Fleming/Hutchinson theory?

[Lechmere]

You are right Malcolm. And we know that only a tiny number of inmates went into the reading room at the Victoria home. Poor old hutch would have stuck out like a new pin if he devoured the newspapers after each killing - especially had he always been 'out' when the attacks took place.
Didn't you have any humble Airfix kits - or did you start with them and progress to the bigger models?
Hmmm an interesting pattern of behaviour.
And this boarding school - not much opportunity for privacy - and usually a repressive atmosphere with fagging and beatings?
This must give you a good insight into the sort of institutionalised living experienced at the VH (less the fagging and sound thrashings).
And ruby my dear, Hutchinson had choices - the semi regimented bossey regime at the VH or the more laid back but more squalid and anonymous existence in a 'normal' east end common lodging house. Or he could be a lodger with a family.

[Malcolm X]

now then, for somebody called GH who still could be JTR, he definitely needs somewhere else to hide all his stuff....especially the organs, i mean this is just bloody rediculous!

what the hell is JTR who in this instance is a visitor to London, doing living in a dormitory with loads of others.

he isn't a visitor, he's a local ?......what with no other mutilations after MJK, no way, he either downgraded and slipped away/died/ or was scared off due to going to the police.

we have no GH that fits as JTR, because the few that we did find years ago with Sam Fynn are all locals, who lived and died in this area... this is no good for us.

i've never seen any of you lot answering this question, it has you totally stumped, you have no strong arguement to explain away GH/JTR being a local, only i have attempted this

RIGHT NOW ONLY GH IS CLOSE TO BEING JTR, along with G.Chapman, but GH fails big time due to any of us being able to trace someone to suit him and to staying in the Victoria homes.

what about Toppy as JTR ?.....no he's far too young and immature and he's a local.

does Toppy appear to be this very same GH ?...... unfortunately yes

who is JTR ?......................it's still someone who calls himself GH, and he's dossing in the Victoria homes to sleep only, the rest of the time he's probably in a bolt hole somewhere, spending hours on end in a public library, reading the papers, relaxing, keeping warm and visiting someone in Romford.... Romford could be his home!

he's using the excuse of finding work to be away from his lodgings so often, the staff have probably given up asking what he's up to, he just comes and goes as he feels, JTR is killing very late at night, so this guy isn't the stay at home type anyway, but he must be storing his stuff elsewhere, for sure!.

we cant trace this GH probably because this is not his real name and it doesn't help us that he's called GH, because then everyone thinks of Toppy, but no we really need another name.

he only needs to sign his name and to prove that he lives at the victoria homes and that's it, that's probably all that the police checked and maybe they never even checked this !

[Rubyretro]

sorry, i'm still not convinced by your counter- arguements, i used to belong to the Solent Model boat club, and many of our members spend hours on end away from their families, playing with their model boats down in their garden sheds or inside etc.... i think their wives are pleased to be honest !

they build things like 8ft titanics, huge WW2 Battleships etc, in a garden shed like this you could hide evidence easily

Malcolm -I believe you said that you went to public school ? If so, you come from a vastly different milieu than Jack (in my opinion). Space is a luxury that only money can buy( so is the time and money for expensive hobbies) and, since I believe that it is most likely that JTR was a poor working man, I think that he probably lived in overcrowded circumstances, with scant opportunity
for privacy. And that is whether he lived in a lodging house, or a family home.

[QUOTE]

when P.Sutcliffe returned home one of the first things he did was to put his clothes in the washing machine, his wife had no idea that he was a killer, his murder weapons were in his car[/QUOTE

Sonia Sutcliffe is a very complicated example. She is visiting her ex-husband again, in prison (I believe), and is religious with some very harsh opinons on prostitutes. There were no children in the house.

the easiest people to lie to are your family, but strangers are far more observant and aware of you,

That comment appears astute on the surface...but it's surely not true.
For example, many people appear very self confident and relaxed when you meet them at a party (because they are good at playing the role expected of them when meeting strangers at parties), but they might secretly be petrified
of walking into a room full of people that they don't know and 'having' to have a good time out of politeness to the host -but their families would know them well enough to see the acting whereas the people at the party wouldn't.

In fact, the examples are so many that I could go on and on.. It seems obvious that people try to project themselves in a certain way to the World at Large, but families may see them in a whole different light, and one much closer to the reality.

JTR living in a residents home, with no bolt hole, or another room somewhere else, is just plain rediculous.

No it's not.

he has to hide at the very least
1....his knife and sharpening stone
2....his trophy organs !!!!!!!
3....Sailor boy stuff etc
4....clean rags
[COLOR="Red"]5....probably newspaper articles, quite a few!
6....his written notes, scribbles, cartoons
7....Holy Bible !

