the key

[Lechmere]

Exactly!
But that may not be the right Fleming anyway.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Pursuant to my earlier observation, Fish, I notice that Fleming was still described as being in "good" health even when his weight dropped to 11 stone. This would give him a BMI of 17.4, which is in the anorexic category, and certainly not "naturally slim"."

It does sound more grave, yes. But I am not sure about anorectic. I do not wish to quibble, but I found a list of famous female actors, telling us about:

Sarah M. Gellar 42 kg BMI 16,4
Mena Suvari 42,5 kg BMI 16,6
Winona Ryder 47,5 kg BMI 17,9
Tori Spelling 47,5 kg BMI 17,9
Jennifer Aniston 50 kg BMI 17,7
Victoria Beckham 50 kg BMI 17,7
Neve Campbell 48 kg BMI 17,0
Calista Flockhart 44,5 kg BMI 15,6
Megan Fox 48kg Bmi 17,0
Halle Berry 47 kg BMI 16,3
Kirsten Dunst 48 kg BMI 16,6
Kate Moss 47,5 BMI 16,4
Julia Stiles 50 kg BMI 17,3
Charisma Carpenter 51,5 kg BMI 17,2
Courntey Cox-Arquette 49 kg BMI 16,4
Portia DeRossi 53 kg BMI 17,7
Rebecca Gayheart 50 kg BMI 16,7
Kathie Holmes 49,5 kg BMI 16,5
Milla Jovovich 52,5 kg BMI 17,5
Cate Blanchett 51 kg BMI 16,7
Shannon Elisabeth 50 kg BMI 16,3
Alicia Silverstone 54,5 kg BMI 17,8
Leelee Sobieski 54,5 kg BMI 17,8
Dominique Swain 53,5 kg BMI 17,4
Charlize Theron 53,5 kg BMI 17,4
Cindy Crawford 50,5 kg BMI 15,9
Cameron Diaz 54,5 kg BMI 17,2
Nicole Kidman 52 kg BMI 16,4
Heidi Klum 54 kg BMI 17,0

Some of these women are, admittedly, extremely slim, like for example Calista Flockhart, who does give a somewhat anorectic impression. But many of the others with figures lower than Flemings come across as perfectly healthy women to my eyes; Kidman, Crawford, Blanchett etc, etc. Here:

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/charisma-carpenter-vs-mother-nature-in-crash-site/

is a picture of Charisma Carpenter, for example (what a name!). She seems anything but anorectic to my eyes; no ribs showing there! And she is BMI 17,2, in fact LOWER than Fleming was.

I think that we must listen to the doctor´s words here, unless we can prove him definitely wrong: The patient he examined under the name of James Evans (Fleming), was found to be of good bodily health, and you can apparently be of good bodily health at very low BMI:s. And at the end of the day, what Lechmere says makes a world of sense to me: We´ve got what we´ve got in terms of figures, and as long as we cannot disprove them we must regard them as true figures.

It is another thing altogether that we are all free to doubt, but we cannot allow that doubt to take the form of something even resembling facts. As it stands, Joe Fleming was 201 centimeters tall and a very slim man, but of good bodily health. As it stands, that detracts a lot from the possibility of him being the Ripper. And as it stands, more research needs to be done before that changes - if ever.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Point missed by the looks of things, Lechmere.

It is irrelevant whether or not Fleming was fleshier prior to his incarceration. The point is that his health was described as "good", despite an apparent height of 6'7" and a weight of only 11 stone (resulting in a BMI index of 17.4 which would today be classed as anorexic). It doesn't matter how "unequivocal" the entry is. If it throws up anomalies such as these, it is only proper that we should query them without being accused of trying to manipulate the evidence to "suit" a theory.

[Lechmere]

Kosminski’s asylum weight is on the low side also – I suspect it was a feature of life in an asylum.
It doesn’t make for very good ‘research’ to doubt or disbelieve figures which are fairly unequivocal just because they do not suit one’s theory.
Do we know that Mary Kelly was choosey about her suitors?
Do we know how much Flemming weighed in 1887? It is a fair bet that it was better proportioned prior to his confinement.

[Ben]

Pursuant to my earlier observation, Fish, I notice that Fleming was still described as being in "good" health even when his weight dropped to 11 stone. This would give him a BMI of 17.4, which is in the anorexic category, and certainly not "naturally slim".

Interestingly, this isn't the only instance of unusual "6" figures in the entry. It was also observed that insanity had been in the family for 160 years, which seems oddly specific!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I'm no expert on the subject"

Welcome to the club!

"this places him firmly in the "underweight" category".

If it is all that "firm" I would not know - 19,0 is "ideal weight", and that would only have been around 4 kilogrammes away in Flemings case.

"it is advised that anyone with a BMI of less than 18.5 should consult their doctor."

