Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

As for flying into a rage, no-one heard enraged voices that night.

Certainly Barnett and MJK had furious rows, if the broken window panes say anything. But arguments can come in many forms - and perhaps the killer "snapped" when away from her (I'm assuming here "Jack" did not kill MJK), returneds urreptitiously and knew enough to get in - opening the door through the pane, to avoid waking her.

A thought did occur to me that what Prater heard was not a cry of "Murder!" but a Kelly, groggy with sleep, awaking and saying, "Morgen?"

a bruiser of an ex-boyfriend will often rough up the girlfriend (Kelly) first in an attempt to persuade her, but as a last resort deal with the opposition (Barnett).

You may know much more about this than do I, Wickerman. I don't for a moment accept that as the only possibility.

Killing the girlfriend gets the ex-boyfriend nowhere.

So no boyfriend has EVER killed his girlfriend? No. The BOLDED statement is not true. People can "snap" andact in ways they later regret. If an ex-lover killed Kelly it might have been because he had recognised that she would never come back to him.

Phil

[DVV]

Serial killers do live and can have ex-girlfriends.
MJK didn't know Fleming was a serial killer, that's all (my opinion).
The Dorset Street murder is both a Ripper-murder and sort of a domestic affair.

edit : Kemper's mother wasn't exactly a young student, but she was killed by the "co-ed killer".

[Ben]

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

With respect, Lechmere, that's a very bad guess indeed, given how utterly without foundation and likely to be wrong it is. He was a known user of an alias who moved into the district in late 1888, and there is no evidence that anyone in Whitechapel knew him by his real name. It's important to be realistic about the sheer numbers of people living and working in that part of the East End. Even if someone from Bethnal Green did bump into Fleming on the streets of Whitechapel, why would s/he need to discover that he was using an alias?

I'd rather avoid going through the whole explanation again, but there is very little doubt - virtually none at all, in fact - that Kelly's Fleming and the Claybury/Stone patient were one and the same. Moreover, it can be satisfactorily deduced from the evidence of Mrs. McCarthy, Mrs. Venturney and Barnett that all were referring to the same individual. Yes, there are still many grey areas, as you'd fully expect from a 120-year-old case, but what we do have is of far greater incriminating value than the little we have on other "suspects" touted as such. If he isn't a "major or serious suspect", I'd like to see who is, and don't say Cross/Lechmere, because virtually everyone will disagree!

There is no evidence that the police were still looking for Fleming in 1893, especially after top brass had decided they already had their man, and even if they did find him, there was no possibility of determining guilt or innocence at that late stage. So this is an absolute non-problem with Fleming's candidacy.

If Fleming had been sought (as sensibly he would have been, unless he was eliminated as a person of interest for some other reason – such as that Barnett was mistaken) and the search was unsuccessful, then I think one of the policemen would have mentioned it in their reminiscences

Nah, you can forget that too.

There would have been hundreds of people suspected during the course of the investigation who were either never traced or never proved innocent, and if every police official who recorded memoirs wrote something along the lines of "Oh what a bugger it was that we never found so and so" about every one of these, you can expect a truly dizzy amount of paperwork. Moreover, most of the officials who wrote memoirs had very strong suspect theories of their own. If their suspects were guilty, as they believed, their failure to pinpoint someone like Fleming would hardly have been relevant.

Had Fleming been found, it would have made the news - definitely. The newspapers would have caught onto it and interviewed Fleming for details of his relationship with Kelly. He would have been the source of immediate and widespread interest, even if he was "eliminated" as a suspect. The fact that none of this happened is an indisputable indicator that he wasn't tracked down at the time of the murders.

I'm afraid your reasons for dismissing Fleming as a suspect are all very flawed indeed, and demonstrably so.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Ben, I'm afraid your post is excellent, and demonstrably so.

[Wickerman]

As for flying into a rage, no-one heard enraged voices that night.

Certainly Barnett and MJK had furious rows, if the broken window panes say anything.

A row which, by coincidence, just happens to break one pane of glass within reach of the door latch, as opposed to all the other panes, may only suggest one of them misplaced the key and broke the pane intentionally.

But arguments can come in many forms - and perhaps the killer "snapped" when away from her (I'm assuming here "Jack" did not kill MJK), returneds urreptitiously and knew enough to get in - opening the door through the pane, to avoid waking her.

Certainly we can make it happen any way we choose. Though, if he crept in to her room while she was asleep, would he role or fold the bedsheet up before he kills her?
We might expect to see the sheet ruffled & bloodied on the floor, not rolled up and put aside.
Likely too cold that night for Kelly to only sleep in her chemise, with no sheets over her?

A thought did occur to me that what Prater heard was not a cry of "Murder!" but a Kelly, groggy with sleep, awaking and saying, "Morgen?"

Certainly we read this was a common cry heard in the area, but we do not read if this cry was uttered by victims or by witnesses to assaults.
It comes across as too theatrical to be cried by a victim. If a nosy neighbor, too frightened to come forward, had peeked through the window and saw something and 'cried out', that would fit nicely.

Part of the police investigation would have been to locate Fleming and see if he had an alibi for that night.

[DVV]

A thought did occur to me that what Prater heard was not a cry of "Murder!" but a Kelly, groggy with sleep, awaking and saying, "Morgen?"
Phil

Thoughts occur, and some are best forgotten.

[DVV]

Part of the police investigation would have been to locate Fleming and see if he had an alibi for that night.

True, Jon.
And they seemingly didn't find him.

