Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

DVV
Spare me your moralising.

Not yet.

What you said was both silly and dishonest.

You know it is said "she was very fond of him", not the reverse.

Distorting evidence to that extent is immoral.

[Garry Wroe]

So the expectation - in this hypothetical instance - would be that 1 in 200 adult male East Enders would stand taller than 6' 6".

And such a projection is based upon a standard deviation of four inches. Reduce the standard deviation and Fleming's z-score becomes even more extreme. In other words there were very few 6' 7" men to be found in the late-Victorian East End.

[The Good Michael]

Except of course, that Kelly was not thought by those who knew her while she was living with Barnett to be prostituting herself - at least not until he lost his job - and even then it seems to have been a bone of contention between them.

Nuts. Look what Venturney said: I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have known the person occupying No.13 for about 4 months.I knew the man who I saw downstairs [[[Joseph Barnett]]] he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her going out on the streets,

He did not like her going out on the streets. Why would he say this if she wasn't selling herself? Maybe it was a dangerous area for her to go out and get an ice cream?

Mike

[DVV]

In answer to an earlier point you made, whatever may or may not have caused Kosminski’s dramatic weight loss while he was an inmate – twice the proportion compared to Evans Fleming – it was not commented on in his medical records. Just as Fleming’s lesser weight loss was not commented on.

I guess he wasn't described as in "good health" after his "dramatic weight loss".

And since you don't know how tall he was, this is a fairly bad example for comparison.

[Sally]

She was as nice a woman as one could find, and although she was an unfortunate, I don't think she went on the streets whilst she lived with Barnet.

- Elizabeth Foster.

Nothing in what Venturney said contradicts what we know from other sources - that Kelly returned to the streets when Barnett lost his job and that he didn't like it. It was her association with prostitutes that caused him to leave her, in fact.

Given that, one wonders how they lived quite happily up to that point if she was habitually working the streets.

[Lechmere]

Sally

When I said
“I thought you were presenting yourself as a neutral disinterested observer.”
I was clearly using the word ‘disinterested’ to mean ‘Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.’
The clue was my adjacent use of the word ‘neutral’.

Yes Fleming is interesting it as it is a loose end.
We cannot say for sure that Kelly really had an ex called Joe Fleming as the source that tells us about him is unreliable and the associated sources (e.g. Venturney and McCarthy are less than precise in the corroborative details they provide.)

From Barnett’s inquest testimony we have: "She (Kelly) told me that in Pennington Street she lived at one time with a Morganstone, and with Joseph Flemming, she was very fond of him. He was a mason's plasterer. He lived in Bethnal Green Road. She told me all this, but I do not know which she lived with last, Flemming used to visit her."

Venturney said at the inquest: "Deceased (Kelly) said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money. I think he was a costermonger and she said she was very fond of him."
Venturney also made a statement saying: “she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett).”
Mrs. McCarthy said: "when she left the place (she) went to live with a man who was apparently in the building trade and who she (Mrs. McCarthy) believed would have married her."

And that’s it.
It is possible to stitch these stories together into a whole but it is equally possible that they are unconnected.

And we have Kelly being fond of costermonger Joe – who gave her money. What do you suppose costermonger Joe gave Kelly the prostitute money for? He used to regularly visit. He was regular. Prostitutes often get fond of their regulars. Regulars often start to think that the prostitute is their girlfriend. A messy situation that can lead to ‘ill-using’.

We also know that at least one man (in Ben Tillett’s memoirs) adopted the name Fleming in preference to Flanagan, to avoid any anti Irish sentiments. Hence the man Kelly called Fleming may have really been called something else and is in the census records under another name.

Fleming is indeed of interest now – it makes sense that he would have been of interest back in 1888 and thereafter if he was not tracked down.
It doesn’t make sense for anyone to claim otherwise.
We know that the police were alive to the possibility that Kelly may have been a ‘domestic’.
It is reasonable to presume that they would have made some sort of effort to locate Fleming – whether he existed or not.
Let’s presume they failed.

In the Bethnal Green "List of Lunatics in the Various Asylums" is the following entry under name of lunatic:
Evans James and next to it Joseph Fleming alias Jas. Evans
The Date of Admission was 17th October 1893

We know that the police checked the asylum registers.
Do you think they blundered and missed this entry?
After allowing Fleming under his Evans alias to slip through their fingers in 1892?

The twice lucky madman.

