Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Lechmere]

I agree with you on that Garry!

It is merely stating the blindingly obvious to say that as we do not know who killed Kelly (for certain anyway…) we cannot say all the crimes were down to the same person, nor for absolutely certain whether there were more or less than five victims. However the broad consensus would place Kelly as a Ripper victim and for there being such a person who could be described as ‘Jack the Ripper’.
It would be a bit tedious to preface every remark about every victim or suspect with some sort of disclaimer attached to the most basic statements.

That being said, some suspects lend themselves to being presented as being responsible for only one or a couple of the crimes.
For example, some think Cross/Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for Nichols but less so for the others – although it wouldn’t have been a domestic.
A case has been made for Iscenschmid being responsible for at least two.
Kidney, Sadler, Fleming and Barnett have been put forward as domestics – with the latter two also, alternatively or simultaneously, being put in the frame for a series.
To think that this would not have occurred to the police in 1888 is to my mind slightly absurd.

Phil
I had no idea I was treading on your toes as well by discussing Barnett being investigated by the police as a suspect.
Obviously this is off topic, but it is common place to state that, for example:

“Barnett was questioned by Inspector Abberline for four hours and had his clothing checked for bloodstains. When he was questioned it was reported he was in an agitated state, though the police appeared to be satisfied that he had nothing to do with the murder, and he was released.”
(Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide, Christopher J. Morley).

“Joseph Barnett is the suspect du jour. He was arrested at the time of the Miller's Court affair, and interrogated for four hours. His clothing was searched for bloodstains, and his new lodgings searched for a knife. A report was leaked to the press that police were considering Miller's Court a "copycat" murder, with jealousy as the motive -- clearly indicating that Barnett was the suspect. Then he was released, and managed to escape suspicion until 1977.”
(Casebook Disseration - Joseph Barnett, Dr. Frederick Walker)

“After the murders, Barnett was questioned by police for four hours and his clothes held and examined for bloodstains. He emerged from this investigation cleared of suspicion to the police’s satisfaction and lived an uneventful life thereafter".
(The Complete A-Z)

I can’t find any original reference to the length of time of the interrogation nor the bloodstains, although I haven’t made an exhaustive search. I can find no reference in the Ultimate Sourcebook.

Nevertheless it is clear that the police interviewed Barnett and established his alibi for the night Kelly was murdered.
Obviously we don’t know exactly what they asked Barnett. However it is a fair assumption that it was his status as her ex boyfriend that led them to suspect him. In other words that it was a domestic. And this leads us to Fleming. That is why a discussion of Barnett is relevant to the Fleming case.

Just to make you shudder a little more, if Fleming was really Kelly’s ex, and if he was really still seeing her around the time of her death and if he really misused her, then the police would have been incompetent in not trying to find him.
I do not believe they were that incompetent.

If they turned up a blank, for a person with that degree of incriminating baggage, then I would expect it to have been commented on by someone at some stage.
Obviously most of the official files are missing and they may have contained information. However there were a plethora of latter day reminiscences and contemporary leaks to the press. They are silent.
If Fleming was quietly found and boringly eliminated, then that would not be newsworthy. The opposite – the failure to find someone of that nature would have been.
This is hardly a controversial standpoint.
I think it is reasonable to expect a source mention that Fleming was never found if indeed he was never found.
Building a case against someone in the face of this is difficult in my opinion.

Furthermore Fleming with his Evans alias explicitly mentioned then appears in the City of London and Bethnal Green asylum records in 1893 (if it was the same man of course).
I don’t believe that would have been missed if he was still undiscovered. If it was not missed then I don’t believe it would have been uncommented on in some extant record.
Building a case against someone in the face of this is difficult in my opinion.

And that’s without the height issue.

As for defining local, well in the context of Fleming Bethnal Green is local to Whitechapel or Spitalfields.

Kosminski and Druitt’s names do not appear in any murder investigation. That is why their names wouldn't appear in the memoirs of the policemen on the ground. Both were almost certainly ‘found’ and suspected (at Scotland Yard) after the event – the event being Kosminski’s detention and Druitt’s death. The extant records certainly suggests this. Nevertheless both appear in a police document – the Macnaghten Memorandum. So I am not sure of your point. They are not relevant to the Fleming discussion.

[Sally]

Absolutely - what about Fleming? Where does he fit into the equation?

Perhaps the fact that we're wandering off topic to the extent that we're seeing photos of tall men in shopping centres is an indication that this discussion has run it's course...

[Phil H]

One day Gary you'll recognise irony!! though it'll probably mow you down without stopping!

not only appear to believe that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could commit a casual murder,

Well according to you some Tom, Dick or Harry did as JtR!! but aren't there many awful domestics - then as now?

but one accompanied by the grotesque mutilations inflicted upon Mary Kelly.

