Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

But Flemming doesn't seem to have been in the Victoria Home in 1891...

As far as I'm concerned, he was in the VH in 1888, 1889, and in 1892.

If you're alluding to the Fleming registrered in Bethnal Green in the 1891 census ("Boot finisher and married"), well, I fail to see any relevance....

First, is it the same Fleming ? "Our" Fleming never married.....but let's say it's him.....and then please, do explain : how can you be confident that this married Fleming is Mary ex-boyfriend, while you try to dispute the obvious identity of Venturney's Joe and Barnett's Flem(m)ing ?

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

“Habitual alcoholics (as opposed to more occasional binge drinker alcoholics) usually drink little and often.”

Well, why don’t we examine the evidence from the investigation and see if it sheds any light on this issue? Clearly, the witnesses from the inquest were not under the impression that Kelly was a habitual drunk but rather someone who was quiet under ordinary circumstances, but rather obstreperous when on the sauce. This would tend to support the suggestion that she was a “more occasional binge drinker alcoholic” of the type you describe, and it is clear that she was on one such binge on the night of her death. The indications, therefore, are that she was not a “toper” as you understand the expression. It’s rather naïve, in my opinion, to suggest that Kelly did not imbibe from Blotchy’s pail. If she was already on the booze, the proximity to more of it was unlikely to have been resisted, and had Blotchy refused to share his pail, he would almost certainly have forfeited his stay in the room.

“It is quite likely that Blotchy was gone by midnight and Kelly was singing to herself.”

No, it isn’t likely. If Kelly’s business sessions lasted only a few minutes, she could have made considerably more money from soliciting on the streets rather than taking her clients home every time. Mary Ann Cox seems to have figured this one out.

“It strikes me as being somewhat unlikely that it was her. Indeed I rather think your average murder victim wouldn’t shout out ‘murder’just as they saw a knife being wielded in their direction.”

This is just preposterous. Victorians used entirely different expressions to us, and however unlikely you consider it that a murder victim would shout “murder” prior to the event, you are not remotely qualified to make the same pronouncement with regard to people living in the late 1880s. Once again, you demonstrate this bizarre unwillingness to dispense with “coincidences”. You honestly think it’s just a random coincidence that when two people heard a cry of murder (which came from the court, according to Sarah Lewis), a real person just happened to get murdered?

“We cannot be certain it was the same Flemming who checked into the infirmary.”

Almost certain.

There’s no reasonable doubt as to the identification.

“I also do not believe the infirmary would have had the resources to check patient’s bona fides”

Well, then..!

If they weren’t in the habit checking such things, why would Fleming have lied about living at the Victoria Home?

With sincere respect, Lechmere, your reasoning has taken an even greater turn than usual for the topsy-turvy on this issue, or rather toppy-turvy.

“So tell me – you think Flemming was living at the Victoria Home for 14 months solid. Yes? As opposed to staying there for a short period when he had a nice alternative in Bethnal Green available?”

But where is the evidence for this “nice” alternative? And if this option was available to him, why did he secure lodgings at the Victoria Home at all (which we know for certain he did)?

“This mason’s plasterer becoming a mere dock labourer also makes me think. A bit like a trainee plumber becoming a labourer... perhaps?”

No, Lechmere!

Because if Fleming was asked about his occupation, he would have stated that he was a mason’s plaster by trade, now working as a dock labourer, and if Toppy found himself at the Victoria Home in 1888 for whatever reason, he would have been a plumber by trade now working as a labourer. Problem is, the real George Hutchinson stated that he was a “groom” by trade.

“I notice you neglected to explain this remark: “her behaviour when in the company of the Blotchy man is hardly consistent with any grave concern over imminent rent collection.”

Well, serenading clients for extended periods and getting very sloshed isn’t terribly consistent with an anxiety over the rent, is it?

“tell me why it is illegitimate to raise the question of what the missing reports may or may not cover.”

There’s a considerable difference between acknowledging that much of the paperwork relating to the case has been lost, and insisting that particular reports “must have” existed once upon a time which “must have” said exactly what you wanted them to have said. The latter is sheer wish fulfilment that anyone can engage in. If it is to be argued that not insisting on lost reports having existed and saying X,Y, and Z “assists the Hutchinson case”, then I won’t contradict you in the slightest!

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere..as usual, I find it terribly hard to follow your "off the wall ' 'logic'.

We do not know that she drank any of Blotchy’s beer.