[DVV]

And such a projection is based upon a standard deviation of four inches. Reduce the standard deviation and Fleming's z-score becomes even more extreme. In other words there were very few 6' 7" men to be found in the late-Victorian East End.

Right, Garry.

I was brought up in a small town of about 8000 people, and our tallest citizen, quite famous for his height, was only 6'6 and even less (195cm exactly).

And that wasn't in the forest of Central Africa.

[The Good Michael]

"She (Kelly) told me that in Pennington Street she lived at one time with a Morganstone, and with Joseph Flemming, she was very fond of him. He was a mason's plasterer. He lived in Bethnal Green Road. She told me all this, but I do not know which she lived with last, Flemming used to visit her."

Venturney said at the inquest: "Deceased (Kelly) said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money. I think he was a costermonger and she said she was very fond of him."
Venturney also made a statement saying: “she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe, and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe (Barnett).”
Mrs. McCarthy said: "when she left the place (she) went to live with a man who was apparently in the building trade and who she (Mrs. McCarthy) believed would have married her."

And that’s it.

Wait Lechmere. You left out the part where they all met Fleming and knew he wasn't 6'7"..or was. You also left out the part where they described his facial features, his place(s) of employment, his mental illness, his tea time, and any other details...oh, you mean they never did mention anything? Never mind.

Mike

[DVV]

After allowing Fleming under his Evans alias to slip through their fingers in 1892?

The twice lucky madman.

Do you seriously think they were still after Fleming in 1892 ?
Even if they were open to the possibility of a domestic murder in Nov 1888, that was nothing to compare with the JtR theory.

No need to be lucky in 92 and 93.
Absolutely no need.

[Lechmere]

Debra
You raise the prospect that Fleming’s real age would probably have been sent to Stone and hence there was opportunity to amend the incorrect record on his ‘sheet’ in the Stone case book.

It will be instructive to look at what happened.

A Joseph Fleming was detained by the City of London Police as he was found wandering (on Upper Thames Street?) and taken to Bishopsgate Police Station.
From there, on 30th June 1892 he was sent to the City of London Poor Law Union Infirmary which was on Bow Road.
This Joseph Fleming must have given his name as James Evans, his address as the Victoria Home, Commercial Street (which was within the Whitechapel Poor Law Union) and his age as 37. These details were recorded at this stage. However he did not provide evidence of settlement.
He was assessed as being a lunatic and swiftly sent to the City of London Asylum at Stone on 4th July 1892.
His age was again recorded as being 37 in their Case Book.
The costs associated with Evans/Fleming being an inmate at Stone were met by the Common Fund of the City of London Poor Law Union, as he had not provided evidence of ‘settlement’ in Whitechapel or elsewhere.

On 3rd February 1893 Evans/Fleming seemed to be free from his delusions and was recommended for discharge, but he suffered a relapse on 13th February 1893 and his release was cancelled.

Something prompted the City of London Union to investigate Evans/Fleming to establish whether they should be meeting the costs associated with his detention.
Their investigations established that he was born on or about 17th March 1859 in Wellington Street (now Cyprus Street), Bethnal Green, the son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming. His date of baptism and his mother’s address was also known to the City of London Union ‘investigator’, who was probably based at the City of London Union’s Office’s at 61 Bartholomew Close EC1 (near Smithfield Market and St Bart’s Hospital).
On 17th October 1893 the City of London Union formally established that the costs associated with Evans/Fleming should have been chargeable to Bethnal Green as he never had ’settlement’ in the City of London.

Evans/Fleming is listed as a lunatic on the books of Bethnal Green from 17th October 1893, although he remained at the City of London Asylum at Stone until 14th February 1895 when he was transferred to the London County Lunatic Asylum, Claybury which had opened in May 1893.
The Claybury Annual Returns of Lunatics Chargeable to Bethnal Green always listed Evans/Flemings age in conformity with that given on the Stone Case Book. Similarly his year of birth in other Claybury records is given as 1854 which fits with an age of 37 in 1892.
Evans/Fleming was listed in the 1911 census as being 56 (agreeing with the 37 age in 1892) and as a dock labourer (agreeing with his occupation in 1889 when he had been briefly admitted to the Whitechapel Poor Law Union Infirmary under his real name of Joseph Fleming and his correct age).
Evans/Fleming died at Claybury on 28th August 1920 and was listed as being 65 years old. This conforms with his age being thought to be 37 in 1892.