That's the point surely - from one perspective, the mutilations are TOO grotesque to be by the same relatively consistent hand as Nichols, Chpaman and Eddowes. it makes me wonder whether it was not the work of a copy-cat working on WRITTEN accounts.

The same people who see no offending progression from Nichols through to Kelly.

I do see links - though not necessarily a "progression" through Nicols, Chapman and eddowes - maybe withMckenzie as a weak add-on.

I personally these days tend to set aside Stride and MJK.

Nuff said in this thread.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Mike – no one seemed to know his name – no one even looked at the gaunt Essex giant apart from me, and that’s because I happened to be standing around opposite him for some time and I thought of this thread!
He seemed to have a Primark bag with him. Do they sell such large clothes?
Lakeside is near the Tilbury Docks of course. I observed the fellow leave the shopping centre by the railway station exit that leads to those very docks…

[Garry Wroe]

Not true, in the beyond doubt element - except by those who have not studied the case deeply.

And then there are those who have studied the case 'deeply' who not only appear to believe that any old Tom, Dick or Harry could commit a casual murder, but one accompanied by the grotesque mutilations inflicted upon Mary Kelly. The same people who see no offending progression from Nichols through to Kelly.

[The Good Michael]

By the way I was at Lakeside shopping centre today (Essex) and saw a very tall skinny chap. No one else took any notice but I would guess he was about 6 foot 7 (or perhaps a little taller as I saw someone I know who is six foot tall walk past him and he was more than a head shorter) and I would guess weighs less than 12 stone. He looked in perfect health.
Perhaps I should have stopped him and asked for his stats!
But shamefully it is more my style to take a sneaky photo – here!
[ATTACH]15420[/ATTACH]

Lechmere,

Who is that tall guy? Surely you know his name? I mean everyone knows the name of the Essex giant.

Mike

[Sally]

I'd go a little farther, Sally.

Yes, the circumstances suggest a killer who was known to her.

And at the same time, it is beyond doubt a Ripper murder.

As for Barnett, I agree he is the very image of innocence. Almost a Ripper victim.

Cheers

Nicely done, David

Yes, almost a Ripper victim. But as likely to be the Ripper as any other married for decades with a stable job suspect.

[Phil H]

And at the same time, it is beyond doubt a Ripper murder.

That's a bold statement.

Not true, in the beyond doubt element - except by those who have not studied the case deeply.

Phil

[DVV]

it does look personal. I also think the circumstances of Kelly's death are suggestive of a killer who was known to her in some capacity. I think that's as far a we can go though.

I'd go a little farther, Sally.

Yes, the circumstances suggest a killer who was known to her.

And at the same time, it is beyond doubt a Ripper murder.

As for Barnett, I agree he is the very image of innocence. Almost a Ripper victim.

Cheers

[Phil H]

Sally - we have been here before. My stance has not changed. I do not excuse Barnett, but I do not exonerate him either.

I don't think that on present knowledge we can be certain at what time Kelly died. If it was later on in the morning then did Joe have an alibi? Again, I do not sy he was the killer, I am just not ready to rule him out given our present level of understanding.

Cold logic that's all. I lack your empathy, perhaps sadly.

Phil

[Sally]

Phil - hope you don't mind?

b) whether Barnett's alibi covers all possible times of the murder.

I think unless you think that Kelly was killed in the morning (i.e. following sightings by Maxwell and Luwitz) Barnett's out of the frame.

my judgement is that MJK 's murder bears the hallmarks of something much more personal. I don't think it ties in with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes or even Mckenzie in the slightest. thus I think AN "intimate" (NOT NECESSARILY BARNETT) migh have been her killer.

NOT NECESSARILY BARNETT?

I think we've had this conversation before...

I agree with you Phil - it does look personal. I also think the circumstances of Kelly's death are suggestive of a killer who was known to her in some capacity. I think that's as far a we can go though.

[Cogidubnus]

Irish tenor, Dave ?

Then he could play Flanagan as well.

Good one!

Only good Sally? I think it was bloody superb David!

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

The lack of Fleming references in a way tells its own story.

Certainly.

It tells us that Fleming never came forward, and has most probably not been found.

It doesn't mean he was the Ripper, of course, but hardly proves him innocent either.

[Sally]

Irish tenor, Dave ?

Then he could play Flanagan as well.

Cheers

Good one!

[DVV]

No David...get with it - he's an Irish Tenor, playing both Lechmere and Paul!

All the best

Dave

Irish tenor, Dave ?

Then he could play Flanagan as well.

Cheers