He wouldn't have that much to hide : a knife -which a working man would surely carry anyway. And organs which would pass un-noticed in an era where people did have offal, wrapped in newspaper in their pockets. I don't think that strangers would assume easily that the offal came from another human being. A wife would surely want to know what the offal was, where it came from, what was for and how much it cost etc..

I certainly don't buy 'disguises'.

he has to be extremely careful about his movements and especially between Stride and Eddowes, because between these two it looks like that he returned home to change.

Why ??

he has to take care that he doesn't show too much interest in the JTR CASE and he doesn't read too many newspapers/ go a bit odd etc.....which he will do for sure, this will be very hard to hide.

To make a reference again to Vincent Tabak -he was reported as being happy to talk about the Joanna Yeates case, when the conversation came up, yet not over eager to bring up the subject. He described the personality of her murderer (in fact himself ) as "a totally detached crazy person.
And so JTR could have appeared to be totally detached on the surface.

a serial killer like this will be dark/ odd and at times extremely private, this will mean nothing to family members, but it'll definitely look odd to strangers.

I wonder if it isn't the contrary.

[Rubyretro]

we cant trace this GH probably because this is not his real name

You've probably hit the nail on the head there Malcolm -probably every single person mentioned on this thread used aliases whether Fleming/Evans, Lechmere/Cross, Kelly/Davies, Eddowes/Conway/Kelly etc etc

So if Hutch also used an alias then it would hardly be surprising...maybe not even for a sinister reason but only because he had been in the Army or was
from a recomposed family.

[Rubyretro]

And ruby my dear, Hutchinson had choices - the semi regimented bossey regime at the VH or the more laid back but more squalid and anonymous existence in a 'normal' east end common lodging house. Or he could be a lodger with a family.

[/QUOTE]

If he was an ex-Army man, then he might have liked a "semi-regimented"
atmosphere. He might have hated squalor (and hence despised his need for
poor prostitutes), and enjoyed hymn singing and bible reading on Sundays.

[Rubyretro]

I have only just had time to reply to this very silly post by the Dreaded Lechmere :

Crikey O’Reilly what must chez Retro be like? It sounds bad enough for Herr Retro to throw himself off le pont d’Avignon.

Of course Herr Retro wouldn't want to throw himself off Avignon Bridge! that sort of behaviour would never be tolerated in MY house, and I'd stamp it out of him as soon as he even thought of it....

You are mightly interested in Malcolm's boarding school dorm experiences by the way...? And incurring the Wrath of Retro. I'm already suspicious..

However back off topic, seeing as how you are infatuated with Mrs Lechmere’s doings, I would not suggest that Charles Cross took body parts back to Doveton Street. He could have read newspapers at home though, but then Hutchinson could also read them in the common room or whatever it was called at the Victoria Home, which stocked newspapers.

So we're quits.

I would suggest that most potential suspects would have difficulty secreting human organs wherever they lived. If the organs were kept and not discarded before returning to their residence then a different location would be required for storage.

We agree on something.

We know there were about 600,000 working horses in London but hardly any grooms listed in the census. This is clearly because most people who worked with horses did their own grooming

Which would explain perfectly why someone who had a real job description
of 'Groom' would be reduced to casual labouring jobs if he wanted to melt into the East End. There were not many Groom jobs to be had.

– although I have no doubt that there was also a need for the occasional casual groom here and there as well.

I don't doubt you. But not enough to live by.

A man who worked with horses would have tackle, harnesses, stuff to keep the leather in good trim, grooming equipment and so forth.

YES. The "stuff to keep the leather in good trim" would be a very sharp knife,
I think we'll agree. And this 'kit' would be his own personal 'kit' and not belong to his employers. I imagine a man looking for this sort of work standing in line at a 'Horse Fair' (in the country), touting for a job with his kit in hand. So if he moved to London, then he would take his kit with him. And No, I don't think that he'd want anyone touching it.

Charles Cross had been a carman at Pickfords by Broad Street Station for over 20 years. All the murders took place at a time when he could have committed them on his way to work and on his way to his horse in the stable at the Broad Street depot.

But we have no way of knowing how many people that statement is true of.
(why don't you start another Thread, by the way, so that I can trounce you somewhere else ?). Cross was involved in the case by accident, not by design, like Hutch. Cross was known to the Police, after Polly. When Hutch became known to the Police, then the killings suddenly stopped -which is far more logical.

If it is necessary for the Ripper to have disappeared for an hour or whatever between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, then his stable could have been a possible detour to stash body parts.

But maybe the killer was just in a pub, and looking to find a second victim.

Thank you for reminding me about all this, Lechmere.

[QUOTE]

But back to Hutchinson-Fleming![/QUOTE

Hear, Hear !

[Lechmere]

“...or a family home.”
Almost a eureka moment young Ruby.

