Another Joe.

[DVV]

Virtually every detail Kelly told Barnett about herself cannot be substantiated and seems to have been coloured. Barnett says he was from Bethnal Green and was a mason’s plasterer.

Exactly : plasterer from Bethnal Green...Now would you tell us what seems to have been "coloured" here ?

And by the way, what Kelly said is more or less substantiated by Phoenix/McCarthy. A man in the building trade who was once about to marry her may well fit the plasterer she was still fond of.

We have the Carthy woman mentioning that Kelly went out with someone involved in the building trade. That is not much with which to substantiate the Barnett story.

Are you expecting dozens of witnesses claiming they knew Joe and Mary ? McCarthy's "man in the building trade" fits quite well.
Not so bad, in my opinion, in the ripper case.

We have Venturney saying that Kelly was still seeing someone called Joe who she thought was a costermonger.

She said a bit more, and did not talk of any costermonger in her police statement.

You can argue that there is no definitive proof of this - but that's all you can do.

Claiming that, on balance, she most likely alluded to another Joe is just foolish.

Presuming this Fleming existed, that is the only evidence that Kelly was still seeing Fleming. It is based on a common – very common – first name.

Absolutely not. Once again, you are talking as if Barnett and Venturney had alluded to dozens of people. But that was an inquest, not a pub talk.
And we have two witnesses telling the court that Mary was very fond of a man named Joe, who used to visit her.
No other visitor mentioned.
No other man around.
Common first name isn't the problem here, it's more about common sense.

That tells me that this guy was not the same Fleming.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that tells you that.

It's even worse : you have nothing to substantiate your untenable theory of 2Flemings, while the relevant Joe Fleming has been firmly identified.

If he was then the police knew he had nothing to do with it.

That is for the Jokes thread, I presume.

I would suggest that if Kelly did see someone called Joe Fleming

She did. No "if" needed.

then either he was long gone by November 1888, or he was seen and quickly discounted.

Any evidence that he was "long gone" ?
No, you've none.
Evidence that he "was seen" ?
Nah.
Discounted ?
Nope.

[richardnunweek]

Hi DVV,
With respect, I doubt if I have ever come across a more negative poster[ well not many..] then your good self.
You refuse to even accept the possibility, that Mary Kelly may have known other men that happen to have the name Joe, she had two, so why not three?
You seem to accept that Fleming, although parted from Mary at least 18 months previous[ if not more]was still desperately trying to win favour with his long gone ex, and was still being abusive to her, because of her feelings for Barnett, 18 months is a long time to attempt to get her to return to their relationship, and what's more its a long time to suffer abuse, and to remain ''very fond of''
I find that hard to accept, and suggest that Fleming was just a past episode in Kelly's short life, and she had a new Man in her life.. a Costermonger even...
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard

Hi DVV,
With respect, I doubt if I have ever come across a more negative poster[ well not many..] then your good self.

That's just because your suggestions are unviable, Richard. They are based on two documented mistakes : 1) that Fleming wasn't Fleming 2) that Barnett and Venturney didn't allude to the same Joe.

You refuse to even accept the possibility, that Mary Kelly may have known other men that happen to have the name Joe, she had two, so why not three?

And I'm pretty safe refusing this.
Once again, that was an inquest. Do you think Venturney and Barnett didn't talk together between Friday and the inquest ? Did they allude to many men ? No.
Once again, all the people at the inquest certainly understood it was the same Joe. And indeed, having read their statements, we just can reach to the same conclusion.
You're welcome to speculate, but please do accept that your speculation is based on an extremely unlikely possibility.

You seem to accept that Fleming, although parted from Mary at least 18 months previous[ if not more]was still desperately trying to win favour with his long gone ex, and was still being abusive to her, because of her feelings for Barnett, 18 months is a long time to attempt to get her to return to their relationship, and what's more its a long time to suffer abuse, and to remain ''very fond of''

I'm not in Fleming's mind and have never said "he was still desperately trying to win favour with his long gone ex". Documents tell us he was still visiting Mary and had "ill-used" her at times.
When did these visits occurred exactly ? I don't know, and you do not either.

I find that hard to accept

That a man would not bore his ex after some months, or even years ? There are plenty examples, I'm sure.

