The records from Stone Asylum for Joseph Fleming - transcription

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Mitch,

Not sure what you mean here, or what poor quality gin has to do with it.

Plenty of men in the district fell victim to heavy drinking and alcoholism without being incarcerated in an asylum for the rest of their lives, and of those who were locked away on account of their "mania", very few were reported to have ill-used the most brutually murdered victim in the Whitechapel series, or to have moved into the murder district in August of 1888.

I'm not sure how valid the notion of a "notorious phantom" is, for what it's worth.

Cheers,
Ben

To start with. Drinking for long periods of time changes the brain chemistry. Its also possible all kinds of concoctions were being sold as gin. Like wood alchohol I bet. But it doesnt mean Fleming was incapable of committing the crimes in 1888 I might add. It just seems like a likely ending for the downward spiral of alcoholism and an "immoral" lifestyle in general. Although many others never ended up in custody as insane, drinking can be expected to improve their chances.

As far as Fleming abusing Mary well that can be expected. Mary was young and would put up with something like that. And its not as if she is picking her men out of a GQ magazine or something. Besides, who knows what really happened? Fleming and about a million other people also lived in that area. If he moved there in august then there are 999,999 other more likely suspects.

If the Sharon Tate murders hadnt been solved Im sure suspicion would have fallen on Roman Polanski even though he was thousands of miles away at the time. Remember.. Police refused to believe the La Bianca murders were connected.

What I mean by notorious phantom is just that. JTR was able to handle the pressure of not only committing the crimes but to function normally even though everyone around him was on a hair trigger about his crimes. If JTR was able to avoid detection for his crimes Im sure he could avoid the little men with white coats effectively enough to keep himself out of the asylum if he were in fact suffering from mental illness.

[Ben]

To start with. Drinking for long periods of time changes the brain chemistry. Its also possible all kinds of concoctions were being sold as gin.

Yes, many thousands of men and women were drinking high-concentration, poor-quality booze on a regular basis, but they didn't all end up with "mania" and delusions of persecutions sufficient to lock them away for the rest of their lives. We don't even had any evidence that Fleming was a heavy drinker, or that he had ever lived an "immoral" lifestyle. Drinking can be an exacerbant to mental illness (which had apparently been in the family for 160 years according to his mother), but not a cause. For that matter, there is equally no reason to suppose that the ripper was not a heavy drinker and user of prostitutes.

As far as Fleming abusing Mary well that can be expected. Mary was young and would put up with something like that.

Whether she was able to put up with it or not is irrelevent. Fleming reportedly ill-used Kelly specifically for living with Barnett. By all means chalk that up to the ever-useful "Oh, everyone did that all the time in 1888" (which would be wrong), not all ill-users of their lovers moved into the district at the start of the Whitechapel murders, were committed to a lunatic asylum for the rest of their lives and had a criminal history.

If he moved there in august then there are 999,999 other more likely suspects.

Huh? "More likely"? I have no idea how on earth that would follow.

JTR was able to handle the pressure of not only committing the crimes but to function normally even though everyone around him was on a hair trigger about his crimes.

That is a reflection on his mental state in 1888. There is no reason to suppose that he conveyed any outwards and visible signs of insanity at that time, or else the likelihood is that he would have been "found" wandering at large much earlier than 1892.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Just to clarify the position regards Schizophrenia and alcohol.

It is a debate largely being had today about Skunk. (By that I mean the new hybrid forms of grass).

It is simply a matter of fact that increases in the drug and cases of psychotic episodes leading to schizophrenia have increased. However not everyone who takes the drug ends up as a Schizophrenic or experiencing the same effects.

The question is therefore are some people more susceptible to the condition than others? Does the drug cause schizophrenia or does it simply exacerbate the condition?

As has been pointed out cheap and strong Alcohol made at the time may have caused quite severe brain damage, as is sometimes seen today with people who use meth’s.

What is known is that people who suffer the condition often start using alcohol because it helps alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia, only to discover that eventually it makes matters worse. Schizophrenics who use alcohol have a different reaction to the drug from the rest of us (well most of us) they can become extremely violent and dangerous.

