Fleming/Hutchinson theory?

[Lechmere]

Sally
As I said I made a schoolboy error in lazily failing to double check and got muddled up between the 1891 census and the 1892 infirmary record – but it makes not material difference.
Fleming was at the Victoria Home in 1889 as Fleming and had probably been there since September 1888 as shown by his claimed settlement.
He was also there in 1892 as Fleming.
The Victoria Home had long termers. It also had people who came back and forth. Most of the staff there were former inmates as you of course will know, having studied the Booth paper at the LSE library.
I will repeat - MOST STAFF WERE FORMER LONG TERM INMATES.
Does this have any implication for Fleming passing himself off as Hutchinson? Don't take too long in thinking about that one.
Could Fleming have passed himself off as Hutchinson while murdering several unfortunates in the Autumn of 1888?
Would he have turned up there again after leaving or stayed there for a length of time after gratuitously giving a police and a press interview?

Incidentally, if you read what I actually said, I speculated that Fleming may have lied about his settlement and then concluded that he probably did not and gave reasons for this conclusion.
Please stop and read what I actually say before coming out with this sort of thing:
“Your suggestion that Fleming may have lied about his settlement is pure speculation”.

Then again we have the dispute that he was 6 foot 7 inches tall as you have to believe Fleming was not tall but stout.
I should say that basing your case on believing that the 6 should be a 5 is clutching at straws.

By the way I don’t recall James Evans being a key witness in the Ripper case. But nevertheless he seems to have been checked out and his true identity established. His mother claimed Evans as hers which established the link to Fleming . The infirmary authorities must have been able to trace his mother somehow, possiby via the Victoria Home or alternatively his mother may have told then he lived at the Victoria Home. Conclusion – he was known as Fleming at the Victoria Home in 1892 even if he gave a different name to the police – probably because he was paranoid.

Back to the sketch of ‘Hutchinson’... again if you read what I said, I personally think that picture was a generic. Hutchinsonites usually claim it is supposed to be a realistic impression of Hutchinson - it is not me that is clutching at straws.
Hutchinson was of military appearance – and that picture is not of someone with military appearance, even as a generic sketch.

But when he gave the interview to the press, how did Hutchinson know that a proper sketch artist would not have accompanied the journalist? A real true likeness would have appeared and his bogus Hutchinson identity could have been blown had his dear mamma seen it. My, my, what a risk taker this guy was.

First he goes to the police for no good reason, then he gives a press interview, then he hangs around at the same address (every now and then at least) after being their under a different name while killing several fallen women.

But under no circumstance can Hutch be Toppy. That is just wildly improbable – isn’t it?

[Sally]

Lechmere

I have read your post, but since it appears mainly to be some sort of disarticulated rant, there doesn't appear to be much mileage in making a detailed response.

I know you have the faith, Lechmere. To you, Hutchinson was Toppy was Hutchinson, and to that end, no other argument will do for you. It is unfortunate that you feel the need to start with the 'Hutchinsonian' crap whenever anybody disagrees with you, but there we are. Intellectual insecurity. I don't have any wish or intention to engage on a serious basis with people who consider that pointing and name calling (not to mention remarks that on occasion border on the libellous) are tenable debating strategies.

Still, each to their own, I guess.

I will say this, since you insist on bringing Saint Toppy into the conversation - techically, I think you'll find that this is a thread concerning Fleming - I have not said, and actually do not consider that it is 'wildly improbable' that Toppy might be Hutchinson - I think that's overly dramatic.

There are problems with the identification, however - there are. No degree of pretending otherwise, ignoring the facts, or wishful thinking will make them go away. If you want to convince yourself that you've got your man, then sure, that's up to you. It's an simplistic and rather uncritical view; and it demands extreme convolution in order to be made to work - but fair enough.

When (if) you fancy making some serious, well considered points, I might consider responding in kind.

Have a nice day.

[Malcolm X]

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!"




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.

firstly there is no way that fleming at 6ft 7'' could be GH and definitely not JTR, he's a dead donkey non-starter, forget about him...he is the weakest suspect on our list!