Especially when the girl is still "very fond" of the boring ex, my dear.

and suggest that Fleming was just a past episode in Kelly's short life, and she had a new Man in her life..

I'm sorry I have to be negative again, Richard.
If Fleming was a thing from the past, why bother talking of him at the inquest ?
Morganstone IS a thing from the past. See the difference with Joe : Morganstone isn't said to visit her. Mary wasn't said to be fond of him. Nobody said he was about to marry her.
Like it or not, but "used to visit her" means Fleming's visits were quite regular, and refer to a time Kelly and Barnett were already together.

Whenever these visits ceased, if indeed they ceased, they were considered significant enough to be mentioned at the inquest by two different witnesses.
And since they refer to a time Barnett and Kelly were already together, you can't have us believe it belonged to a remote and buried past.

Especially when Fleming was dossing in the area in September, if not before.

a Costermonger even...

Oh no, not that argument again, Richard...that's not you !

Best regards

[richardnunweek]

Hello DVV,
I should clarify several points.
I am not suggesting that Fleming [ alias Evans] was not Kelly's ex sweetheart, just that the height is a major worry, unless ''proven'' a mistake .
I am not suggesting that Fleming did not visit Mary, but as Barnett did not specify when[ at least documented] we can only guess.
Your good self suggests it was more recent, then yours truly, but that is opinion.
Venturney's account of another Joe, does not include a surname, neither an occupation such as Builder/ plasterer/ docker, which we identify with Joe Fleming, but suggests a Costermonger, however that's not to say that he was of that occupation in the autumn of 1888, after all Joe Barnett was precisely that, was he not?
Which brings me to the muddling press reports about these murders, they printed gossip, that to a great extent confused the actual facts, not only extremely difficult for the police then to make sense of, but today also amongst Casebook.
For instance.
The only Joe we know as a costermonger was Barnett, so did the press ''garble'' that as the ''other'' Joe?,and Venturney actually said ''she was fond of another man named Joe, and could not bear Barnett who was a costermonger.?
Speculation ...yes but at least the known occupation is there.
As for the relationship between Fleming and Kelly.
The relationship was over as soon as she took up with Barnett in April 1887, if he walked out on her, he would hardly concern himself with her meeting JB, if she ran out of his life, it is entirely possible that he may have initially attempted to woo back her affections with visits, but being that she was happy with her new man, it surely would have been in vain, and apparently stayed that way for about 15 months , until J.B lost his licence around July
88, when her security began to fade.
I would suggest that it was then she was''available'' , and it would have been then that another Joe entered her life, who was not happy with her continuing relationship with his rival, of the same name, and it was this man that used to ill-use her .
But was this Fleming, was he back on the scene, seeing his chance, or was he long gone.
As for Venturney's comment ';'She said [ Mjk] she could not bear the man, was this a reference to Barnett, or to the man that abused her, and was the very ''fond of'' a reference to Barnett, or to the man that Ill-used her, which if
Fleming... may have been the main reason she walked away from that relationship initially, so why the sudden '' very fond of''.
I would suggest that she had another man in her life, but possibly it was he that she could not bear , that is why she refused to go off with him, and was not poor JB, who she felt compassion for '' I would be sorry to leave Joe[ Barnett] who has been good to me''.
In other words ''Garbled '' in the press is responsible for many confusions.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

DVV why do you never address the issue of Fleming/Evans being sent by the police to the City of London Infirmary and what that means for his suspect status?

[DVV]

Hi Lechmere

DVV why do you never address the issue of Fleming/Evans being sent by the police to the City of London Infirmary and what that means for his suspect status?

Because it means nothing for his suspect status, my dear. Nothing, at least, that can affect his candidacy.

[DVV]

It has been said that the Ripper saved the Whitechapel murderer.
That's true.
And that's even more true in Fleming's case.

If there had been no ripper murders ever, the police would have actively looked for the "Joe that used to visit Mary", that "used to ill-use her", and did not show up.

Joe would have become a prime suspect, just like Blotchy or Astrakhan - and perhaps more, since an indoors murder can suggest a domestic affair.

