Fleming/Hutchinson theory?

[miss marple]

Interesting discussion, I don't believe Hutchinson was Toppy or Fleming.
What intrigues me is the Military appearance, so I had a look at the Census again.
I have found in the 1881 census a George Hutchinson, Soldier,age 19 [ 27 in 88] based at Infantry Camp, St Botolph, Colchester First Ward. From 1854 The East Essex Regiment was based there till 1881. then two Essex infantry regiments were merged.This Hutch was born in Scotland. but may have had Essex connections. I can't find him in 1891. I will keep looking.

Miss Marple

[DVV]

Without proper names being given by the various ‘witnesses’ there is no proper corroboration with what Barnett said. It is just supposition.

Nope. It's just a simple and logical conclusion everybody does. Except you. But I guess that proves you right, according to your own logic.

Try to answer the question you were asked and you'll find out, as anybody else, that Barnett and Venturney are alluding to the same guy.

What you believe to be an argument is an obvious and well-documented mistake.

It is supposition that cannot be substantiated without insisting that the Victoria Home Fleming wasn’t really 6 foot 7 inches tall.

The problem of Fleming's (mistaken) height has nothing to do here.

I would suggest that in the field of historical research – the official record that reads 6 foot 7 inches trumps by a country mile a nameless individual mentioned by Mrs Carthy, a Joe mentioned by Mrs Venturney and a name mentioned by an ex to a current boyfriend.

I've already observed that you don't like when Fleming calls himself Fleming. And that a Joe is called Joe is more than you can stand.
Problem is that people do read the sourcebook. They will always think with reasonable confidence that both Barnett and Venturney were talkin of the same Joe.

Was a summary not a decree – the reasoning was outlined a couple of inches further up the page.

The reasoning is thus based on your mistake. That's the problem.

Well Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes for starters. Others can be added as required. Why did Fleming do these – fun?

What a strange question. Why do serial killers do such things, you mean ?

That’s the problem with trying to make one of the cases a domestic.

That also could well turn out to become your problem. There are so many domestic murders in the complicate history of serial killers.

I'm sure you can name dozens without asking me.

[DVV]

Hello Claire

I understand this, David, but I see this as a post hoc rationale for his coming forward. In reality, why would he risk going to the police, albeit pretending to be someone else? You see, for me, there has to be a payback for taking that risk--it doesn't make sense to go along and pretend to be someone else just because someone mentioned your name at the inquest; best to just keep lying low. It's a big risk to take, too--what with Mrs Phoenix trotting along to Leman-street, and Mrs Carthy chatting away to God knows who, and the fair chance that either or both of Joe B and Julia V knew Fleming at least by sight, a Fleming pretending to be someone else could be quickly rumbled and hauled in for questioning.

So what would that payback be? What, specifically, would Fleming have to gain?

It depends on Fleming's personality and feelings at the time.

I suppose different killers come forward, or write to the police, etc, with different motives, for different reasons.

As a suspect/witness, we don't know whether Fleming was present or not at the inquest. What we know is that he did not come forward, and that, had he been present, he would have heard twice that Mary was "very fond of him".
To cut it short, I speculate that Fleming, if the ripper, could have feared that the police was on his trail, once Barnett had uttered his name at the inquest.
He could be interrogated as a witness, and this, if he was the murderer, was already risky. And he would have been asked, first, why he did not come forward without being prompted. That was the most horrible work of the ripper and he was the victim ex-fiancé and regular visitor.
In other terms, after the inquest, coming forward or not coming forward, both were risky - or could look so to Fleming.

By creating Hutch (and his Jewish suspect, who have merits of his own), Fleming came forward without coming forward.

If recognised as Fleming, he could have easily argued he didn't want the publicity he was sure to gain as the ex-boyfriend, but that as Hutch, he did well and provided "true" and relevant info to the police.

The true part, in my opinion, is that he knew Mary and used to help her at times.

[Lechmere]

DVV
I don’t think I need be out of my mind (at least I hope not) to doubt what Kelly had to say about her past – most of it is exceptionally doubtful. Without proper names being given by the various ‘witnesses’ there is no proper corroboration with what Barnett said. It is just supposition.