1........GH definitely has to suss out what to say, because he's JTR posing as an innocent person, he definitely needs to go to the inquest first...... just in case.

2........he describes a glorified version of the post gents already seen, based on a stereotypical image of a get rich quick Dell Boy, he has NOT DESCRIBED an upper class gent, i talked about this on another thread, he's from the lower to middle class ! but i do wonder why he didn't mention the guy carrying a black bag, but a parcel instead, maybe JTR considered like us lot, that him carrying a black bag is a bit like him having a sign on his back saying...``look at me i'm JTR and i'm going to gut you`` whatever the case, the parcel looks a bit like this too, i dont believe that MJK would have let someone like this into her room, no bloody way!

3....GH does not mind being seen, in fact; it's exactly what he wants

4.....you agree that he embellished his description, good, because he DEFINITELY DID! i.e you can not see colours outside at night and especially in 1888 London..... FACT.... this embellishing in a court of law, i would describe as lieing like crazy! ..... he's lieing comprende' !

5.... he saw LA DE DA going down the court only, he did not see those two standing underneath the lamp outside her room, and there is no lamp outside above the Millers court arch......i think ! so he saw at best LA DE DA quickly passing underneath maybe 5 really poor street lamps, this would have given him quick glimpses only, not enough to see a horseshoe pin, chain and red stone, and the very accurate details of the parcel etc etc.....

GH would have seen quite a lot yes, for sure, but only about half of what he said, he would have definitely been able to recall his face, but his clothing would have been very hard to recall, i mean, he even manages to describe his walk ...it's pathetic

he would probably only recall his coat, trousers and maybe notice a shirt and wastecoat, but that's about it, a bit like Lawende

what i find very strange is :- the red handkerchief, but this goes way over my head.

[Rubyretro]

Sally -whilst it pains me to have to agree with Lechmere, and I will continue to think that the sketch of Hutch is probably not generic, and Toppy is not Hutch, yet I think it is silly to dismiss his post as a "disarticulated rant": It was perfectly limpid to me.

In the end, if you want to consider each theory/bit of evidence on it's individual merits, then it is surely wildly improbable that Fleming and Hutch could be the same person -and Lechmere gave some eloquent reasons for
taking that position.

You have often said that you are not on a particular 'side' -(I have never hidden the fact that I believe that Hutchinson was Jack)- but we're not actually ferociously defending a favourite football team. I assume that we want to find out the truth, and it's worth reading the results of other people's research

ps Lechmere -don't even think of making capital of that !

[Malcolm X]

the contrary to all of this is, what if GH did indeed see JTR ?

well you're still screwed, because he still lied about his description

1... he went to the police way too late, for something that is so UTTERLY IMPORTANT AND AS VITAL AS THIS, considering that his description is so accurate, it's like a photo and he will easily be able to recognise JTR again

FACT !

he has no excuse for this, he is therefore highly suspicious, he went late because he DEFINITELY needed to know what others knew, before going to the police, this is as obvious as anything, because a true and caring person does not need to know what others saw, he rushes to the police as SOON AS HE KNOWS that she's dead the next day

finally, JTR would never have gone to the police without disposing of all his evidence first and this includes Romford

[Rubyretro]

Malcolm -I certainly agree with you on all of this.

"a Dead Donkey non starter" is a perfect way to describe the Hutch/Fleming
theory, and I wish I had thought of it...

[Wickerman]

firstly there is no way that fleming at 6ft 7'' could be GH and definitely not JTR, he's a dead donkey non-starter, forget about him...he is the weakest suspect on our list!

1........GH definitely has to suss out what to say, because he's JTR posing as an innocent person, he definitely needs to go to the inquest first...... just in case.

On the contrary, the killer needs to disappear like he did in all the other cases, there's nothing easier and more logical than that.

2........ i dont believe that MJK would have let someone like this into her room, no bloody way!

I guess you've never been desperate for food & money.

3....GH does not mind being seen, in fact; it's exactly what he wants

I don't understand #3 in view of your reply in #1, "just in case"?
If he didn't mind being seen what do you mean by "just in case", ...just in case what?

