Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[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

[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...

[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.

[DVV]

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

That's a bold statement.

Phil

No, that's not.

There was more, much more than a consensus in 1888, and among researchers as well.

A handful of modern deconstructionists does not represent the doxa.

It's their position that has to be considered "bold", not to say outlandish.

I'll therefore keep assuming MJK was a Ripper victim without carefully chosen phrases.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Gotta try and relay this. Apologies.

The copycat notion, basically at all, but specifically right now, to " MJK" is almost completely ridiculous. Now, if one suggests that her murderer WAS an intimate and exacted this damage on her due to an intense rage/passion/whatever I can get with that. The notion of someone, not being "the ripper" and trying to make it look like a killing of said individual is assenine. Sorry, but killing someone then being like, "damn, I don't wanna get caught. I know! I'll stay here and deconstruct this body to cover my tracks!" is just ludicrous. It's not just a murder. It is destruction by deconstruction. So lingering and going to the extent that it was taken to is just way removed from anything likely. It was madness. I emplore anyone who buys into the copycat notion to go back and stare at that picture for one full hour. It is hell in that room. A hell to be more accurate. There are many. Think about the stuff it takes to accomplish that. It is no small task. Feel free to fire at Will. That way I take no damage. Heh heh heh.

[Phil H]

However the broad consensus

There was more, much more than a consensus in 1888, and among researchers as well.

Other than as a description of a current situation, a snapshot (if you will) of the conventional wisdom - when has a concensus ever meant anything?

if the concesus is WRONG it is valueless.

If the concensus declines to think freely or consider new ideas it is an obstruction.

If new facts emerge then the concensus has to change.

Lechmere - you still miss my point. I couldn't care less whether Barnett satisfied Abberline or the Archangel Gabriel - from the information available to me I consider it entirely possible that an intimate killed Kelly. Barnett was such an intimate, as were Flemming and now perhaps Morgenstern, maybe others. We do not have the file and thus we must draw our own conclusions. I differ from you, as on so much.

The copycat notion, basically at all, but specifically right now, to " MJK" is almost completely ridiculous.

If you say so, Digalittledeeperwatson. I disagree.

The notion of someone, not being "the ripper" and trying to make it look like a killing of said individual is assenine.

Well, there are plenty of such people around. I don't consider myself one of them.

Sorry, but killing someone then being like, "damn, I don't wanna get caught. I know! I'll stay here and deconstruct this body to cover my tracks!" is just ludicrous.

Your opinion.

I emplore anyone who buys into the copycat notion to go back and stare at that picture for one full hour.

A HOUR! I have been studying and looking at that picture for decades.

My view has not changed.

I'll therefore keep assuming MJK was a Ripper victim without carefully chosen phrases.

I cannot do anything to help closed minds, DVV.
Phil

[DVV]

I cannot do anything to help closed minds, DVV.
Phil

Oh, the Parthian shot !

I'm hurt.

I'm crying.

And still I'm not ready to open my mind to ridiculous theories, such as MJK's murder being a copycat work, or a mere domestic affair.

[DVV]

Domestic rules

I've just shown my wife the crime scene pics of Miller's Court.

So that she knows what will happen next time she forgets to buy beer.

[Cogidubnus]

You mean you get angry, inflate to 6ft 7ins and turn green?

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

And still I'm not ready to open my mind to ridiculous theories, such as MJK's murder being a copycat work, or a mere domestic affair.

Or to open it to anything else it seems!! But it was ever thus.

I don't say it WAS a copycat, DVV - I am simply prepared to entertain that idea along with others.

I recently saw a quote from Trollope - a clergyman (one of his characters) said something like, "I have a mind that and see two conflicting opinions and agree with both of them".

While I am usually a little more decisive than that, Ripper studies draw on a relatively sparse basis of information. More than one interpretation can be derived from it and be plausible. I find it perfectly possible to hold in thought more than one interpretation both generally and specifically (i.e. about the whole case, and details within it).

I recommend it as an approach.

Phil

Phil

[Fisherman]

Posted on another thread just now:

"DEATH OF "JACK THE RIPPER.

For about two years past there has been a man whose name has never been ascertained, but who has been termed "Jack the Ripper," living in the neighbourhood of Upper Holloway. He was a tall, very thin, and strange individual, and was in the habit of walking at a very fast pace, and in an eccentric way through Highgate and the northern suburbs. It appears that a short time ago he was sent to the Islington Infirmary as a wandering lunatic and died two days after, He was frequently asked why he walked at such a pace and in such a manner, and always replied that he did so for the benefit of his health and that the doctor had told him he must expand his lungs."

The Sheffield Evening Telegraph and Star, 17 July 1890

Tall, very thin and taken off the streets as a wandering lunatic ...

Well, well. They probably misheard "very thick" for very thin. That would explain it.

Fisherman
understanding

[Sally]

You mean you get angry, inflate to 6ft 7ins and turn green?

All the best

Dave

Fleming, as we've established, was in fact an ent - so I imagine something very like this actually happening when he got angry....

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

Tall, thin... and in very bad health.

Thanks !

[DVV]

I recently saw a quote from Trollope - a clergyman (one of his characters) said something like, "I have a mind that and see two conflicting opinions and agree with both of them".

While I am usually a little more decisive than that, Ripper studies draw on a relatively sparse basis of information. More than one interpretation can be derived from it and be plausible. I find it perfectly possible to hold in thought more than one interpretation both generally and specifically (i.e. about the whole case, and details within it).

I recommend it as an approach.

Phil

Phil

The quote from Clouseau, which has been The Good Mike's signature until it got replaced by "Uh ?", springs to my mind.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Tall, thin... and in very bad health.

Thanks !

It does not say that, David. It says his doctor recommended him to "expand his lungs", and that he walked at a very fast pace - the way sick people DON`T walk ...

Yes, he did die at the infirmary - but does it say from what? Are you just ... "concluding" things, the way you often do? You know, like when things get established "beyond doubt" and heights get altered:

Thereīs this fellow from Bethnal Green
whose height differed from the mean
Disallowed to be skinny
(such a thing would be sinny)
he was shortened by those who were keen

to have Hutchinson as a crook
They would rewrite any book
that said Evans was tall
(didnīt suit them at all!)
so they gave him a fresh, new look!

All the best,
Fisherman