It is supposition that cannot be substantiated without insisting that the Victoria Home Fleming wasn’t really 6 foot 7 inches tall.
I would suggest that in the field of historical research – the official record that reads 6 foot 7 inches trumps by a country mile a nameless individual mentioned by Mrs Carthy, a Joe mentioned by Mrs Venturney and a name mentioned by an ex to a current boyfriend.

In poker a full house beats an Queen high, Ace high and a pair of twos.

Oh...
“If he was the bloke in the Victoria Home he couldn’t realistically have passed himself off as Hutch.”
Was a summary not a decree – the reasoning was outlined a couple of inches further up the page.

Can I be more precise about the other murders?
Well Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes for starters. Others can be added as required. Why did Fleming do these – fun?
That’s the problem with trying to make one of the cases a domestic.

[DVV]

So Fleming may not have even existed (despite what Christopher Scott may have said).

You must be out of your mind.

"The Plasterer That Never Was"....

If he did exist he probably wasn’t the bloke in the Victoria Home.

Ah.

If he was the bloke in the Victoria Home he couldn’t realistically have passed himself off as Hutch.

That is a decree, not a reasoning.

There seems to be a need for some to find a romantic edge to the Kelly case

Who knows ?
Still, denying the obvious is much more romantic.

But what of the other murders?

Can you be more precise ?

[DVV]

Hi Lechmere, and no, what is quoted below isn't the basic problem of Hutchinson, but YOUR own basic problem.

You are still denying the obvious (see Christopher Scott, already quoted), which is : Barnett's "Joe Fleming" and Venturney's "Joe" are MOST PROBABLY one and the same person. And "most probably" is an understatement here.

Trying to oppose McCarthy, Barnett and Venturney doesn't work, and will never, I'm afraid. For they rather corroborate, complete and/or echo each other. And make your position untenable.

Could you please quote Barnett and Venturney's words and tell us that, on balance, it's unlikely that they're are talking of the same person ?

Here’s the basic problems with the Fleming equals Hutchinson proposition.

Mary Kelly allegedly told Barnett, her ex boyfriend, that she had another previous called Joe Fleming who was from Bethnal Green and was a mason’s plasterer. Virtually every other detail she tells Barnett about her life cannot be substantiated. The tales were likely to be a mixture of truths, half truths and outright falsehoods. Determining which was which is almost impossible.
We have Mrs Cathy who says that Mary moved in with someone in the building trade but soon turned up back at Mrs Cathy’s house after presumably an argument.
We have Julia Venturney saying that Kelly was fond of another man called Joe, who used to ill-use her, and who possibly still visited her and gave her money.
We do not know that the person Mrs Carthy mentioned was Fleming, nor do we know that the person Venturney mentioned was Fleming. We do not know that Kelly was truthful in telling Barnett the name of one of her exes.

[Lechmere]

Here’s the basic problems with the Fleming equals Hutchinson proposition.

Mary Kelly allegedly told Barnett, her ex boyfriend, that she had another previous called Joe Fleming who was from Bethnal Green and was a mason’s plasterer. Virtually every other detail she tells Barnett about her life cannot be substantiated. The tales were likely to be a mixture of truths, half truths and outright falsehoods. Determining which was which is almost impossible.
We have Mrs Cathy who says that Mary moved in with someone in the building trade but soon turned up back at Mrs Cathy’s house after presumably an argument.
We have Julia Venturney saying that Kelly was fond of another man called Joe, who used to ill-use her, and who possibly still visited her and gave her money.
We do not know that the person Mrs Carthy mentioned was Fleming, nor do we know that the person Venturney mentioned was Fleming. We do not know that Kelly was truthful in telling Barnett the name of one of her exes.

The Fleming in the Victoria Home who ended up in the insane asylum was from Bethnal Green, was the right sort of age and had building/plastering connections. However the nearest we can find him to 1888 he was a dock labourer. He was evidently not well off as he was living in the Victoria Home, so is unlikely to have been able to give Kelly money. And he was 6 foot 7 inches tall. This, makes him an unlikely ex of Kelly’s.
There is another possible Bethnal Green Joe Flemming but he seems even less likely to be Kelly’s ex.
But I repeat, there is no firm identification of the Victoria Home Fleming with Kelly.