But as soon as the Miller's Court case was considered a Ripper work (and that was quickly done), "Joe" (Fleming or not, Venturney's "Joe" or Barnett's, it doesn't matter) could no more be a prime suspect, and thus has not be looked for as such.

Have you ever come across a source, press or police, suggesting that the "Joe that used to visit and ill-use her" was actively searched for as a prime suspect ?

[Malcolm X]

It has been said that the Ripper saved the Whitechapel murderer.
That's true.
And that's even more true in Fleming's case.

If there had been no ripper murders ever, the police would have actively looked for the "Joe that used to visit Mary", that "used to ill-use her", and did not show up.

Joe would have become a prime suspect, just like Blotchy or Astrakhan - and perhaps more, since an indoors murder can suggest a domestic affair.

But as soon as the Miller's Court case was considered a Ripper work (and that was quickly done), "Joe" (Fleming or not, Venturney's "Joe" or Barnett's, it doesn't matter) could no more be a prime suspect, and thus has not be looked for as such.

Have you ever come across a source, press or police, suggesting that the "Joe that used to visit and ill-use her" was actively searched for as a prime suspect ?

doesn't an indoor murder refer much more to a proper family style house/ flat etc, rather than a cold damp tiny room with a broken window, that anyone can access quite easily from the street....... just saying that's all

finally, one has to understand just how tall 6ft 7'' is

[DVV]

doesn't an indoor murder refer much more to a proper family style house/ flat etc, rather than a cold damp tiny room with a broken window, that anyone can access quite easily from the street....... just saying that's all

No, absolutely not : tiny room or not, prostitutes or not, it doesn't matter. The husbands, boyfriends, etc, are always suspected. (By the by, would you believe some still think Kidney was Stride's murderer ?)

So what about an ex-fiancé said to be a regular and sometimes violent visitor ?

The guy wasn't frantically looked for because of the ripper murders, no matter how spacious was the room.

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. Thanks for the link.

Have you:

1. ascertained the accuracy of the height listing?

Hi all,
regarding the issue of height. Perhaps this has already been mentioned but I was going through some files for soldiers yesterday and noticed that in most cases the height of the soldiers in their official files was recorded in inches alone, like this:



It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to think that someone accidently copied over 67 inches, recorded for a man's height, as 6 ft7 in, would it?

[DVV]

That's an excellent suggestion, Debs.

The Stone asylum form does not bear "inches" ("ft" and "in" are handwritten), then one could note the height in inches only, or in ft and in.

Other inmates records should be checked. If some are given in inches only, then the mistake might truly be explained by two possibilities :

1: "6" instead of "5"
2: "ft" and "in" instead of "in" only

...both pointing at a 5'7 Fleming : 67 inches = 5'7

And both explaining, btw, why the medics never mentioned his disquieting thinness and gigantism while commenting on his health and behaviour.

Obviously, the height of a 6'7 lunatic said to be very abusive and insulting at times would have called for some comments in his records. There is even not one.

And I wonder how many men, out of 100, were 6'7 in 1888, for apparently this eight wasn't worth a word : no mention from Kelly, Barnett, Venturney, McCarthy. And worse : nothing either from the medics.

Cheer Debs

[lynn cates]

solution

Hello Debs. A very sensible solution. Keep us informed, will you?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

It's hard to say whether this possibility is more likely than the other (6'7 instead of 5'7 - sometimes linked to the quite odd "160 years" from Henrietta), but I feel we might have something here.

In any case, what we have is two possible explanations giving Fleming the exact same height : 5'7 - which fits the recorded weights perfectly.

And then, only then, his constant good health while in Stone, and the complete silence regarding his unusual tallness and thinness, make sense.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
A very good suggestion by Debra, and plausible , however we need more records from that asylum to ascertain its merit.
Regards Richard.

[Debra A]

Hi David, Lynn, Richard,
It's just another suggestion as I tend to agree with David in that a clerical error of some sort seems to be the most obvious explanation as it's so odd that nowhere at all is this extraordinary height mentioned, even from a practical point like his comfort in the asylum, size of bed and clothing needed, getting through doorways without cracking his head etc.
It's a pity they didn't give the size of Flemming's boots in the inventory of his things, that would have nailed it I think.