So what I’m saying is Alcohol could exacerbate the condition, also make the sufferer more dangerous but that person would probably have a propensity towards the condition in the first place. Once in the Asylum Fleming would have had no access to alcohol and his condition appears to worsen suggesting that alcohol was a contributory factor but not the only source of his illness.

Eventually schizophrenics reach a phase called ‘Burn out’ and no longer function at all. However in the early stages of the illness they are often high achievers, often intelligent and in some cases actually recognise there own illness for what it is. It would be a mistake to believe that some people suffering the condition can not function relatively normally for long periods. Certainly you’d expect waves where the person would appear fairly normal for periods of time, then experience ‘psychotic episodes’ which typically last around 12 weeks at a time.

Of course this is a generalization. But typically also you might expect periods of grandiose achievement, believing themselves to be someone famous, or involved in very important enterprises. Often followed by extreme depression, feelings of persecution and voices. Schizophrenics are usually more a danger to themselves than others.

Thankfully today some of these symptoms can be treated and many schizophrenics live very useful and fruitful lives, learning to co-exist with their illness.

Pirate

[Chris Scott]

One comment guys
When Henrietta said that there had been a history of insanity in the family, I wonder which branch she was referring to
I have been able to trace the Fleming family back to Joseph's grandfather, and have found no mention of insanity (of course that does not mean there was none)
I wonder if she was referring to her own family, the Masoms.
If I find out anything about her branch of the family I shall post it
Chris

[Chris Scott]

Henrietta Masom, mother of Joseph Fleming

Henrietta Masom married Richard Fleming in the 3rd quarter (July to September) of 1842
The first census listing them as a couple is that of 1851. The couple were living at 7 Fellows Street North, Shoreditch. They had two daughters, Henrietta aged 6 and Sarah aged 2. The couple are both listed as aged 29 and Henrietta's place of birth is given as Camberwell.

In the 1841 census, they would still have been unmarried.
Richard Fleming at the time of that census was still living in Ramsgate with his parents, Richard and Mary. He is listed as a 20 year old Baker. He had a 9 year old brother, Alfred, who stayed in Ramsgate for the rest of his life.

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

[Sam Flynn]

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

I believe she's down as "Henrietta MASON", Chris - born 1821/1822, and living in Caroline Street, Lambeth.

[Chris Scott]

Many thanks Gareth
Sadly this entry gives no indication of her parentage
Regards
Chris

[DVV]

No giant

Hi all, with special thanks to Chris
....
More than 2 m and less than 70 kg... Would a man like that be considered as having a "good health" ?

It seems Peter Crouch after 1 month starvation.

My take will be that the person who wrote 6'7 (and perhaps also 160 years) made a mistake and was in fact copying original notes, certainly written by somebody whose 5 must have looked like 6.
And if Joe was that tall, this detail would have been known by Venturney or Barnett ("He was a plasterer from Bethnal Green and wasd very tall..." ..."He was very tall and ill-used her"...).


Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi all, with special thanks to Chris
....
More than 2 m and less than 70 kg... Would a man like that be considered as having a "good health" ?

It seems Peter Crouch after 1 month starvation.

My take will be that the person who wrote 6'7 (and perhaps also 160 years) made a mistake and was in fact copying original notes, certainly written by somebody whose 5 must have looked like 6.
And if Joe was that tall, this detail would have been known by Venturney or Barnett ("He was a plasterer from Bethnal Green and wasd very tall..." ..."He was very tall and ill-used her"...).


Amitiés,
David

Yes I must agree with that accessment, if the six becomes a 5, it does all seem more logical.

Pirate

[Fisherman]

Tempting thoughts, David, no question about it. But no matter what, as long as the records have Evans/Fleming down as 6.7, unsubstantiated hunches and gut feelings must remain exactly that: unsubstantiated.
That´s not to say that you are wrong - my own gut tells me that there´s more to the matter than what remains recorded.

I would very much have liked to see the records from the reformatory to which the fourteen-year old Joseph was sent back in 1872. Then again, as has transpired on another thread, serious doubt can be cast on the suggestion that this Joseph was "our" Joseph.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Tempting thoughts, David, no question about it. But no matter what, as long as the records have Evans/Fleming down as 6.7, unsubstantiated hunches and gut feelings must remain exactly that: unsubstantiated.
That´s not to say that you are wrong - my own gut tells me that there´s more to the matter than what remains recorded.