Then there is the attempt to say Hutchinson equals Fleming. Conveniently, if he is not Toppy, nothing is known about Hutchinson and so he is a blank canvass upon which anything can be painted. However Fleming was a local ‘geezer’. How could Fleming walk about for two days with policemen pretending to be Hutchinson. There would have been a massive risk that someone would call him by his real name. When he was in Commercial Street police station there would have been a massive risk that another witness may be there and spot him and call him by his real name.
And is the theory still that Hutchinson/Fleming mingled in the crowd outside the inquest? A crowd amongst whom someone would surely have known Fleming?
Then we know that he was called Fleming at the Victoria Home and the staff were mainly ex-long term inmates. It is inconceivable that he could have got away with calling himself Hutchinson and becoming a minor celebrity in the Kelly case, then reverting to being Fleming the known ex of Kelly.

One thing the police were quite good at in 1888 was solving domestic murders. In the Ripper case it is clear that they looked at each case to see if it was a disconnected ‘domestic’. For example they tried to pin Coles on Sadler and took a close look at Barnett. I think it is inconceivable that the police did not take any interest in Fleming.
The most likely explanation is that he was quickly dismissed from being of interest.
If the Victoria Home Fleming had slipped through the net somehow then I am sure the police would have taken an interest when he was admitted to the insane asylum.
It is fairly clear that the police monitored admissions to these institutions. When Fleming turned up under an alias that was rapidly checked out then I think it is extremely unlikely that this would have passed unnoticed – unless they either knew Fleming was in the clear or that the Victoria Home Fleming was an entirely different person (probably the latter).
This Fleming fulfilled two misconceived police prejudices about potential suspects. He lived in a lodging house (didn’t Neil claim the Victoria Home was a potential location for the Ripper) and he became obviously insane.

When you know little or nothing about someone (e.g. Hutchinson if he is not Toppy) it is all too easy to join up the dots and turn a Rolf Harris into a Michaelangelo.

What if a theory was put forward that really Hutchinson was Cross?
Cross had grown a moustache and changed his clothes, and taken up a temporary lodging at the Victoria Home. He never used it but as it was so crowded and anonymous no one noticed. As he had cunningly changed his appearance the police did not recognise him from the Nichols case. He knew Kelly from when she lived at Breezers Hill – just a short stroll from his mother’s house and from his own abode at the time in James Street.
You can fill in the rest.
It would be hard to ‘disprove’ but equally it would be a slightly ridiculous proposition to make.
Fleming equals Hutch is in the same league.

So Fleming may not have even existed (despite what Christopher Scott may have said).
If he did exist he probably wasn’t the bloke in the Victoria Home.
If he was the bloke in the Victoria Home he couldn’t realistically have passed himself off as Hutch.

There seems to be a need for some to find a romantic edge to the Kelly case where a scorned ex paramour takes revenge on her, out of unrequited love.
But what of the other murders?

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Hi Dave.
Doesn't that sound like a desperate excuse to justify a theory?

Sarah Lewis said the loiterer was "not tall but stout, and wore a black wideawake hat".

Hutchinson had nothing to worry about there.

No mention of height, no mention of age. Did the loiterer have a beard, whiskers, moustache, hair colour?
No description of clothes, neither cut, style nor colour.

Regards, Jon S.

I wouldn't say "desperate", Jon. Having been seen near the CS at such a time is something you can worry about, and since it's a fact that Hutch did come forward on Monday evening, he certainly did so for some reason - reasonable or not.
Lewis may be the reason (reasonable or not).
But we don't know whether Hutch injection should be considered a "paranoid" or a "taunting" step.

Whatever, the point I'm trying to make about Fleming is : what works (more or less) for Hutch with Lewis, works more with Fleming, named at the inquest by Barnett.

[claire]

It has been said, for example, that Sarah Lewis testimony could have compelled Hutch to fabricate his story.
In the Flemtchinson theory, Barnett and Venturney would be more important. Far more, because the ripper would have been named at the inquest.

I understand this, David, but I see this as a post hoc rationale for his coming forward. In reality, why would he risk going to the police, albeit pretending to be someone else? You see, for me, there has to be a payback for taking that risk--it doesn't make sense to go along and pretend to be someone else just because someone mentioned your name at the inquest; best to just keep lying low. It's a big risk to take, too--what with Mrs Phoenix trotting along to Leman-street, and Mrs Carthy chatting away to God knows who, and the fair chance that either or both of Joe B and Julia V knew Fleming at least by sight, a Fleming pretending to be someone else could be quickly rumbled and hauled in for questioning.

