Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

And we can safely speculate that he had more than one eye.

You know, David, one can be one-eyed and be in good bodily health. Moshè Dayan springs to my mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

A man in regular employment earning 30 shillings a week would have no need of a common lodging house. Nor any wish for one, one supposes. Plumber or otherwise.

[Fisherman]

I have no idea what you are up to, David, but I would be very grateful if you refrained from signing your posts off with my signature.

Thank you in advance.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish

No problem. Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont toujours les meilleures.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
One can not know for certain what Fleming's, or for that matter Hutchinson's [ for those conspiracy addicts amongst us] financial /occupation status was in the autumn of 1888.
Fleming was at one time a plasterer[ or labourer] the first named earning reasonable money , the Latter not so.
Hutchinson listed as a occupation a groom, but if the truth was known that was the more fanciful of his normal occupation , which would have come under casual work.
It therefore is not unreasonable to suggest, that both would have seen the Victoria home as a better type of residence.
As for the height of the inmate Fleming/Evans.
Unless proven otherwise we can only go by the documents available , and that clearly states the inmate was 6'7'', unrealistic...for Kelly's ex, maybe?, but not impossible .
Its a fact that a lot of people are too busy living their own lives[ especially so in the east end of 1888] that weight and height were not important.
I have recently lost 60 pounds in weight, due to dieting, but I see people who never comment on it. they apparently see me as Richard, and seem oblivious to the weight loss even though it is clearly noticeable.
So even if Fleming was tall, it is quite likely that no reference was made, by the few people that actually would have been aware of his presence..
To go back to the occupation status.
In the 1960.s I could list my occupations as many, road digging, building site labourer, even a Tannery worker [ complete with maggots] my wages were mediocre , but in the 1970's and beyond,my occupation moved a step forward, and conditions vastly altered...that is what happens in life.
What the Fleming's/Hutchinson's financial , and job status was at the relevant time is unknown, so one can only hazard a guess .. mine being they were not doing so great.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

No problem. Les plaisanteries les plus courtes sont toujours les meilleures.

That is at times true. But in this case it is a question not of merryments but of simple decency, I´m afraid.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hutchinson was a former groom who had known Kelly for about 3 years. Bet you anything you like. I doubt that he was 6' 7" however.

[DVV]

Hutchinson was a former groom who had known Kelly for about 3 years. Bet you anything you like. I doubt that he was 6' 7" however.

"He stood on tiptoe, screwed his neck and looked at me stern."

[Lechmere]

Simon
Every East End lodging house would have been able to accommodate a 6 foot 7 plumber, plasterer, costermonger, dock labourer and groom… all at the same time. There were after all probably up to five East End giants vying for the title as the ‘Tallest Man in England’.

Michael
If for the sake of argument we accept that Mary Kelly really did have an ex called Joseph Fleming and that it was the same one who ended up in the asylum, and he was 6 foot 7 inches tall as the record states…
We have no reason to suppose that anyone known to this case ever saw Fleming.
That is the simple explanation as to why his height wasn’t mentioned, if it was the same man.
Except Kelly and she wasn’t in a position to confirm or deny.
Maybe Kelly didn’t want to mention his height. Maybe she was embarrassed. Who knows?

Sally
Actually if you read the contemporary accounts of the Victoria Home you will find that some people on a good wage liked to live there as it kept them on the straight and narrow. They were worried that if they left that semi regimented and slightly strict environment then they would relapse and spend all their money on drink and lose their job.
It is simply incorrect to say that someone on a decent wage had no need for a common lodging house. People then as now come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, needs, desires and priorities.

Do you believe Hutchinson’s claim to have known Kelly for 3 years?

[Lechmere]

When the:
• 5 people are on my side and only 3 on yours, so I win;
• so and so agrees with me therefore I am right;
• I’m going to argue on and on and on until everyone is bored and I get the last word;
and classically
• you’re only against me as you are trying to promote your own candidate
arguments are deployed it is a sure sign that someone has lost the argument. They are childish, playground, loser gambits.

Ben
I didn’t assert that the police checked the Stone Asylum registers.
You keep making these fundamental errors of comprehension.
I suggested that it is likely that the J Division police in Bethnal Green checked the asylum registers in Bethnal Green from time to time. The asylum registers in Bethnal Green listed everyone who was settled in Bethnal Green who were detained in the various different asylums.