But then yopu mention that carrying around human organs would go unnoticed i that era – when people would know what a pig, sheep or cows organs might look like as they cooked and ate them – but a human’s? Hmmmm don’t think so.

But I sense that in common with Malcolm, you are getting there bit by bit.

[Malcolm X]

well its a bit of this and that i'm afraid, we're both quoting personalities that might not have suited JTR, so i think we'd better stop mentioning Sutcliffe etc.

but i can tell you for a fact that many wives/ families are very pleased that their husbands spend hours on their own.

human remains no..... sorry i still disagree with you, because he will probably be doing a Tumblety and keeping these for ever, this is not the same as bringing home offal for dinner, as such; these will almost definitely be preserved in glass jars etc ! in addition, he will probably not be allowed to keep offal if found, because this attracts rats/ starts stinking etc.

i therefore very much doubt that he stored offal at the Victoria homes, until he left Whitechapel in say december to june 1889, it's far more likely that this hideous display was in Romford.

GH never mutilated again and there's not a hope in hell that he could either, simply because over the next 2 days he was probably seen by at least 30 coppers and any one of these could have travelled all the way to Glasgow to identify him, let alone seeing him again near another victim in Whitechapel.

it is obvious as the nose on your face that once you've gone to the police and to the tabloids, that your career as JTR is over, because he only needs to be seen once more near a victim, either soon before or after and that's it, he's had it.

GH is also at risk killing abroad too, because these coppers can still be sent for to identify him, by any smart Court Prosecutor, he really is in danger anywhere in the world from now on.

for JTRs lies to work, he has to ground these in semi-truth or he'll trip himself up, so i can almost guarantee you that he was returning from Romford, but probably an hour and a half earlier than he said, this would correspond with him doing a quick tour of his kill zone and thus hearing M.KELLY singing.

she was singing for flipping ages, silly girl, because he would definitely walk down Dorset st...... from time to time, and this night ain't no time to be singing.

he sussed out what to say from waiting outside the inquest and hearing the women gossiping etc/ talking to them too, he described a LA DE DA jew based on these women/ tabloids etc and his anti-semetic hatred, he didn't need to worry about the time because he was there.

he is therefore defintely not BLOTCHY FACE, but who is this guy ? well the best place to look is definitely Romford

[Rubyretro]

But then yopu mention that carrying around human organs would go unnoticed i that era – when people would know what a pig, sheep or cows organs might look like as they cooked and ate them – but a human’s? Hmmmm don’t think so.

(What ? You are not in your Wolf's Lair ?)
I don't think that offal in a Lodging house -whether human or animal would attract attention.

[Lechmere]

How did you find out my address?

Offal maybe - but a uterus?
I think after the double event that might have attracted a little unwelcome attention.

"What's that yer cookin' Hutch, looks a bit gristly, and now I mention it how did you get those flecks of blood on your collar and cuffs?"
"Err, just some offal, honest guv'nor, and I cut meself shaving."

[Rubyretro]

I hate to dispel some of the myths of European Cuisine and get down to the nitty gritty and so demolish Lechmere's idealised image of me as ''Catherine Deneuve or Simone Signoret" in jack boots, but lets talk recipés..

I have gone to farms here in France and been offered lung in a parsley and garlic dressing, and been given heart and lung stew in Portugal.

I suggest that rural Europe is closer in cooking habits to Victorian England than Sainsburies, and one man's (or woman's) 'yuk' is another man's 'yum'.

In other words words -bits of foul offal when cooked and offered up to someone not in the position to say 'no thanks' are probably better not scrutinised very closely, and a pig's lung or a human uterus are probably much the same when cooked. Taste wise, I don't know if I could have told the difference.

[Lechmere]

Jack boots? The Woolf’s Lair?
I’m building up a new image.

Have you had pig’s uterus with a fine garlic and snail dressing? If not these examples are worthless. But I see you are not usually a fussy eater. What is this becoming ‘The Confessions of an English Offal Eater’?

A lung and a uterus are two very different things.
Could an early 21st century French farmer tell the difference? I think so.
And remember a French farmer today would be in a similar position to a late Victorian offal muncher in their ability to know such things.

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE]A lung and a uterus are two very different things.[/QUOTE]
Biologically certainly. Screwed up in a pocket and then cooked -not sure.

Could an early 21st century French farmer tell the difference? I think so.

Frankly -I don't know how.
(vraiment, vraiment désolée David)

[Wickerman]

...he sussed out what to say from waiting outside the inquest and hearing the women gossiping etc/ talking to them too,

He had no need to suss out anything to say, he was not recognised. A wideawake hat was common enough to be nondescript.
So, what would he say when Arnold, Abberline & Nairn all walked out of the inquest?
"Oy, I'll be in to see you lot in half a mo, just getting my story straight!"