[Wickerman]

True, Jon.
And they seemingly didn't find him.

Or, he had an alibi?

[DVV]

Or, he had an alibi?

Jon, as Ben has pointed out, if they had found Fleming, some papers would have reported the fact. They would even have interviewed his mother and sister.
And if he had been found months after the murder, which btw I don't believe for a second, nothing easier than providing an alibi : November 9 ? I slept in the VH, as usual. Or elsewhere. No need to say he was roaming the streets after a long walk from Romford.
How could the police prove his guilt ?

But we can safely assume they never collared him. And that he didn't come forward because he did not wish to.

[Sally]

I agree.

No chasing after 'Morganstone' - he'd have been calling himself Felix by then - and if Fleming was using an alias; or had simply moved on - how likely is it that the police could have identified him easily?

He was already semi-itinerarant - a lifestyle that lends itself to anonymity still; and more so then.

I concur that if Fleming - or Morgantern had been located, as ex-lovers of the latest victim of the Ripper the press would've been desperate to hear their story.

The resounding silence that we have instead is a fair indication that neither man was located.

[Wickerman]

Jon, as Ben has pointed out, if they had found Fleming, some papers would have reported the fact. They would even have interviewed his mother and sister.
And if he had been found months after the murder, which btw I don't believe for a second, nothing easier than providing an alibi : November 9 ? I slept in the VH, as usual. Or elsewhere. No need to say he was roaming the streets after a long walk from Romford.
How could the police prove his guilt ?

But we can safely assume they never collared him. And that he didn't come forward because he did not wish to.

Dave.

No problem there, but not coming forward to the police does not mean he had anything to do with the murder.
There can be any number of reason's a mature East End male avoids the police; debts, theft, assaults, gambling, anything.

On the other hand, how confident are you that if he had come forward voluntarily, that he could not have done so without the press learning about it?

[DVV]

Had he come forward right after the murder, or in the following week(s), this would certainly have been reported.
Fact is that there is nothing in the press, and nothing in the remaining files.
So, that he has slipped through the net is the most reasonable conclusion on can draw.
And it's not surprising, really not. He was a perfect nobody, of average height, dossing in a large lodging house, as far as we can tell.

[Wickerman]

Had he come forward right after the murder, or in the following week(s), this would certainly have been reported.

One source, I think it was L.P. Curtis in his book about, JtR & the London Press, 2001, wrote that during the murders press hounds took a seat at the local station houses ready to pounce on the next 'story' that walked in the door. The press were certainly hungry for anything related to the murders, so yes, very likely they would have uncovered Fleming.

I'm encouraged that you adopt this view, and that you are not alone. Because, quite naturally the logic works the same for anyone of high profile who walks in the door of a station house.

This has been a significant point I raised previously concerning a witness who might have been deemed to have lied after first giving the police his statement.
Had any important witness been found out as a liar they would have hauled them back in for questioning. The fact no second interview was reported for our most controversial witness in the Kelly case are a good indication that no such accusations existed.

Fact is that there is nothing in the press, and nothing in the remaining files.
So, that he has slipped through the net is the most reasonable conclusion on can draw.
And it's not surprising, really not. He was a perfect nobody, of average height, dossing in a large lodging house, as far as we can tell.

It isn't unusual for anyone who chooses to adopt a different name, to adopt more than one.
Also, the police did have access to the asylum records so the fact Fleming was identified by two names (Fleming/Evans) might suggest he had nothing to hide from them, in particular?

He's an interesting enigma, though with nothing to accuse him of, he's likely to remain that way.
Unless, some unscrupulous types decide to 'do a number on him' too

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

These limericks of yours are definitely getting there. I hope you have plenty more!

There once was a fellow named Christer
From Googling, his fingers did blister.
Teamed up with Ed Stow
Over Lechmere, and lo!
He’s the ultimate logic-resistor.

Remember young Toppy the plumber?
Never once a Commercial Street slummer.
Nor was he that witness
Of Astrakhan sh!tness
Crossmerians say “What a bummer!”

We might all recall Frank Leander.
Thanks to Fisherman, did he meander?
Oh continue to dream
Swedish Handwriting Team
But Sue’s expertise is the grander.

All in good sport, Fishster.

All the best,
Ben

Thanks, Ben!

Here´s a small flurry in return (I´ve been away fishing, so you need to excuse my tardiness!)

A stripperologist by the name of Ben
stripped a foot of James Evans when
he realized his dream
had no functioning seam -
that´s how it goes in the Hutchinson den.

It´s a world where no logic applies
it disappears before your very eyes!
Feet and inches go lost
since at every cost
all but Hutch must say their bye-byes!

To reach this illusive goal
Some are ready to walk on hot coal.
to slander the expertise
and then simply go: Please,
let´s instead accept a great big hole!

It´s the Iremonger twaddle I mean
to accept it would have been
to invest in a fairytale
where the author managed to fail
to pin down what it was she had seen...!

Minor flaw, blurts Ben with great rage
(he has learnt such things on the stage)
Go away foul Leander!
You only deserve slander!
Then he turn´s to his script´s only page:

It´was Hutch who dun´it, I swear!
Does anybody want to challenge that? I dare
you to try and disagree
with someone like me!
Those who´ve tried and survived are quite rare!

Let him throw out his challenges, I say
it means nothing at the end of the day
what there is to be found
will be dug out of the ground -
and not cursed out the Hutchinsonian way...


All, as you say Ben, in good sport!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I´ve been away fishing

Be careful out there, Fish...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-8755664.html