So what would that payback be? What, specifically, would Fleming have to gain?

[Wickerman]

... It has been said, for example, that Sarah Lewis testimony could have compelled Hutch to fabricate his story.

Hi Dave.
Doesn't that sound like a desperate excuse to justify a theory?

Sarah Lewis said the loiterer was "not tall but stout, and wore a black wideawake hat".

Hutchinson had nothing to worry about there.

No mention of height, no mention of age. Did the loiterer have a beard, whiskers, moustache, hair colour?
No description of clothes, neither cut, style nor colour.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hello Claire

As you know, David (although it's been a while), I have a certain sympathy with the Fleming-as-Hutchinson line.

I know and it's good to see you there.

I've a few views of my own about quite why he would have followed this ruse, but since they are conjecture and I've been away for a while (and hence it looks like my conjecture will be given short shrift!), I won't lay them out.

You're on the right thread to lay them out.

But, I would be interested in hearing others' views on this topic: what would Fleming have to gain by pretending to be a man called George Hutchinson (with all the attendant fabulous stories)?

Also: would his pretending to be another man necessarily incriminate him in the murder of MJ?

That's precisely where it should start with your conjecture, Claire. It has been said, for example, that Sarah Lewis testimony could have compelled Hutch to fabricate his story.
In the Flemtchinson theory, Barnett and Venturney would be more important. Far more, because the ripper would have been named at the inquest.

As for the second question, I find Fleming a strong suspect, with or without Hutch.
I even suspect the reverse to be equally true

[DVV]

Now I personally think there’s a good chance the Joe mentioned by Julia Venturney was not this Fleming or indeed any sort of Fleming

No Lechmere, there is no good chance of that.

"It seems highly unlikely that this Joe of whom she was so fond could be anyone other than Jospeh Fleming."
Christopher Scott

I personally think there's a good chance the Chris quoted above was right.

[Lechmere]

Battalion Sally? I should have thought you would have at least a whole Panzer Division at your disposal.
Of those two counter arguments – I will leave the 6 foot 7 one – as it is fairly black and white
But Fleming called himself Fleming in the same nosey Parker strict establishment full of and staffed by locals, where he also supposedly passed himself off as Hutchinson. And both names were publicised at the same time.
Hutchinson gratuitously went to the press as well as the police. He walked around in the company of policemen for two days, in streets where, had he really been Fleming, he would likely have bumped into people who knew he was Fleming.
Now I personally think there’s a good chance the Joe mentioned by Julia Venturney was not this Fleming or indeed any sort of Fleming, but if he was how would ‘Hutch’ have explained that away had he bumped into this woman while out with his copper looking for the A-man.
And also Fleming wasn’t tied in to being Fleming at the Victoria Home just once. Even when in his paranoid state he gave a false name, the authorities still traced him back to the Victoria Home.
To suggest he wasn’t known as Fleming at the Victoria Home (where the employees and doormen where nearly all ex long term Victoria Home inmates) and to suggest that he could have passed himself off as Hutchinson - a minor celebrity witness during the Kelly murder - while really being Kelly’s ex is just stretching things well past beyond the realms of reality.
That’s my opinion anyway.

[claire]

As you know, David (although it's been a while), I have a certain sympathy with the Fleming-as-Hutchinson line. I've a few views of my own about quite why he would have followed this ruse, but since they are conjecture and I've been away for a while (and hence it looks like my conjecture will be given short shrift!), I won't lay them out.

But, I would be interested in hearing others' views on this topic: what would Fleming have to gain by pretending to be a man called George Hutchinson (with all the attendant fabulous stories)?

Also: would his pretending to be another man necessarily incriminate him in the murder of MJ?

[Sally]

Lechmere

I don't have time to drive my battalion of tanks through the holes in your argument(s) right now (no, seriously, I have to go to Yorkshire) so we'll have to leave it there. Shame.

Maybe I'll have a go when I get back if we haven't all lost interest and gone home by then.