Whatever sort of alcoholic she was, we can pretty much wager our lives on the fact that she drank Blotchy's beer, given the fact tht she was already drunk when she had access to Blotchy's beer..

The average time a prostitute will have spent with a client would have been counted in minutes rather than hours. It is quite likely that Blotchy was gone by midnight and Kelly was singing to herself. Perhaps while getting ready to go back out again.

Very true -except that the clients that were 'in' for a few minutes, wouldn't have bought lots of beer -unless they had some sort of personal relationship with her..

(an idle thought : Mary was a 'redhead' as was Blotchy, and Mary apparently had 3 or 4 brothers living in London...could Blotchy have been a brother and
not a client ? Is that why Mary was so relaxed and singing ?).

It is also by no means certain at all that the cries of murder at around 4 am were Kelly. It strikes me as being somewhat unlikely that it was her. Indeed I rather think your average murder victim wouldn’t shout out ‘murder’ just as they saw a knife being wielded in their direction

.
Wow! -I find this weird ! I live in a 'quartier' (of Avignon, France) which must have some big similarities with Whitechapel, 1888 -certainly I hear screams and cries of 'murder!' often, and I don't react. However, if I learn't the next day, that a woman had been murdered in the room below me, at the time in the night when I had heard a cry of "Murder!", I would straight away connect the two..and I"d almost certainly be right.

So tell me – you think Flemming was living at the Victoria Home for 14 months solid. Yes?

Makes me think of Toppy

–
Not at all. Toppy was only just aged 22 (after Eddowes's murder). He was on his way up in life; Fleming had mental health issues and was on his way down..

I notice you neglected to explain this remark: “her behaviour when in the company of the Blotchy man is hardly consistent with any grave concern over imminent rent collection.”

It seems self evident !!

Ripper case Also can I ask you this? Do you think that all the police record relating to are still extant?
If you answer no to this, then tell me why it is illegitimate to raise the question of what the missing reports may or may not cover.

This is incomprehensible; Few Medieval or Roman records exist -so can we just make them up to support any tenuous argument that we want to put forward ??
[QUOTE]

Or should we smugly sit back and put our hands in our ears and say ‘I want to hear none of this – it is the lost report syndrome’. Just because it assists the ......case

Take the word 'Hutchinson out, and you are describing yourself !

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy

I'm sorry you did not appreciate my help.

Okay Sad2, you know me better than that. And welcome back here to the Ripper Coffee Klatch.

My question has no hidden meaning. If Hutch wasn't Toppy, who was he? When you know, wake me up with some hot coffee.

LeRoy

[DVV]

Okay Sad2, you know me better than that. And welcome back here to the Ripper Coffee Klatch.

My question has no hidden meaning. If Hutch wasn't Toppy, who was he? When you know, wake me up with some hot coffee.

LeRoy

Dear Roy,

in my humble and unpopular opinion, the witness known as George Hutchinson was actually Joseph Fleming.

No sugar, no milk ?

Cheers

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
Do you have a statement from Mr Blotchy saying that he bought the beer to share with Kelly?
No I didn’t think you did.

Assertions of this type are frequently and comfortably made on these forum pages (other examples are the Flemming is the ill-using Joe and Flemming was in the Victoria Home in 1888).
How do we know that Blotchy didn’t buy his beer, pick up Kelly, transacted his business with her, then carried on home and drunk his beer there.
Why do people insist on the scenario where Blotchy decides to share his drink with Kelly? It is unlikely that they were friends (or ginger relatives).

Mr Ben
I forgot to say that the cry of ‘murder‘ was reportedly common place on evenings in the East End (maybe it’s different in Avignon Frau Retro, in fact, if I may be so bold, I strongly suggest it is different).

I didn’t say Kelly was twitching with anxiety over her rent arrears. I suggested she may have gone out again to get some more money. She had a need. The fact that she was singing is not exactly relevant to this, or the fact that she was drunk.

And based on other evidence I think we can say that there ‘must have’ been police reports on some things that are now missing. I don’t think I have said they ‘must have’ said what I want them to say, I have said they ‘must have’ been on certain topics or investigating certain avenues.

(I mananged to over type a complete post there somehow)

[Lechmere]

(this post actually went before the previous one and I managed to retrieve it)

Mr Ben
There is plenty of evidence that Kelly was a regular drinker.
The reason I raised the toper issue was to counter your confident assertion that someone who appeared drunk at 11.45 pm, couldn’t possibly appear to be merely speeish by 2.15am. It clearly is possible.