4.....you agree that he embellished his description, good, because he DEFINITELY DID! i.e you can not see colours outside at night and especially in 1888 London..... FACT.... this embellishing in a court of law, i would describe as lieing like crazy! ..... he's lieing comprende' !

As Abberline & Co. did not raise a concern about this, and they often spent their nights in the streets looking for suspects, then I have no objection about seeing colours at night.
We still have nights today and I have no trouble seeing colours :-)

5.... he saw LA DE DA going down the court only, he did not see those two standing underneath the lamp outside her room, and there is no lamp outside above the Millers court arch......i think !

Well actually there was one close-by.

" There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."
Irish Times, 10 Nov.

GH would have seen quite a lot yes, for sure, but only about half of what he said, he would have definitely been able to recall his face, but his clothing would have been very hard to recall, i mean, he even manages to describe his walk ...it's pathetic

he would probably only recall his coat, trousers and maybe notice a shirt and wastecoat, but that's about it, a bit like Lawende

And the red neckerchief he wore too?

Hutch did claim to have seen the same man in daylight on Sunday morning. Hutchinson may have supplemented his discription by adding what the man was wearing on that second occasion. Just because he was not so sure the first time, but some of the detail could have been embellishment.

I'm not at all concerned about the depth of detail, my interest is that this "well-dressed" man did exist, Sarah Lewis saw him.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

You have often said that you are not on a particular 'side' -(I have never hidden the fact that I believe that Hutchinson was Jack)- but we're not actually ferociously defending a favourite football team. I assume that we want to find out the truth, and it's worth reading the results of other people's research

Theoretically. In this specific instance, what research are we meant to be reading? I don't see any.

All there is here is personal opinion. All very interesting, and, I expect, self-gratifying, but personal opinion - quite often unsupported by anything other than conjecture - is only that at the end of the day.

As for the sides rubbish, perhaps it might be worth pointing the finger of blame at those who insist there are sides to begin with. It's very worthy to be in pursuit of the truth, but you won't get it by 'debating' with people who adhere to 'sides' in my view, because it demands an objectivity that they don't and can't have.

That aside, I don't particularly consider the identification of Fleming with Hutchinson to be 'wildly improbable' (that dramatic phrase again). There are counter-arguments to all of those put forward on this thread - easy ones. I won't be going into it though - not as it stands - because I can't see the point in becoming embedded to no end in petty, circular arguments for which there is insufficient evidence to progress one way or the other.

I'll leave all that to those who enjoy it.

[Malcolm X]

flipping heck, these two look similar, this is George Hutchinson and this other photo is Albert Fish

[Malcolm X]

On the contrary, the killer needs to disappear like he did in all the other cases, there's nothing easier and more logical than that.



I guess you've never been desperate for food & money.



I don't understand #3 in view of your reply in #1, "just in case"?
If he didn't mind being seen what do you mean by "just in case", ...just in case what?



As Abberline & Co. did not raise a concern about this, and they often spent their nights in the streets looking for suspects, then I have no objection about seeing colours at night.
We still have nights today and I have no trouble seeing colours :-)



Well actually there was one close-by.

" There is another well frequented lodging-house next door to M'Carthy's, and within a yard or two to the entrance to the court is a wall lamp, the light from which is thrown nearly on to the passage."
Irish Times, 10 Nov.



And the red neckerchief he wore too?

Hutch did claim to have seen the same man in daylight on Sunday morning. Hutchinson may have supplemented his discription by adding what the man was wearing on that second occasion. Just because he was not so sure the first time, but some of the detail could have been embellishment.

I'm not at all concerned about the depth of detail, my interest is that this "well-dressed" man did exist, Sarah Lewis saw him.

Regards, Jon S.

no, S.Lewis does not describe the same man, at all, NONE OF THEM DO, the GH sighting is unique........and you know that !.... plus the times dont tally too, so something here is seriously wrong FACT!

finally, S.Lewis may not have seen LA DE DA, i'd be very careful about all of this kennedy/ Lewis crap from the 10th onwards, because it needs a much MORE careful look at, that i havent done yet.....it's very suspicious simply because other Ripper authors have ignored this stuff over the years, this tells you that it's been dismissed as rubbish!

