmless imbecile.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I'm afraid I don't know when I'll be back to read any responses, as I may be away from the computer after today until the end of the month.

[DVV]

Hi Chris,
I thought Joe was admitted on Nov 16...

Amitiés mon cher,
David

edit: ...and that he was living in Whitechapel for 15 months...

[Chris Scott]

Hi David
Thanks for the mention of that record
For those who have not seen this, it relates to an admission to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary on 18 November 1899 and reads as follows:
Date: Monday 18 November 1889
Name: Fleming, Joseph
Age: 31
Where admitted from: 41 Commercial Street
Condition: Single
Calling: Dock labourer
Cause of admission: Inflamed leg
Religion: C of E
Settlement: 14 months
Date of discharge: 30 November 1889

[DVV]

The identification of Fleming/Evans is like trying to square a circle!
Basically we have 4 Joseph Flemings to take into consideration:
1) The Joseph Fleming described by Joseph Barnett as being a previous lover of Mary Kelly. Barnett describes him as a "mason's plasterer" and living in the Bethnal Green Road. This MAY be the same man described by Mrs Carthy as being in the building trade who she said was apparently willing to marry Kelly. It may also be the same man described by Julia Venturney:
"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."
2) The Joseph Fleming born in Bethnal Green in 1859, son of Richard Fleming, a plasterer, and Henrietta Masom.
3) The Joseph Fleming described as a plasterer living in lodgings in Crozier Terrace in the 1881 census.
4) The Joseph Fleming who, under the name of James Evans, was admitted to Stone asylum in 1892 and who died in Claybury in 1920.
The crucial question is which of these four are in effect the same man?
I think there can be no doubt from the surviving documents that Nos 2 and 4 are the same individual. His mother is named on the admission document and it seems pretty certain in my opinion that they are one and the same.
In the case of No 3, this is the only documented instance of a Joseph Fleming listed as a plasterer, as was the man mentioned by Barnett. The listing of the family of Richard and Henrietta Fleming in 1881 shows that their son Joseph was no longer living with his parents. My opinion is that although there is no positive proof that the man mentioned at Crozier Terrace is the son of Richard Fleming, the balance of probability is that he was. His age and place of birth are compatible with what we know of his son and the trade listed is the same as that of Richard Fleming.
If we accept as a working hypothesis that the man listed above under 2, 3 and 4 are the same person, this leaves us with the vital question as to whether this man was the same as the man known to Mary Kelly.
Again my opinion is that there is no proof positive of this link. We can only look at the balance of probability. He was a man of the right name, listed in 1881 at least as a plasterer, from Bethnal Green and living in that area. Also, no other viable candidate of the right name with these attributes has, to my knowledge, been identified and put forward.
So there we have it. Personally, I believe that the Joseph Fleming who went into an asylum in 1892 was one and the same as the plasterer listed in 1892. The identification of him with the man known to Kelly has to made cautiously but in my opinion there is at present no other known candidate who is more likely.

Hi Chris and all,
a quick post to point out that the most important document regarding JF is the one from the Whitechapel Workhouse Inf, where Joe was admitted, due to an injured leg, from Nov 16 to Nov 30, 1889.
This document tells us that Joe settled in Whitechapel (in the VH) in August 1888. It's an essential one.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But I was still assuming that Fleming's fears were unfounded and based on his distorted idea of reality at the point when his delusions began to affect his everyday behaviour.

Paranoid delusions can very well be conjured up in the mind of the sufferer, certainly, but they can just as easily be based on a legitimate event or fear that becomes blown out of all proportion on account of their mental instability. Take the "coconut-shying" event, for example. Fleming was clearly deluded in beliving that the registrar was his old friend "Isaacs" whose house he helped to "repair", and with whom he went coconut-shying in the Mile End Road, but the delusion was still based on real events.

Fleming did live near the Mile End Road.

He was employed in the house-repairing trade.

And coconut-shying with a man called Isaacs seems very unlikely to have been pucked from the ether.

They were still delusions, but they had an obvious basis in truth, and if it was true of the coconut-shying episode, it could easily have been true of the delusion that he was "formerly" pursued by people who wished to kill him.

Another paradox - or catch 22 if you will - is that if he knew it was wrong to murder and mutilate women, and therefore understood why everyone would be out to punish the culprit in the time-honoured fashion, he could not have been legally insane

That's not the case at all.

There has never been any mutual exclusivity between a sufferer of some form of psychosis and a criminal who has no idea that his actions were wrong. So no, that hasn't removed "one of the main planks in the case against Fleming" because there was never any "plank" that required Fleming to have been completely oblivious to the criminal nature of his actions if he was the ripper.

My own case would merely be that the men following Fleming seem to have been imaginary demons conjured by his mental illness

I'm afraid that the example I provided from his other "delusion" (which was based on demonstrably real events and facts) has given you an irrefutably good reason to revise that case, or at least, become much less confident in its validity.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Well of course, we are both speculating here. But I was still assuming that Fleming's fears were unfounded and based on his distorted idea of reality at the point when his delusions began to affect his everyday behaviour. I wasn't suggesting Mary really was killed by anyone who could have had a motive to follow Fleming and kill him too.

Your speculation, on the other hand, involves the paradox that the specific delusions that led to Fleming being diagnosed as the latest member of his family to suffer from mental illness would not have been delusions at all, but an entirely rational fear triggered by an appreciation that what he did in 1888 was a hanging offence and made him the most wanted man on earth.

Another paradox - or catch 22 if you will - is that if he knew it was wrong to murder and mutilate women, and therefore understood why everyone would be out to punish the culprit in the time-honoured fashion, he could not have been legally insane and possibly no more deluded than the average royal conspiracy theorist .

I’m not sure you really wanted to cast doubt on the correctness of the diagnosis, effectively removing one of the main planks in the case against Fleming. But if you were actually seeking to test one of your own theories I take my hat off to you for doing it so openly. You may have just made a better case for this man’s innocence than I could.

My own case would merely be that the men following Fleming seem to have been imaginary demons conjured by his mental illness, not real policemen that he had any genuine reason to fear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Think of Joe, with an inherited and gradually more tenuous grip on reality, during the weeks, months and years following the horrific unsolved murder of a woman who had been in his life and talked fondly of him.

Not entirely fondly. She confided in Julia Venturney that Fleming ill-used her purely because she was then cohabiting with Barnett.

What if the thought started to grow in Fleming's head that Joe Barnett had killed Mary in a jealous rage over her claimed fondness for him

But what if Fleming himself was responsibe for Mary's death, and therefore knew full well that Barnett hadn't killed her in a fit of rage? I'm intrigued by the registrar's observation that he suffered from the delusion that men were formerly in the habit of following him with the intention of killing him. Just an interesting coincidence in light of the events of 1888, but if there was one person who knew full well that pretty much everyone was after him with the intention of killing him, it was the Whitechapel murderer.

All the best,
Ben