Blotchy was presumably a client, so I do not think Kelly would have ‘created’ just because he didn’t share his booze. The nature of the transaction would have been primarily financial rather than some sort of barter system.

I would also suggest that a prostitute could charge more for services provided indoors than services provided in the street. I would also suggest that as it was raining, it may have been Kelly’s preferred option. The soliciting would indeed take place on the streets however.

Oh – so you are qualified to tell us that Victorian murder victims shouted out ‘murder’ are you? Run along.

This is one of your all too common total misapprehensions...
“If they weren’t in the habit checking such things, why would Fleming have lied about living at the Victoria Home?”
I haven’t suggested he lied about living at the Victoria Home in November 1889. I have suggested that it is unlikely that he lived there for the full fourteen months preceding it. He stated on the form that he had lived in Whitechapel for fourteen months. He did not say on the form that he had lived in the Victoria Home for 14 months. Can you see the difference?
With sincere respect – stick to what the sources tell us not what you want them to tell us.

DVV
Incidentally when Flemming was sent to the insane asylum in 1892 he was charged to Bethnal Green not Whitechapel (I think). Have I missed the record that says this Flemming lived at the Victoria Home in 1892.

[DVV]

DVV
Incidentally when Flemming was sent to the insane asylum in 1892 he was charged to Bethnal Green not Whitechapel (I think). Have I missed the record that says this Flemming lived at the Victoria Home in 1892.

From my notes (thread "Alias Fleming and Hutch", post#30 by Snelson, 29 Sept 2006) :

"When Fleming went to the City of London Union Infirmary, Bow Road, in June 1892 prior to his being incarcerated in the asylum, his address was noted as the Victoria Home and at this time he was calling himself 'James Evans'".

[Sally]

No...

Lechmere says -

I think you mean someone called Joseph Flemming (or Fleming) claimed to have been living somewhere in the Whitechapel registration district for 14 months prior to November 1889 (he had to say this in order to get treatment which makes it possible he made it up)

Wrong. No he didn’t. Treatment was available to people who had been inhabitants of the area for weeks, Lechmere, not months. Fact.

The Victoria Home was for people of irregular domiciliary status

Wrong. No again. The Victoria Home , like any other common lodging house; was for people for whom it was the best choice for a variety of reasons. Many men who stayed in the Victoria Home were evidently passing through. That does not mean, however, that the Victoria Home had no medium or long term residents. That should be obvious. It depends on for how long the Victoria Home remained a viable and best option; which in turn depends on the specific circumstances of the individual. Mayhew’s census of lodging house residents in an unamed east end lodging house in 1851 demonstrated that some of them had been living there for several years. Men of ‘irregular domiciliary status’ as you so succinctly put it were doubtless residents of the Victoria Home, yes, but by no means the only residents of the Victoria Home.

There is no reason to suppose that Fleming could not have been resident at the Victoria Home for several months, as it appears that Henry Turner in fact was.

[Lechmere]

I don't disagree that there were some long term residents at the Victoria Home Sally and some were even reasonably well off as a contemporary account makes clear. I was speculating on the likelihood of Flemming living there for 14 months as some posters take it as axiomatic that he was. I am comfortable to assert that the vast majority of inmate would be of irregular domiciliary status.

I was under the impression that after 1865 the period of settlement in a parish in order to qualify for relief was one year. Perhaps I was wrong on that.

[DVV]

Well, the sources tell us that Fleming had probably been a long-term resident in the VH, that's all.
Which, btw, seems to be confirmed by the sentence "he used to visit her".

[Lechmere]

Which, btw, seems to be confirmed by the sentence "he used to visit her".????
What on earth has that to do with whether he lived at the Victoria Home.

[DVV]

It confirms that Joe was around, at least, that's all I meant.
"Used to" is quite different than "he had visited Mary at times".
This little detail + the 1889 source indicate that Fleming may well have been a long term resident in the VH, contrary to what you've suggested.

[Lechmere]

I don't think you can claim it indicates anything of the sort

[DVV]

Really ?
Let's sum it up.
Sources tell us that Fleming was dossing in the VH from Sept 88 to Nov 1889...then again in 1892.....
And both Barnett and Venturney confirm that he must indeed have been around, since he used to visit Mary.

Now if you want to dispute that, provide your evidence.