But Evans/Fleming was 32 when he was admitted in 1892. He was 60 when he died, not 65.
He was born in 1859, not 1854.
Evans Fleming can be traced with his birthdate in 1859 in the 1881 census (when he was a plasterer living in lodgings in 61 Crozier Terrace in Homerton) and the 1891 census (when he was a general labourer living in a lodging house in Victoria Park Square in Bethnal Green).

Claybury clearly took their information on Evans/Fleming’s age from the City of London Union. Whether from Stone or from Bartholomew Close or perhaps the Bow Road Infirmary is not clear.
Nevertheless it is certain that Joseph Fleming’s true age as discovered when the City of London Union established that settlement should be with Bethnal Green was never entered against his personal records. Otherwise logically Claybury would have known his true age.

There is no reason to suppose that the details of the City of London Union’s investigation into Evans/Fleming’s settlement would have been passed on to Stone.
The Stone Case Book records do not even mention that settlement had been established to lie with Bethnal Green, although it might be thought that Stone would logically have been informed of the outcome.
The City of London Union would have to pass on the accumulated charges for Evans/Flemings care to Bethnal Green and thereafter submit regular accounts.

In short there is no reason to suppose that Stone was made aware of the incorrect age.
If for some reason they had been sent a copy of the City of London Union’s investigation, then there is no particular reason that they would have amended the age entry in the Case Book.
The age in the investigationwould have been given indirectly, as a date of birth. To realise the age was wrong would require a calculation. That would be easy to miss.

The point of all this is that raising the spectre of Evans/Fleming’s age being misrepresented on his Case Book entry to throw doubt upon the height entry is a non-starter.

The height is something visible every time Evans/Fleming was seen.
We do not know if the correct date of birth was forwarded to Stone (or Claybury).
If it was forwarded, to amend the Case Book entry a calculation would have to be made. The person responsible would have had to have had reason to look at the age in the Case Book and realise it was wrong.
The incorrect age was given as at admission (i.e. 37 in July 1892) which would have required another calculation to establish his rough false date of birth.

If Stone was forwarded the true date of birth that was established as a result of the City of London Union enquiry, then one would guess that at best the document it was written on would have been cross referenced with the Stone Case Book entry once.
This is in stark contrast to the blatant height ‘mistake’ which would have been there for anyone to see every time the Case Book entry was amended and the weight taken.

Comparing the incorrect age and the height record is not comparing like with like.

There is another interesting aspect to this.
When did Henrietta Fleming ‘claim’ her son?

[Sally]

Sally

When I said
“I thought you were presenting yourself as a neutral disinterested observer.”
I was clearly using the word ‘disinterested’ to mean ‘Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.’
The clue was my adjacent use of the word ‘neutral’.

Ok Ed. Sorry, I misunderstood. But just for the record, my position is this: I cannot possibly expect to align myself with any particular suspect at the present time; because so far as I can see, there is insufficient evidence to pin on any particular individual. I understand that you disagree - and fair enough. For myself I lack the faith in what we currently know that would be necessary for me to favour a specific suspect.

That said, some are clearly better than others. Yours, for instance, (without wanting to stray too far off topic) at least has the advantage in that we know he was at a murder scene - more than can be said of Prince Eddy, or Vincent Van Gogh - and yes, we (rightly) laugh at the idea of considering them suspects, but the former has certainly been taken seriously in the public imagination in the past.

Yes Fleming is interesting it as it is a loose end.
We cannot say for sure that Kelly really had an ex called Joe Fleming as the source that tells us about him is unreliable and the associated sources (e.g. Venturney and McCarthy are less than precise in the corroborative details they provide.)

Do you mean that Barnett was uneliable? Can you explain why?

From Barnett’s inquest testimony we have: "She (Kelly) told me that in Pennington Street she lived at one time with a Morganstone, and with Joseph Flemming, she was very fond of him. He was a mason's plasterer. He lived in Bethnal Green Road. She told me all this, but I do not know which she lived with last, Flemming used to visit her."

Yes. And now it appears that Kelly did live in Pennington Street with a man called 'Morganstone'. There was also a mason's plasterer called Joseph Fleming, from Bethnal Green,who we know was in Whitechapel from August/September 1888.

I think we probably can say for sure - beyond reasonable doubt - that Kelly had an ex called Joseph Fleming from Bethnal Green.

It is reasonable to suppose that this is the same man in the building trade to whom 'Mrs' McCarthy referred.

And we have Kelly being fond of costermonger Joe – who gave her money. What do you suppose costermonger Joe gave Kelly the prostitute money for? He used to regularly visit. He was regular. Prostitutes often get fond of their regulars. Regulars often start to think that the prostitute is their girlfriend. A messy situation that can lead to ‘ill-using’.