I would very much have liked to see the records from the reformatory to which the fourteen-year old Joseph was sent back in 1872. Then again, as has transpired on another thread, serious doubt can be cast on the suggestion that this Joseph was "our" Joseph.

The best, David!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
Is there anything in the records shared by Chris "against" our "1872 Joe"?

About his height, I agree that my suggestion isn't substantiated... but we do have some sort of basis however: the contradiction between "good health" and his weight/height. And though in 1894 the man still so incredibly slim, the health is "good".
Too strange to be true, Fish.
Can you imagine a plasterer, a dock labourer like that? So skinny?
Can you imagine Mary talking about her Bethnal Green lover without mentionning his so fantastic appearance?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

I can see where you are coming from, my friend! But some of the points you are pushing here are simply not very useful, I´m afraid.

To begin with, we don´t have to imagine a skinny plasterer - years had passed between his weighing in at Stone Asylum and his known occupation of a plasterer. As for "dock labourer", of course he would have made a very skinny such. But we don´t really know how long time had passed since he last engaged in labouring at the docks, do we? Nor can we be sure that he really ever WAS a dock labourer - we only know that he chose to say so. He apparently also chose to call himself James Evans, probably without ever being James Evans, so who can tell?

And Mary? She may well have shown Joe off to a number of aquaintances and friends - none of whom came forward at the inquest. Maybe these people - if they ever existed - did not even know Mary Jane Kelly by that name.

All this aside, the astonishment you feel is shared by me, by and large. I also think that there may be a whole kennel of dogs buried here. But I try to avoid stepping into the trap of trying to remould existing evidence to fit my gut feelings. That, though, does not mean that I don´t pursue these feelings, as that gut of mine is mostly very reliable.

Just to be very clear, David; I am not suggesting that you fit up evidence either - I´m just speaking of my own approach here!

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[Chris Scott]

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.

[DVV]

Hi David!

I can see where you are coming from, my friend! But some of the points you are pushing here are simply not very useful, I´m afraid.

To begin with, we don´t have to imagine a skinny plasterer - years had passed between his weighing in at Stone Asylum and his known occupation of a plasterer. As for "dock labourer", of course he would have made a very skinny such. But we don´t really know how long time had passed since he last engaged in labouring at the docks, do we? Nor can we be sure that he really ever WAS a dock labourer - we only know that he chose to say so. He apparently also chose to call himself James Evans, probably without ever being James Evans, so who can tell?

And Mary? She may well have shown Joe off to a number of aquaintances and friends - none of whom came forward at the inquest. Maybe these people - if they ever existed - did not even know Mary Jane Kelly by that name.

All this aside, the astonishment you feel is shared by me, by and large. I also think that there may be a whole kennel of dogs buried here. But I try to avoid stepping into the trap of trying to remould existing evidence to fit my gut feelings. That, though, does not mean that I don´t pursue these feelings, as that gut of mine is mostly very reliable.

Just to be very clear, David; I am not suggesting that you fit up evidence either - I´m just speaking of my own approach here!

All the best, David!
Fisherman

Understood, Fish,
a matter of approach...
Mine will focus on the following considerations:
1: a man of 2.metres/70 kg can't be considered as healthy, especially since he was more or less (and especially less) of the same weight years after
2: such a man would have been quite an attraction, and somehow a monster, in the East End, and more particularly in the VH (and btw, if he was known as Joseph Fleming in the VH, the police wouldn't have missed such a remarkable lodger... you know who I'm thinking about...)
3: suppose he was bigger and fatter at the time he met Kelly: that makes no difference, his appearance would have been extraordinary as well.
4: once again, even in our days, people would have talked of his height, so just imagine in 1888...

All in all, I'm therefore pretty sure that JF was 5'7 and didn't need a special bed in the VH.
We already have an Elephant Man around, do we need a Giraf Man?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

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.

Hi Chris,
agreed. Certainly 2 and 4 are the same individual. And there is no reason for 3 to be another Fleming. Even if this 3 is another JF, well, it doesn't matter that much...
But maybe we should add a fifth Joe, that of 1872, which possible identification with 1, 2 and 4 would be more telling.

Thanks again Chris,
Amitiés,
David