The rest of your comments are interesting, but you definitely can not detect colours at night so i stick by that.

the street lighting ? well the only way to solve this is to see the oil lamps in action and until then this problem remains

[Rubyretro]

As for the sides rubbish, perhaps it might be worth pointing the finger of blame at those who insist there are sides to begin with. It's very worthy to be in pursuit of the truth, but you won't get it by 'debating' with people who adhere to 'sides' in my view, because it demands an objectivity that they don't and can't have.

Well, I don't pretend to be worthy of more than having the right to an opinion
for myself.

However those amongst us that do first hand research as opposed to googling (and I'm sincerely not accusing you, and it will never be me ) are probably more 'worthy' and worth reading than others. They probably spent time, money, and gave alot of themselves to a passion for detail that people like me benefit from in terms of knowledge or general culture. 'Enriched' is the word.

People function on different levels though, and 'one' can have fun in debating
just for entertainment. It doesn't mean that we can't learn things at the same time.

fun -we can have fun at the same time. Why is it so difficult ?

[Wickerman]

no, S.Lewis does not describe the same man, at all, NONE OF THEM DO, the GH sighting is unique........and you know that !.... plus the times dont tally too, so something here is seriously wrong FACT!

Well we do know it was the same 'man' because Lewis spoke of a couple walking up the passage to the Court while a loiterer was stood at the Dorset street end of the passage. Prettywell confirming who the couple were regardless of descriptions, assuming you accept the loiterer was Hutchinson.

it's very suspicious simply because other Ripper authors have ignored this stuff over the years, this tells you that it's been dismissed as rubbish!

What it suggests is that previous authors were not aware of this wealth of press reports we have assembled today.

the street lighting ? well the only way to solve this is to see the oil lamps in action and until then this problem remains

Gas lamps Malcolm, ....Gas lighting!
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

In Dorset-street, however, the fact of a man having been in the company of a woman would probably attract no notice from those who are accustomed to such an incident. The street is fairly lighted, and, late at night especially, is pretty well frequented.
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov.

Dorset street is a fairly wide thoroughfare, and at night, owing to the lamps in the windows and over the doors of the numerous lodging-houses, it may be described as well-lighted.....
Opposite the court is a very large lodging-house, of a somewhat inferior character. This house is well lighted and people hang about it nearly all night.
Irish Times, 10 Nov.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Sally
I really don’t want to engage in silly point scoring arguments with you – and if you have counter points to make in defence of Fleming’s candidacy as Hutchinson I wish you would set them down.

However there is a big difficulty as I see it in presenting a case where as a resident at the Victoria Home under the name Fleming he could also pretend to be Hutchinson. Given what we know of the character of the Victoria Home.
Then there is the 6 foot 7 business.

By comparison the doubts over identifying Toppy as Hutchinson are minor. We can establish that it is almost certain he left the family home at the end of 1887. We know he had relatives in the East End that his parents had connections with. We know his father and uncle did not become plumbers immediately. We know that the plumbing business had become somewhat irregular and was not strictly regulated. We know that he went to live in at least one lodging house. We know he lived in some areas equally as bad as those found around Commercial Street, we know he ended up living in the East End with an East End girl who he seems to have met while hanging around the East End. We know that one family tradition makes him the Kelly witness. We know his writing style was not dissimilar to the witness’s.
There are clearly some loose ends and I haven’t finished checking him out (I have been too busy lately to do more). But there is nothing to discount Toppy as Hutchinson in stark contrast to Fleming as Hutchinson (see above).
If you have a valid counter argument then I am sure people will be interested to hear it.

Incidentally I do not see Toppy as a saint – I see him as a bit of a chancer who embellished his tale and earned a quick buck out of a police force desperate for a lead.

[Lechmere]

Ah Frau Retro,
It would be foolish indeed for me to make capital out of your belated concurrence with my take on the likelihoods of the Whitechapel Murders. That would be a gauche as they say in those French farmhouses. So I won’t. No triumphalism here.
(Whoop - whoop, next it will be Sally!)