I didn’t contend that Fleming was investigated and cleared.
Another very basic miscomprehension.
I suggested he may have been investigated and cleared in 1888 or thereabouts. That would explain why the police seemingly took no notice of the detention record of someone called Joseph Fleming in 1893. Another explanation is that they did take a look at Evans/Fleming in 1893 but quickly realised it was the wrong one. That wouldn’t be very newsworthy.

Nor have I suggested ever that any investigators would have been able to crystalise guilt beyond reasonable doubt with respect to an asylum inmate.
You have raised this false flag several times. There are several ‘police suspects’. Not one of them had their guilt crystalised beyond reasonable doubt. Kosminski was in an asylum. Yet they were spoken of. If the story of Mary Kelly having an ex who still used to visit her and ill use her had any foundation then I think it is more than likely that the police would have taken an interest and the police are known to have regularly checked the asylum registers where we find James Evans alias Joseph Fleming.

I presume you agree with Sally (it would be a first otherwise) and think that Fleming is a person of interest? Don’t you think he would have been a person of interest in 1888?
We cannot say for sure whether he was ‘checked out’ and cleared in 1888 or thereabouts as so much of the official record is missing.
But we can say that if he wasn’t ‘checked out’ in 1888 it is pretty unlikely that the police will have just shrugged their shoulders and forgotten about him.

Despite your posturing it is clear that the investigation was ongoing after 1893. It is clear that besides a couple of Scotland Yard officers (expressed in later years) no one else thought the case was closed and no one else acted as if the case was closed.

Again to fill you in on some detail, not to be distracted by the Charles Lechmere, although he was indeed the first person on the Bucks Row crime scene, he handed himself in and gave a statement that was believed. No doubt partially because he came forward reasonably promptly. Also being a householder, a family man and in regular employment he did not fit the criminal stereotype that the police were working to.
We know enough about the police investigation and their dealings with Charles Lechmere to be able to safely deduce that he was not closely looked at. You think he was totally innocent, and that his actions were all very explicable and I have no doubt the police shared that view.
The reason the second person on the Bucks Row crime scene (Robert Paul) was dragged through the mill was because he didn’t come forward (he had to be found) and (probably because) the next murder happened yards from where he worked.
Robert Paul also committed the cardinal sin of slagging the police off in print.
Do you see the difference?

Let me inform you about Toppy.
While he was indeed living in a common lodging house off Tottenham Court Road in 1891 as a plumber, throughout the rest of that decade he then proceeded to live as a lodger (and plumber) in the very worst streets in South London – some of which made Dorset Street look positively middle class.
Incidentally we are told that Carmen were supposedly badly paid, yet Charles Lechmere was a householder with a large family and he had enough spare wonga to open businesses.
You have no idea what Fleming as a young plasterer was earning.

You seem to think that erratic oddballs are suitable as grooms, labourers dock workers and costermongers – but not plasterers.
Would an erratic oddball pass muster with Sergeant Badham, Inspector Abberline and assorted journalists? Dew didn’t seem to think Flutchinson was an oddball either.

[Sally]

Do I believe that Hutchinson had known Kelly for 3 years Ed? As I just said so, I guess so. For the moment, that's all I have to say about it. But anyway, off topic. Back to Fleming.

[Lechmere]

Just checking Sally
Some think that is on topic

[Fisherman]

Just checking Sally
Some think that is on topic

Actually, I have to agree with Sally here (there, I said it!). Hutchinson is reasonably distinctly off topic on any Fleming thread.
No connection whatsoever.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Well I agree with you Fisherman ( not that I always agree with you necessarily).
But others I know disagree...
To them everything links together, even when you have to saw someone's legs off to make them 'not tall' to conform with Lewis.

[Fisherman]

Well I agree with you Fisherman ( not that I always agree with you necessarily).
But others I know disagree...
To them everything links together, even when you have to saw someone's legs off to make them 'not tall' to conform with Lewis.

To be honest, it IS a theory where some serious sawing needs to be applied...!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. How do I go about disagreeing with you on the point that we don´t always agree?