Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Sally]

Men who we know went on to have long, boring, and utterly stable lives containing jobs, wives and children can still be put up as the Ripper apparently. Baffling - but true.

if you are referring to my views on Barnett (as a possible suspect) - then I have never signed up to believing that "Jack" went on to have a stable life.

But there must be many men who kill a wife, girlfriend, partner whatever, get away with it and do just that. I do not see why Barnett may not have killed MJK ONLY, and never killed again.

Phil

Thanks Phil, but I wasn't particularly referring to Barnett, nor to your personal views. My point was really that it takes very little to make a man a suspect in Ripperology. I didn't intend to offend you.

[Ben]

To the modern reader yes, who can only access his role out of ignorance, but not to the police at the time.

Go away, Jon.

[Wickerman]

How is it possible to unconsciously adhere to a suspect Mike?

Mike didn't say that, read what he said again....slowly.

[Phil H]

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

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]

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

[DVV]

I'd say he was Joseph Fleming

[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]

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.

[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]

. 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]

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

[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]

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

[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