Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

Lechmere - we established long ago that what satisfies YOu are evidence would not satisfy me.

Well, I haven’t checked for exact sources

Precisely.

but I know Abberline interrogated Barnett for a long time. I believe they checked his alibi (a Bishopsgate Lodging House), and most damningly checked his clothes for blood.

What we don't know is:

a) whether the police were looking for the killer of MJK ONLY, or the killer of several linked victims - I think you'll admit there is a difference? and

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

Clearly the police did ‘check out’ Barnett, which strongly suggests he was held under a degree of suspicion - however briefly.

They would have to have been singularly incompetent not to have considered the recently estranged lover of the victim. Interviewing barnett is one thing - investigating him is another.

My guess (when I guess I will signal it!) is that for each Whitechapel murder the police were to an extent open minded enough to investigate whether it was a domestic or had some other motive and was not part of the random series.

Thank you for being explicit - but you have it right - it is a guess!!! Not good enough in my book - but each to his own.

But then I am not sure that the police really understood the nature of seemingly random serial killings (and it is my firm assumption that this is what they were dealing with).

Fine - 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.

As for tracing Fleming – we don’t know that he was using an alias. He checked into the Whitechapel Workhouse in 1889 under his real name and signed on at the census in 1891 under his real name. We only know of him using an alias when he was mad in 1892. If this was the same person of course!

Your last sentence says it all.

But whoever Fleming was, he was relatively local. I’m sure the police will have asked around a lot and some people would have known him by his real name if he was going under a false name. It was a crowded area but he was a local. It is considerably less easy to hide under an alias very close to an area where you were born and bred – obviously.

Define "local" please.

For example Robert Paul was found. Clearly it took a bit of doing but they found him – although admittedly he didn’t use a false name.

LOL

If Fleming had been sought (as sensibly he would have been, unless he was eliminated as a person of interest for some other reason – such as that Barnett was mistaken) and the search was unsuccessful, then I think one of the policemen would have mentioned it in their reminiscences.

Kosminski was not named in any memoirs, only in Swanson's marginalia. We all missed references to him by Anderson and others. Druitt appears in no memoirs - I beg to differ with your assumption. Sorry.

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

I shudder to think what implications you read into that or which draw you to make such a statement.

Phil

[DVV]

Here you are, Lechmere.

Taking pics of tall and skinny fellows in the streets...

For the record, Fleming would have been in his time as remarkable as a 2m13 tall guy in 2013.

Hope you understand the difference. It's quite a signicant one.

By the way, you should have asked that long skinny fellow about his trade. I'd be surprised if he was a dock labourer, or anything that requires great physical strength.

As for Fleming/Evans, I personally very much doubt he was the one found in the 1891 census, although he could be - and that would make little difference.

I've pointed out several times that you had nothing to contest the firmly established identification of Fleming/Evans with MJK's ex.

And still you have nothing - unless you find a better candidate.

All we have at the present time is one Edward Joseph Flemming, whose trade and whereabouts do not match Kelly's ex.

Therefore, for the time being, there is nothing you can do except accepting that Fleming/Evans was, in all probability, MJK's ex - whatever his heght might have been.

It has been established way beyond reasonable doubt.

But IF, in the future, you're able to present a better candidate - another plasterer from Bethnal Green called Joseph Fleming, that means, I'd readily reconsider the matter.

As I said, Fleming isn't my alias on boards and I'm not married to my fav suspect.

But until that unlikely discovery, you've better stop posting on the subject.

As for the use of an alias, that is mere speculation of your behalf. IF Fleming was the Ripper, there was nothing easier than dossing in the VH under an alias in Automn 1888. And that he had ceased to use that alias in Nov 89, which is, after the series of murders, would be no surprise either.

[Lechmere]

Phil
“I know nothing about any investigation of Barnett.”

Well, I haven’t checked for exact sources but I know Abberline interrogated Barnett for a long time. I believe they checked his alibi (a Bishopsgate Lodging House), and most damningly checked his clothes for blood.
Clearly the police did ‘check out’ Barnett, which strongly suggests he was held under a degree of suspicion - however briefly.

Did this suggest that the police suspected (if briefly) Barnett for just the Kelly killing or as the culprit for all of them?
My guess (when I guess I will signal it!) is that for each Whitechapel murder the police were to an extent open minded enough to investigate whether it was a domestic or had some other motive and was not part of the random series. But then I am not sure that the police really understood the nature of seemingly random serial killings (and it is my firm assumption that this is what they were dealing with).

As for tracing Fleming – we don’t know that he was using an alias. He checked into the Whitechapel Workhouse in 1889 under his real name and signed on at the census in 1891 under his real name. We only know of him using an alias when he was mad in 1892. If this was the same person of course!

But whoever Fleming was, he was relatively local. I’m sure the police will have asked around a lot and some people would have known him by his real name if he was going under a false name. It was a crowded area but he was a local. It is considerably less easy to hide under an alias very close to an area where you were born and bred – obviously.