...he described a LA DE DA jew based on these women/ tabloids etc and his anti-semetic hatred...

The papers describe a man in morning-coat, Billycock hat, with a black bag.
The most significant detail, synonamous with the menacing stranger, the black bag is entirely missing from Hutchinson's stranger. No, he was not influenced by any tabloids, Astrakhan was entirely different.

I do agree that Hutchinson may have embellished the description he gave, but there is no justification for suggesting the stranger did not exist. Though he may have been credited with more of a Jewish appearance than was the case in reality.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

My sincere apologies. My mind was playing tricks on me about Fleming in the 1891 census. I was mixing it up with his infirmary admission entry in 1892.

Ah. So not so then. Oh well.. in that case, your contention that Fleming and Hutchinson could not have been the same man because Fleming was demonstrably known as Fleming at the Victoria Home falls down, I think.

Fleming was listed as living at the Victoria Home in June 1892 when he was admitted to the City of London Workhouse Infirmary on Bow Road.
This is the 6 feet 7 inch Joe Fleming who was also listed as a dock labourer.
(See thread The records from Stone Asylum for Joseph Fleming – transcription, page 15, post 148).

Yes, yes, I know all this.

This Fleming (a dock labourer) was also admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary Union from the Victoria Home in November 1889 with an inflamed leg.
He had settlement for 14 months – meaning he lived or claimed to have lived within Whitechapel for 14 months. You theoretically needed settlement of at least 12 months to be able to claim relief.

And, indeed, this.

It is possible he made the length of settlement up and wasn’t living at the Victoria Home from September 1888.
However it seems he was living continuously in the Victoria Home for the entire period.

Does not follow by any logical extension, nope. To begin with (and I'm having a distinct sense of deja vu here, Lechmere) whilst it may have been theoretically true that a person required a 12 month settlement to claim relief, it quite clearly was not so in practice - not in Whitechapel. I'm sure there are reasons for this, but I won't go on.

That was an aside. Your suggestion that Fleming may have lied about his settlement is pure speculation and I'm not sure I see the purpose of it really. So with your suggestion that he lived continuously in the Victoria Home - there is no way to know this. He may have drifted in and out as his fortunes fluctuated, and in doing so would have been amongst many. You ought to know that, surely.

Could he have passed himself off as Hutchinson? While being known (presumably) as Kelly’s ex?
And being 6 foot 7 inches tall and a dock labourer could he have been Kelly’s ex anyway?
Wouldn’t he have got sussed out at some point?

And being 6 foot 7 inches tall could he have been Hutchinson?
Certainly he couldn’t have been Lewis’s not tall but stout wide-awake man.
Unless he was walking on his knees.
And wouldn’t the police have ‘checked Hutchinson out’ and sussed out that he wasn’t called Hutchinson but Fleming?
And what about that sketch of Hutchinson? Now I think it is a generic picture of some bloke lurking on the background, but I know that at least some Hutchinsonites think it is a true life sketch of Hutch. He ain’t 6 foot 7 inches tall! Also what if Fleming’s dear old mamma recognised his visage (if it was a true likeness)?

Dear oh dear.

Could he have 'passed himself off' as Hutchinson? Well, he passed himself off as James Evans, didn't he, so why not? If the same man, he could have first entered the Victoria Home as George Hutchinson, gone elsewhere for a while - even a short time - and returned as Fleming. Would anyone have recognised him? Maybe, maybe not. It would rather depend on what sort of person he was, how sociable, how much he drew attention to himself. There were hundreds of lodgers at the Victoria Home, he could have quite easily escaped notice. Not implausible.

And the 6'7" thing - well, of course if it were actually the case, then Fleming could not be Hutchinson - but there has to be some doubt about that - the error of one number, a 6 for a 5, is hardly stretching credulity, is it? And I'm sure you know perfectly well that if he was actually 5' 7", the picture alters rather. 5' 7" would have been common enough, 6' 7" remarkable. It would be remarkable today. How many people of that height do you see? Hardly any. I don't think this is a point to hang on to as any sort of 'proof' that Hutchinson and Fleming were not one and the same - it's too slight a thing and cannot be proven one way or the other.

Briefly, the sketch - it was a newspaper sketch. Whilst it might give us some idea as to what Hutchinson looked like, it's hardly a photograph. Nobody looking at that would recognise it as somebody else - that's a silly idea. You're not clutching at straws here, are you Lechmere?

So, anything else? Oh, yes - Fleming being known as Kelly's ex. Well, we have no way of knowing what he told people, have we? It remains true that
several elements of Hutchinson's account correspond with what was said of Joseph Fleming. Perhaps a coincidence, but at least suggestive of a connection of some nature - not necessarily that they were one and the same, but possibly so.

The whole Fleming equals Hutchinson thing doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny

It does. You just don't want it to.