Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

I think we have to be open minded about the interpretation, without any corroboration.

My instinct is that Joe Barnett would have done something had MJK been seen to be bruised as the result of a physical beating. Of course, we might have heard nothing because no one mentioned it - but I am constantly being told how upright and honest Joe was....

I am not aware of mention of OLD bruises on Mary's body by the medicos after her death - but would they have been noticed given the extent of the mutilations.

On the other hand, if Joe DID NOT act to defend his lover, maybe that played a part in his separation from MJK.

On balance though, I think Flemming is most likely to have come round, or met MJK somewhere, and tried to persuade her to return to him. When she refused, he used bad language to her, called her names etc - which hurt her emotionally. I suspect Barnett never knew anything about it - but it might explain why he thought she was afraid of someone (though I think someone more powerful, like a Morgenstern might have been involved there)

Pure speculation, of course. But I think it is useful to consider the possibilities.

Phil

[DVV]

That's BS. It means to treat someone poorly. Being treated poorly can be defined differently by different people. It could include physical abuse, but that would be the absolute worst case scenario.

Mike

In such context ? With this kind of people ?
You amaze me...

[The Good Michael]

The expression (to ill-use) has been already discussed, and refers beyond doubt to physical violence.
I very much doubt that Venturney would have reported this if it were only words.

That's BS. It means to treat someone poorly. Being treated poorly can be defined differently by different people. It could include physical abuse, but that would be the absolute worst case scenario.

Mike

[DVV]

The expression (to ill-use) has been already discussed, and refers beyond doubt to physical violence.
I very much doubt that Venturney would have reported this if it were only words.

"She shot her arms out from her sleeves, and we saw with horror that they were all mottled with bruises. 'But this is nothing - nothing ! It is my mind and soul that he has tortured and defiled. I could endure it all, ill-usage, solitude, a life of deception, everything, as long as I could still cling to the hope that I had his love..."

The Hound of Bethnal Green, chapter 14

[Phil H]

Good point Sally, and I accept the correction.

I was not trying to make out that Kelly was particularly remarkable - only that she had a way with her (the Irish in my experience sometimes do!).

But let's take her story (via Barnett) at face value for a moment. Let's say that she was in an up-market West End brothel for a while and went to France. How come she fell so far, so fast?

I have seen it suggested that DRINK was the problem.

Now many men, like a Morgenstern, or a Flemming or a McCarthy might be willing to accept a woman who would normally be outside their bracket. A woman who needed money for drink.

All supposition, but I don't think my earlier supposition need be psychologically inaccurate or impossible to explain.

Phil

[Sally]

It appears from what we know that she was an attractive woman, yes. But had she posessed that degree of siren-like charm, would she have needed to resort to common prostitution for protracted periods of time?

It seems to me that she was partially successful in escaping that life - she cohabited with various men with whom she enjoyed relationships - but not wholly.

I don't think she was particularly remarkable in that respect.

[Phil H]

It also depends on why he "ill-used" Mary, and how: verbally or physically.

I can well perceive how Flemming's hatred (as possibly with Joe Barnett) might have focused on MJK - certainly if she had humiliated either man in relation to their physical prowess in bed, or their inability to provide for her as she expected.

Some women have the ability to drive a man wild with desire and equally to dismiss them with disdain. A heady sexual mix to create and one difficult if not impossible to control once set in motion. MJK by all accounts might have had that ability.

Phil

[DVV]

. Though it could be argued, if jealous, why not kill Barnett instead?

Fact is that Julia said that he had often ill-used Mary, not Barnett, out of jealousy.

[Phil H]

One just has to bow down and praise the comprehensive knowledge, the staggering insights, the unarguable logic of your posts, Wickerman*.

One stands in awe ... how can one person be so sure - and so utterly, utterly wrong? You evidently have no understanding of what might have motivated Flemming and little obvious awareness of what these boards are about.

Phil

* The above words were written within the terms of the current EU legislation on irony and its proper use and no apology is made for any injury sustained by uncontrolled laughter which may arise. Compensation will, however, be paid for anyone finding their tongue has become permenently lodged in their cheek providing sufficient and commensurate proof can be provided.

[DVV]

If the killer was Joseph Fleming, isn't this his first known visit to see Mary?, I don't recall anyone in the court having claimed to have met him.

Jon, they could have seen him without being introduced, without knowing his name.
What is sure is that it has been said (in the court) that he used to visit Mary.

[Wickerman]

No-one has claimed there is anything wrong with making inquiries, thankfully we do have people who conduct these inquiries and quite rightly do not draw conclusions prematurely.
What is wrong is with a minor assembly who repeatedly promote conclusions that have not been verified.

If Geo. Hutchinson lied about anything it needs to be established first, until then the handful of pebbles in the tin can only make noise, but nothing worth listening to.

If the killer was Joseph Fleming, isn't this his first known visit to see Mary?, I don't recall anyone in the court having claimed to have met him.
A bit of a coincidence that he would show up, and take all the time he did without knowing whether she was sharing her room, as was the norm in those days.
Fleming certainly has more of a legitimate motive than anyone else, to date. Though it could be argued, if jealous, why not kill Barnett instead?

[DVV]

I'd say he was Joseph Fleming

[Phil H]

I will be honest when I first started with this case,back in the 1960s, Hutchinson was no more then a witness with a photographic memory, we had people who mistrusted the amount of description, but that was all.

But surely the nature of researches and the information available has changed in recent years.

The internet and the release of records means that we can now track down individuals in census data, in mental institution records etc, in a way that would have been impossible or difficult at best 50 years ago.

What do we find, that (like MJK) GH is hard to track down in the surviving record. There have been attempts, but no agreement on who he was. Was his name even correct?

We now have authors claiming that other minor players in the drama were not who they were - Ted Stanley (the "Pensioner); Joe Flemming to cite but two examples. So GH is not a unique occurence - but new material fuels discussion, as it should.

There is NOTHING WRONG in questioning, challenging, debating long-held assumptions. After all, iN GH's case it appears he was in a place that might well have given him opportunity to be Kelly's killer.

So who was he?

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have to agree with Jon, it is only in the modern era that anyone had any suspicions about Hutchinson being a viable suspect.
Bob Hintons' excellent book[ which I enjoyed] brought any dormant suspicions about this witness to the fore, rightly or as I would suggest wrongly.
I will be honest when I first started with this case,back in the 1960s, Hutchinson was no more then a witness with a photographic memory, we had people who mistrusted the amount of description, but that was all.
Nowadays he is one of the most discussed characters in the whole case, and both sides remain adamant about his sincerity/insincerity,
He was never a suspect in 1888, he was interrogated simply because he placed himself at the crime scene at a relevant time, and his account was believed to have been truthful, he then went about assisting the police in their inquiries.
Because he never remained in the spotlight for long , it was reported by certain press that he was discredited , but we have no official report from the police this was the case.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

No offence taken, Sally. But I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make my view explicit.

Phil