Fleming/Hutchinson theory?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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 !

[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]

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.