Mort à Claybury

[DVV]

To make it clearer : does Toppy's portrait look like a pic taken in the 20's or 30's ?
Certainly not in my opinion (I remember Sam Flynn's comments about it and still agree with them).

Amitiés
David

edit : héhé ! thanks Ben !

[claire]

Further, of course, the Miller's-court crowd would need some reason to link GH's story with Fleming, even if he used that name. It has troubled me for some time that GH and JF are equally slippery; the latter, for example, doesn't seem to have cropped up on the police radar at all, when one should really consider him (a former partner, still involved to some degree, reported to have 'ill-used' her).

Also, if (if) we take our Fleming to be the son of Henrietta and Richard, he has a rather interesting pre-Mary and post-Mary life. The familial living conditions were impossibly cramped (don't ask--I'm the idiot who went and viewed a house for sale in Cypress Street); the father had a history of mental illness and ended his life in the poor house. There are hints Joe himself had a few brushes with the law in his youth. Certain precursor type offences occurred on his stamping ground. Post Mary, he seems to have disappeared, surfacing again as James Evans, otherwise Joseph Fleming, delusional and paranoid at the City of London Asylum at Stone House, where he was admitted in 1892. Transferred as incurable to Claybury and, as per David's quatrain, died there. All this, of course, is if you accept this Fleming as ours.

Anyhow, sorry, Rubyretro, you probably know at least these basics, but I think that, for me, at least, Fleming's practice of using pseudonyms, and his disappearance, and his involvement with Mary, stated place of abode and so forth, could potentially qualify him as a candidate for Hutch.

[DVV]

Further, of course, the Miller's-court crowd would need some reason to link GH's story with Fleming, even if he used that name. It has troubled me for some time that GH and JF are equally slippery; the latter, for example, doesn't seem to have cropped up on the police radar at all, when one should really consider him (a former partner, still involved to some degree, reported to have 'ill-used' her).

Also, if (if) we take our Fleming to be the son of Henrietta and Richard, he has a rather interesting pre-Mary and post-Mary life. The familial living conditions were impossibly cramped (don't ask--I'm the idiot who went and viewed a house for sale in Cypress Street); the father had a history of mental illness and ended his life in the poor house. There are hints Joe himself had a few brushes with the law in his youth. Certain precursor type offences occurred on his stamping ground. Post Mary, he seems to have disappeared, surfacing again as James Evans, otherwise Joseph Fleming, delusional and paranoid at the City of London Asylum at Stone House, where he was admitted in 1892. Transferred as incurable to Claybury and, as per David's quatrain, died there. All this, of course, is if you accept this Fleming as ours.

Anyhow, sorry, Rubyretro, you probably know at least these basics, but I think that, for me, at least, Fleming's practice of using pseudonyms, and his disappearance, and his involvement with Mary, stated place of abode and so forth, could potentially qualify him as a candidate for Hutch.

Hi Claire

agreed, agreed, agreed !

Amitiés

[Pontius2000]

'Fraid not, Pontius.

Opinion is divided as to whether or not the old man in the picture was the real George Hutchinson (at least by those who frequent Hutchinson discussions on internet message boards), but it's only a significant minority of commentators who believe that the identity has been "well established". I don't believe the man in the picture had anything to do with the events of 1888.

Hi Ruby,

It's an intriguing possibility at the very least. The only potential fly in the ointment concerns the issue of height. The medical examiners from Stone Asylum listed his height at 6"7', which would tend to rule him out for the "not tall" man in the wideawake.

All the best,
Ben

you're saying it's a small minority that agree the man in the photo is the witness Hutchinson, or a small minority that believe the identity of the witness was actually George Hutchinson? because if it's the later, I totally disagree.

the person who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement in 1888 was married under the name George Hutchinson in 1900. and there's a thread at the top of this page that's shows the same person signed the name "George Hutchinson" in the 1911 census. I think it's a stretch to say that the person who came forward as a witness was NOT George Hutchinson. would be much more believable if someone said that FLEMING was the alias of Hutchinson, and not the other way around. but I don't even think that's very believable since there were surely people living in Miller's Court who knew both Hutchinson and Fleming.

[DVV]

I don't even think that's very believable since there were surely people living in Miller's Court who knew both Hutchinson and Fleming.

Hi Pontius

who knew both Hutch and Fleming ? Venturney and Barnett merely knew what Mary had told them about Fleming.

Amitiés
David

[DVV]

Now, friends, as lazy as ever, let me try another quatrain...but in English this time...

