Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

Your scholarly skills - precision, attention to detail, consistency - are legendary, harry.

Or is that mythical?

[Lechmere]

Fleming isn't the worst suspect but his status depends on linking barnett''s story to McCarthy's to Venturney's - and this can't be proven - it is conjecture no matter how it is dressed up.
Iris dependent on this Fleming being Evans/Fleming and this can't be proven no matter how it is dressed up.
it is up to the Fleming theorists to prove these things and I don't think they ever will be able to which means Fleming can never be a major or serious suspect.
He is just a name that appears in the story and cannot even be placed at a single murder scene at the time.
his recorded height us yet another problem and it us up to the theorists to disprove the written record - which I suspect they will never be able to do.

Lastly the Fleming theorists must believe that the city and Bethnal green police both missed Evans /Fleming in 1893 as they had stopped looking for a culprit. The politeness also have failed to find Fleming in 1888.

For me that is a lot to swallow. Bit that's just me!

The Flutchinson theory - now that is to be counted alongside Van Gogh.

I passed Stone asylum today - I didn't realise it was so near Bluewater shopping centre.
I think it is now called Victoria Park and is a nice looking housing development that seems to be nearing completion.

[Scott Nelson]

You couldn't have a 6-ft 7-inch dock worker. He'd be hitting his head on too many things.

[Lechmere]

Scott
I rather think that should be regarded as less than conclusive.

[DVV]

DVV - as so often you are misguided. Just MHO of course.


Phil

From somebody who baselessly suggests that Fleming/Evans wasn't MJK's ex, that is a compliment.

Thanks.

[DVV]

11st8lbs

You couldn't have a 6-ft 7-inch dock worker. He'd be hitting his head on too many things.

And he would rick his back every morning.

[Phil H]

From somebody who baselessly suggests that Fleming/Evans wasn't MJK's ex

I never do anything "baselessly" - I just reach different conclusions to you.

Neither have I ever suggested that "Flemming" was not MJK's lover - I simply take the view that the association with Evans has yet to be conclusively proved - a different thing. One issue being the height of the man put away.

Phil

[DVV]

He is just a name that appears in the story and cannot even be placed at a single murder scene at the time.

Excellent argument, Lechmere.

No doubt, MJK's ex, who started dossing in Whitechapel in September 88, used to visit and ill-use MJK out of jealousy and spent his last 28 years in an asylum is a worse suspect than Cadosh.

Such a bad suspect that you insist the police were still feverishly looking for him in 1893.

Keep us posted.

[Lechmere]

I quite agree Fleming's a better candidate than cadosch in the 'league table'.
but your list of grounds for suspicion is all speculative with no concrete foundation.
if your hypothesis about Fleming is true then indeed the police should have been looking for him in 1893 as he would not have been eliminated from their enquiry and there would've grounds for suspecting he could have been involved in a domestic dispute with Kelly that got out of hand. They clearly investigated Barnett on that basis.
my personal guess would be that the character of fleming was cleared or eliminated from the enquiry back in 1888,. Whether he existed as such and whether he was Evans/Fleming I have no idea.p

[Phil H]

Is Cadosche a suspect at all? If so advanced by whom and on what basis?

I know his integrity has been questioned in the last couple of years - but REALLY as the killer....?

[Phil H]

enquiry and there would've grounds for suspecting he could have been involved in a domestic dispute with Kelly that got out of hand. They clearly investigated Barnett on that basis.

Did they - why clearly?

I know nothing about any invesitgation of Barnett.

It is indeed common sense to assume that Joe had an alibi for the MJK killing, but if the police believed that the same man was responsible for all (5?) then if joe had an alibi for any one of them the police might have dropped further enquiries.

But the wider point here is a difference between Joe as JtR (I don't think there is any cause to consider that) and Joe as the murderer of MJK (which is a different issue entirely). If the police in 1888 confused the two, I don't think it is safe to draw any assumptions about Joe Barnett.

my personal guess would be that the character of fleming was cleared or eliminated from the enquiry back in 1888,.

But that is it - a guess.

One wonders how the police might have traced an individual in 1888 - from a name alone - especially if Flemming had moved address and might have been using an alias.

Phil

[Sally]

Ah yes, Phil - but Barnett had an alibi for Kelly; an alibi for the one murder you might consider him responsible for, so I'd say no grounds for suspecting him there.

The recenty estranged boyfriend of the victim would be the first and most obvious suspect - come on, the police in 1888 knew that as well as we do. I think we can be reasonaby sure that they made damned sure Barnett's alibi stood up to scrutiny.

Oh how easy it is to stray off topic...

[Sally]

Is Cadosche a suspect at all? If so advanced by whom and on what basis?

I know his integrity has been questioned in the last couple of years - but REALLY as the killer....?

Cadosche is a suspect now? Realy? I must have missed that one.

Fair enough I suppose. If Van Gogh can be a suspect, I see no reason why Cadosche shouldn't be.

Sooner or later, the number of suspects will outweigh the number of Ripperologists, and the whole thing will reach critical mas and implode, dramaticaly.

My money's on Killeen.

[The Good Michael]

Ah yes, Phil - but Barnett had an alibi for Kelly; an alibi for the one murder you might consider him responsible for, so I'd say no grounds for suspecting him there.

The recenty estranged boyfriend of the victim would be the first and most obvious suspect - come on, the police in 1888 knew that as well as we do. I think we can be reasonaby sure that they made damned sure Barnett's alibi stood up to scrutiny.

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

[Phil H]

Ah yes, Phil - but Barnett had an alibi for Kelly; an alibi for the one murder you might consider him responsible for, so I'd say no grounds for suspecting him there.

I have one question: What time was Kelly murdered?

and the same goes for Morganstone, Mccarthy, Kidney, Hutchinson, Fleming, and a host of others. All were checked out and their stories made sense.

On what do you base that? How did the police find Morganstone, given the name was wrong and the family had moved?

Only one of them had to be lying of course, since (unless you think the Millers Ct murder was like murder on the Orient Express) only one need have been involved. Indeed, all may be innocent - but I am still open to MJK's murderer having been an intimate.

Couldn't have been otherwise.

But of course, it could.

Unlike you Michael, I like to base my thinking on evidence, or mark it up as speculation. you are, with respect, speculating.

For Sally

Cadosche is a suspect now? Realy? I must have missed that one.

I had the same reaction - hence, I was questioning Lechmere's assertion above:

I quite agree Fleming's a better candidate than cadosch in the 'league table'.

Phil