The records from Stone Asylum for Joseph Fleming - transcription

[Fisherman]

David!

I agree with you that if Fleming was Marys ex-lover AND frequent visitor, it´s baffling that we have no mentioning of his height. Moreover, there is a lot of material pointing to the fact that the Victorians were the shortest Brits, historically. I´ve found it on the net, where there is this passage:

"There's an interesting table printed in "The Tudor Tailor" by Ninya Mikhalia and Jane Malcolm-Davies on height of people from London. For simplicity's sake, I'll list only the males:

Prehistory: 5' 7"
Roman: 5' 6.75"
Saxon: 5' 8"
Medieval: 5' 7.5"
Tudor: 5' 7.5"
Georgian: 5' 7.25"
Victorian: 5' 5.5"
1998: 5' 9""

So, if this is something to go by, "Joe the Giraffe" would in fact have been a more deviating person in Victorian England than in any other era of the kingdom! And so, the case you argue is a sound one, David. But as long as we have that 6.7 record staring us in our faces, maybe we should not call it a given.

On your post to Chris, I would actually be a little bit careful about the passage "Certainly 2 and 4 are the same individual".
There is no gainsaying that this is the implication, but it rests very much on the fact that we have the mentioning of Henrietta Fleming claiming that she was the mother of Evans/Fleming in Stone Asylum. And since that man claims to be James Evans, born in 1855, something that is not questioned as he is transferred from Stone to Claybury, I think we must accept the possibility that he WAS James Evans and not Joe Fleming. Why Henrietta would say that he was Joe if he was not, is of course open to speculation, and most of it will be quite wild. We may for example theorize that the real Joe Fleming for some reason - real or imagined - felt that the police were closing in on him back in 1892, or simply wanted to make sure that they never would. And so he persuades his old mother to go to Stone Asylum and claim that the tallish fellow in there was in fact her son. We have no indication that this suggestion was ever accepted by "Evans", just as we cannot even be sure that the woman who presented herself as Henrietta Fleming really was who she claimed to be.

Outlandish, conjecturish, improbable? Absolutely! But since there is a peripheral chance that this - or something else, for that matter - may have lain behind the Evans/Fleming hybrid, I think that no absolute certainty can be reached until more material surfaces.

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi All,

Many thanks to Chris Scott and Rob Clack for the information. I just caught up with this thread and found it fascinating.

I can totally understand a mother (who is aware of insanity in the family going way back) indulging her son by going along with the name change from Fleming to Evans, and even putting a case to the asylum to indulge them both in this regard, if the wretched man was clearly terrified and utterly convinced in his own mind that there were people who wanted to track him down - ie the man known as Joe Fleming who had been close to Mary Kelly - and kill him. He may have worried that the asylum staff might be in on it too.

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. I can't say I'd be totally surprised to find him looking over his shoulder (especially if he really did stick out like a sore polar opposite of Tom Thumb ) and imagining he was being sought out for similar treatment. Let's face it, you didn't need to be mad or know Mary personally to have nightmares about the whole thing, but it would have helped.

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, and that Barnett and his cronies would sooner or later hunt down the source of the jealousy? He couldn't do much about his height (whatever it was) but a change of identity would help.

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

[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,

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

[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

[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]

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...

[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.

[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

[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

[DVV]

Hi Lynn,

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

Amitiés,
David

[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

[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

[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...