Jesus ! Mary ! Joseph
Fleming
Why is it only death
You bring ?

[Ben]

the person who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement in 1888 was married under the name George Hutchinson in 1900

No, I'm afraid there's no evidence for this at all.

Some people think the real George Hutchinson was married in 1898, but that certainly doesn't reflect mainstream thinking on the subject.

I think it's a stretch to say that the person who came forward as a witness was NOT George Hutchinson.

Why?

since there were surely people living in Miller's Court who knew both Hutchinson and Fleming.

There's no evidence that anyone knew or heard of Hutchinson, and Fleming was only referred to by Kelly.

[Pontius2000]

No, I'm afraid there's no evidence for this at all.

Some people think the real George Hutchinson was married in 1898, but that certainly doesn't reflect mainstream thinking on the subject.



Why?



There's no evidence that anyone knew or heard of Hutchinson, and Fleming was only referred to by Kelly.

the man who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement, also signed "George Hutchinson" to the 1911 census. and the 1911 census "George Hutchinson" married a woman named Sarah in 1900.

you seem to be saying that 'mainstream thinking' does not agree with this. I think you're wrong. may not be YOUR thinking. I think most people agree that George Hutchinson was the actual name of the witness. now, whether or not they actually believe that he witnessed anything is a different story. but I think the suggestion that George Hutchinson was not his real name is kind of ridiculous.

Hutchinson says he knew Kelly for several years, and was supposedly nearby her residence on the night of her death. she ran with several other prostitutes, and was known by many inside Miller's Court. so it stands to reason that some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson. but no one came forward and said, "that guy's Fleming, not Hutchinson".

you can make a much stronger argument that Fleming didn't exist.

[Ben]

the man who signed "George Hutchinson" to the witness statement, also signed "George Hutchinson" to the 1911 census.

No.

This has not been established at all. Some subscribe to this view, while others do not.

and the 1911 census "George Hutchinson" married a woman named Sarah in 1900.

No.

He married a woman named Florence in 1898.

Hutchinson says he knew Kelly for several years

We have no corroboration for this claim at all, though. If the claim was false, it certainly doesn't follow that "some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson". There's no evidence that any of the Miller's Court residences had a face to put to the name of either Fleming or Hutchinson.

you can make a much stronger argument that Fleming didn't exist.

No, that's impossible.

I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with the subject matter.

[Pontius2000]

No.

This has not been established at all. Some subscribe to this view, while others do not.



No.

He married a woman named Florence in 1898.



We have no corroboration for this claim at all, though. If the claim was false, it certainly doesn't follow that "some of these people who knew her also knew Hutchinson". There's no evidence that any of the Miller's Court residences had a face to put to the name of either Fleming or Hutchinson.



No, that's impossible.

I think you need to acquaint yourself a little better with the subject matter.

oh, I'm acquainted with the subject, thanks. the hand that signed the signature in 1888 is the same that signed in 1911. I guess you are assuming that signatures signed 23 years apart should be mirror images of each other, which is again, ridiculous. I don't need a smoking gun, all I need is common sense. they were signed by the same hand. hire a handwriting expert, and they'll tell you the same thing.

so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years. this same man, again for unknown reasons, came forward days after the Kelly murder and gave the police his alias and a completely made up story. it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples.

now, come back at me that all that is only my opinion and I have no proof of it. then, I'll come back at you and ask for any shred of proof that someone (Fleming or otherwise) used the alias "George Hutchinson". and I'll also ask for any evidence, other than wild speculation, that this person killed Kelly.

[Ben]

“hire a handwriting expert, and they'll tell you the same thing”

Been done, Ponts. In 1993. And the handwriting expert who examined the original documents came to the conclusion that they were written by different people, which makes a laughably mockery of your insistence to the contrary as though it were an established fact. And no, you do not appear to have familiarised yourself properly with the topic, or else you wouldn’t be repeating an argument that has been thrashed out numerous times, nor would you make the hopelessly muddled pronouncement that the real George Hutchinson married someone named Sarah in 1900.

“so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years”

What are you getting confused about now? Why would he have been required to keep the alias for 23 years? If Hutchinson came forward with an either an invented story or an alias, it wouldn’t be for an “unknown reason”. It would be because he wished to conceal something whilst advertising something else, the suggested reasons for which have been explored in depth on more appropriate threads.