Well, for a start we don't know for certain that he was a costermonger. We have to consider that he may have been. As for the money - again, we don't know that Kelly was prostituting herself until shortly before her death - while she was living with Barnett, I mean; I don't think there's any doubt at all that she was living as a prostitute prior to that. The 'other' Joe may have given her money for sex. If he knew her well, he may have given her money out of friendship. I think that's possible.

Your scenario above is possible though - I don't think we can be sure that the 'other' Joe was Joseph Fleming - a degree of caution is warranted there. Then again, I think Fleming would fit the description that we have well enought. As an previous boyfriend, living in Whitechapel, he may well have visited Kelly and given her money. He certainly can't be ruled out.

We also know that at least one man (in Ben Tillett’s memoirs) adopted the name Fleming in preference to Flanagan, to avoid any anti Irish sentiments. Hence the man Kelly called Fleming may have really been called something else and is in the census records under another name.

I think that's the weakest part of your argument here. It would be stretching coincidence to breaking point in my view.

Fleming is indeed of interest now – it makes sense that he would have been of interest back in 1888 and thereafter if he was not tracked down.
It doesn’t make sense for anyone to claim otherwise.
We know that the police were alive to the possibility that Kelly may have been a ‘domestic’.
It is reasonable to presume that they would have made some sort of effort to locate Fleming – whether he existed or not.
Let’s presume they failed.

Absolutely - I'm sure the police looked for Fleming. They may of course have found him, questioned him, and eliminated him from their enquiries. We are hardly in a position to say what happened as we lack so much of the contemporary documentation in the case.

If they didn't find him, the most likely cause in my view would be that he was living under an alias.

In the Bethnal Green "List of Lunatics in the Various Asylums" is the following entry under name of lunatic:
Evans James and next to it Joseph Fleming alias Jas. Evans
The Date of Admission was 17th October 1893

We know that the police checked the asylum registers.
Do you think they blundered and missed this entry?
After allowing Fleming under his Evans alias to slip through their fingers in 1892?

The twice lucky madman

Well, I concede that the police may have checked this entry - if they were still looking for Fleming in 1893. By then, for example, they may have thought that they had their man - and if it wasn't Fleming, why shoudl they have any further interest in him?

In another scenario, let's say the police always suspected Fleming but didn't have any luck finding him - he was living under an alias. Later on, when he was living in the asylum, they found him. What then? Question the lunatic? Ah - but since he was crazy, how could they have known whether what he told them was in any way true? No conviction would stand on the testimony of a lunatic - and one presumes that even if the above happened (and it is, highly hypothetical) there was insufficient evidence to convict him outright. Leaving him where he was, a lunatic who would never be a liberty to kill again, may well have been the best option.

Wait a minute - this is starting to sound like Kosminsky!

Stream of consciousnes posts...

So, to summarise: I don't know if Fleming was the Ripper. I doubt, personally, that we'll ever know who was. If we are to live in hope, however, the only way forward is through research. Most of that will come to nothing - and we shoudl expect that. Occasionally, we will discover something new.

In my view:

Claybury Fleming was, beyond reasonable doubt, Kelly's ex.

The 'other' Joe may well have been Fleming - but there exists the possibility that he was not.

Mrs Carthy and Mrs Phoenix almost certainly knew Fleming.

Fleming may, or may not, have been 6' 7". There is no way to tell whether the entry is correct, or not, since we have no corroborating evidence. On a ststistical basis, it is unlikely.

[DVV]

When it looks like a mistake (6'7 at that time and in that social class), smells like a mistake (6'7 tall, 11st, good health), sounds like a mistake (a giant nobody remembers), well, you know what ? - it's most probably a mistake.

[Sally]

Probably, yes. I've said that all along.

Maybe I could've phrased it better: It can't be proven - either way. I say that because this thread has been dominated by assertions that it can.

My particular favourite being the 'it's written down so it must be true' argument

[DVV]

My particular favourite being the 'it's written down so it must be true' argument

Mine is : "The Coroner didn't ask Barnett how tall Fleming was."

Together with : "Peter Crouch is doing fine."

But not forgetting Flanagan (tsoin tsoin !).

Oh, in fact I can't choose. There are too many.

[Lechmere]

I'm not familiar with the 'it's written down so it must be true argument'
I am familiar with the 'in the context in which it was written then on the balance of probabilities it is likely to be true'.