For example Robert Paul was found. Clearly it took a bit of doing but they found him – although admittedly he didn’t use a false name. Interestingly Dew forgot that Paul had been found and mentions the search in his memoirs.
If Fleming had been sought (as sensibly he would have been, unless he was eliminated as a person of interest for some other reason – such as that Barnett was mistaken) and the search was unsuccessful, then I think one of the policemen would have mentioned it in their reminiscences. Or one would have sold the story to the press – they were prone to doing that.
The lack of Fleming references in a way tells its own story.

DVV
I hope you have calmed down now.
I have in fact gone into considerable detail with respect to the Fleming and Evans/Fleming evidence.
I am sorry if this has made you uncomfortable in you Fleming skin.
I hope you are able to stick to the evidence and avoid these insults.

Is it now regarded as wrong, or bad form, for a proposer of one culprit to pick apart the case for a ‘rival’ culprit?
I most certainly have never employed that complaint when different people have vigorously cross-examined me about Charles Lechmere and quite frankly I would be ashamed of myself if I did resort to that objection.
I would regard it as an admission that my case was poor and time to admit I was wrong!

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!

[Cogidubnus]

Killeen

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

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

As I am currently doing with Killeen.

Killeen the carman ?
Highly suspicious if you ask me.

[Sally]

David - our posts crossed there.

But yes, trying to do away with other suspects not favoured by oneself is a futile, and one might even suggest, worryingly obsessive pursuit.

An exercise in futility. Far better to spend one's time strenghening the case for one's own favoured suspect.

As I am currently doing with Killeen.

[Sally]

David -

I see your point. But be careful of introducing other suspects into this thread. Otherwise it will doubtless go horribly wrong and we'll end up discussing somebody else altogether.

I agree that we should all be able to discuss suspect theory without all the finger pointing and name calling.

It makes the participants look like lunatics.

[DVV]

Really?

This is what this thread has come to? Playground insults?

Yes. When you dare to discuss a suspect whose name isn't Cross, Ed Machin becomes furious. And stupid.

[DVV]

Lechmere is a perfect example of a desperate fanatic.

He has no fav suspect : he has solved the case.

Indeed, he has chosen to call himself "Lechmere" aka Charles Cross.

And Cross-Lechmere being the Ripper beyond doubt in his monomaniac opinion, he is stupidly posting on a Fleming thread just to ridicule, without arguments nor real will to discuss, any suspect whose name is not Charles Cross-Lechmere.

He is not ashamed to argue that Fleming/Evans wasn't MJK's ex - as if Chris Scott, Debs, Neal Shelden, Ben, Harry, Sally, I and many others were nothing but ignorant nuts.

He doesn't realize that his own suspect is a million times less credible than Fleming. (Indeed, he has already convinced in brother-in-law, as I've pointed out).

He doesn't want to discuss anything : he's here to say : "Fleming was 6'7, and MJK's ex was somebody else whose name was most probably not Fleming".

Well, I suppose everybody has the right to show no interest in suspect threads.

But if I was to jump at the throat of anybody who wants to discuss a candidacy, I'd just be a fool. In fact, I'd be Lechmere.

For example : I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper. But he is part of the story and I follow every thread that relates to his candidacy.
I've even bought and carefully read Rob's book.

How stupid would I be if I were posting 10 times per day to mock Kosminski's candidacy. How childish. But that is just what Lechmere is doing here.

We all know that there are hundreds of suspects. And when you favour one of them, it follows that dozens of casebookers disagree.

But let's mock or ignore those who are just here to make money out of a sensational suspect (Van Gogh, MacNaghten, etc), and let's discuss peacefully any other theory.

Contrary to Lechmere, I've not registrered with my suspect as an alias, I'm genuinely fascinated by the case, and truly amused by his posting.

[Sally]

Really?

This is what this thread has come to? Playground insults?

[DVV]

Don't forget to call your mum when you want to blow your nose.

[Lechmere]

Have they let you put the playground yet?

[DVV]

Phil
DVD suggested Cadosch - I was replying to him.
but cadosch as a suspect has been floated - not by me.

No regrets, Lechmore.
Your suspect is as bad as Cadosch.

[DVV]

and the same goes for Morganstone, Mccarthy, Kidney, Hutchinson, Fleming, and a host of others. All were checked out and their stories made sense. Couldn't have been otherwise. Lies may have been told, but the alibis rang true. We have no information because we only have inquest information which isn't really information as much as they were formalities.

Mike

Ah. Oh. Uh.

I'm glad to learn Fleming had been checked out and had an alibi.

Don't bother quoting your sources, Mike. What for ?

However, all I know is that he has been referred to at the inquest by two witnesses.

That he used to visit Mary, was jealous and probably violent, and did not show up.

Wait.

Perhaps he did, after all.

[The Good Michael]

Have it your way and I'll have it mine. We don't have to agree.

Your analogy though is IMHO flawed. A policeman on his beat is routine - it can be assumed to happen unless we know there was some disruption.

Checking out leads is routine as well. I never said all people were found, but they most assuredly were looked for to someone's level of satisfaction. If they weren't sought for questioning, the job wasn't done.

Mike