“it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples”

It’s also possible – probable even – that I’m currently dealing with an undeservedly cocky and thoroughly uninformed timewaster who wants to start a Hutchinson debate on a “creative writing” thread. Now, you really need to stop with the embarrassingly bad attempts at rhetoric, use Capital Letters at the beginning of your sentences, and pop yourself along to the Hutchinson threads with a view to educating yourself. If you still want to pick a fight and use antagonistic language after that, I’ll see you there.

[claire]

o
so I guess it's possible that a man, for some unknown reason, took up the alias "George Hutchinson" and kept the alias for at least 23 years. this same man, again for unknown reasons, came forward days after the Kelly murder and gave the police his alias and a completely made up story. it's also possible that space aliens built the Myan temples.

Alas, we do know that a man whose real name was Joseph Fleming adopted the alias of James Evans, during or before 1892, and retained that alias for 28 years until his death. So, being so incredulous that someone would adopt an alias for such a length of time doesn't really lend any weight to your argument.

And: 'Mayan.'

[Pontius2000]

Been done, Ponts. In 1993. And the handwriting expert who examined the original documents came to the conclusion that they were written by different people, which makes a laughably mockery of your insistence to the contrary as though it were an established fact. And no, you do not appear to have familiarised yourself properly with the topic, or else you wouldn’t be repeating an argument that has been thrashed out numerous times, nor would you make the hopelessly muddled pronouncement that the real George Hutchinson married someone named Sarah in 1900.



What are you getting confused about now? Why would he have been required to keep the alias for 23 years? If Hutchinson came forward with an either an invented story or an alias, it wouldn’t be for an “unknown reason”. It would because he wished to conceal something whilst advertising something else, all of which has been explored in depth on more appropriate threads.



It’s also possible – probable even – that I’m currently dealing with an undeservedly cocky and thoroughly uninformed timewaster who wants to start a Hutchinson debate on a “creative writing” thread. Now, you really need to stop with the embarrassingly bad attempts at rhetoric, use Capital Letters at the beginning of your sentences, and pop yourself along to the Hutchinson threads with a view to educating yourself. If you still want to pick a fight and use antagonistic language after that, I’ll see you there.

where is the report of this handwriting "expert" that said those signatures were written by different people?

and again, where is any proof outside of wild speculation that this person had any whatsoever to do with any murder?

YOU are the one who started with the antagonizing by advising I needed to better acquaint myself with this subject. I've been acquainting myself with this subject for over 20 years now. and you cannot produce one shred of evidence that the person who signed the witness statement was not a man whose actual name was George Hutchinson or that he had anything at all to do with killing Kelly or anybody else.

[Pontius2000]

Alas, we do know that a man whose real name was Joseph Fleming adopted the alias of James Evans, during or before 1892, and retained that alias for 28 years until his death. So, being so incredulous that someone would adopt an alias for such a length of time doesn't really lend any weight to your argument.

And: 'Mayan.'

did this man insert himself into the murder investigation for no reason? let's say that George Hutchinson IS a fake....why would he come forward days later with false information, despite the fact that the police weren't looking for him, weren't looking for Fleming either? so he kills Kelly, and decides to put himself at risk by assuming an alias and coming forward to the police with an elaborate account, even though the police weren't even looking for him. the "ridiculous" part is not that someone would use an alias. the ridiculous part is that someone would come forward for no reason, using an alias.

and yes, I also find it ridiculous to try to claim there was no such George Hutchinson, when there certainly a lot of candidates for the REAL existence of the man.

there are a lot of suspects who are suspects based on at least a little bit of circumstantial evidence. and then there are suspects based on wild speculation. and this theory on Hutchinson is wild speculation.

[Ben]

Very good point, Claire!

where is the report of this handwriting "expert" that said those signatures were written by different people?

Submitted to the World Association of Document Examiners (WADE) conference in 1993, as discussed on the threads which deal with this issue.

Please go there and read about it if you're interested in this topic.

(I wonder if any more hints are necessary? We'll see...)

and again, where is any proof outside of wild speculation that this person had any whatsoever to do with any murder?

Proof? Haven't got any, and never claimed I had. I feel that a compelling circumstantial case can be made in that regard, and given that other intelligent and discerning commentators agree with me (even if some of them might not share my ultimate conclusion), you might understand why I'm not about to get too saddened by your accusations of "wild speculation".

YOU are the one who started with the antagonizing by advising I needed to better acquaint myself with this subject.

That's because you made a number of statements that were plain wrong, and whereas a "thanks for the correction" might have been the appropriate reaction, you instead launched into some deeply unsophisticated sarcasm. I've also suggested that the information you seek may be found in the threads that you've already consulted, but this doesn't appear to have been embraced either.