That sounds as if they would all be very much undernourished and in dire need of medical attention. But the passage you quote reads, in it´s entirety:

"Someone with a BMI of below 18.5 is considered underweight. Whilst some people are naturally slim, being underweight from poor nutrition, or as a result of other disease, can have serious health risks. Illness associated with being underweight ranges from simple tiredness due to inadequate energy intake, through to reduced immunity to infections, anaemia, vitamin deficiencies, thinning of the bones, infertility and heart rhythm irregularities. If your BMI is under 18.5 you should discuss it with your doctor. They will want to make sure you don’t have any illness causing the weight loss and then will advise you about how to safely gain weight."

This seems to tell us that the people who need to see a doctor as a result of their low BMI, are only those who are thin due to undernourishment or suffering from a disease.
The passage, however, also clearly states that some people simply are naturally slim. My personal guess is that this is by far and away a more common thing than undernourishment or disease (although it could well have been more common in the East end of 1888, of course!). And a 6,7´tall Fleming may very well have been just that - naturally slim, and of good bodily health. Could have been the other way around too, of course - but then that would swear against the phrasing the doctor used.

Regardless of all this, I remain inclined to think that we are looking at faulty figures in that ledger.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

Unless we can locate an unequivocally identified photograph, or some other document (preferably two for corroboration) that demonstrates beyond argument that Fleming was of normal or more normal height, we never shall.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm no expert on the subject, but I visited this website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tools/bmi_calculator/bmi.shtml

His BMI works out at 18.2, as you note, but this places him firmly in the "underweight" category, and it is advised that anyone with a BMI of less than 18.5 should consult their doctor.

Interesting, if you dock a foot off Fleming's recorded height, it would give a BMI of 24.9, which is in the "normal" range.

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

No argument there!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Phil!

The problem with the purported mixing up of the numbers 1 and 7 is that we do have examples of how the registrator wrote them - and they differed very clearly. Have a look at the first few posts in the "The records from Stone asylum"-thread, and you will see what I´m talking about.

But believe me, I am as suspicious as you are about the given height...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

We have nothing but logic, assumptions and common sense to go on, so we cannot simply ignore the written record.

Nevertheless, since I first read about Fleming's documented height, I have been suspicious. (For one thing, I cannot see the apparently "fastidious" MJK - use the word loosely, of course - going out with someone so comically tall.) So privately, I always amend the height by a foot, but assume also that the mistake might have been in the figure "7" (so might he have been TALL (6'1") if not exceptionally so?

The consequence is that I do not allow his recorded height to be a reason for dismissing him as a contender.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He was also described as being 11 stone and in good health, and it is very difficult to be both of these things and 6'7" in height."

Here is the Stone asylum entry in which good bodily health was mentioned:

"Form of Insanity: Melancholia
Supposed cause: Drink? Initialled H P
Bodily Health: Good
Height: 6ft 7in
Weight: Weight: 11st 8lbs"

I have taken the time to check things out a bit here, and I think that we must accept that these figures may well have represented good bodily health, Ben. This is how it goes:
Fleming was 201 centimeters and weighed 73,5 kilos. If we look at the BMI (body mass index) that stands for, we come up with a figure of 18,2. Now, the BMI index ranges like this: -19 (underweight), 19-25 (ideal weight), 26-30 (overweight), 30- (obese).

This indicates that Fleming was actually not very far from ideal weight. A further comparison that elucidates the matter further can be made by taking a look at this picture: http://www.allstarpics.net/0223437/0...uello-pic.html

The picture shows the boxing world champion Alexis Arguello. He weighed in at 59 kilos and was 178 centimeters tall. That gives a BMI of 18,6, meaning that he lands in pretty much the same figures as Fleming, and though Arguello was a very lean boxer, he was still muscular and of extremely good bodily health.

In conclusion, although I suspect that Fleming would have made rather a skinny figure if he WAS 6,7´, it cannot be stated that he could not have been of good bodily health, as far as I understand.

I would be more inclined to think that the figure as such may have been wrong. But it remains a very tricky thing to prove...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

... but for the heigth of the man, that is. 6 foot 7 - that is a heavy burden. Then again, there is the odd possibility that this figure is wrong.

Indeed, Fisherman, especially since we know that other "figures" in the entry were wrong, such as his listed age. He was also described as being 11 stone and in good health, and it is very difficult to be both of these things and 6'7" in height.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Kelly's clothing was reportedly found neatly folded on the chair.One might presume that ,this was largely due to habit,but might the neatness also point to a state short of completely drunk and incapable.

I'm not so sure, Harry. Sam made the point a year or two ago that no contemporaneous evidence has been uncovered to support the notion of Mary Jane's clothing having been neatly folded. The contention appears to have originated with McCormick and has been repeated with such frequency that it has come to be regarded as factual. Personally, I remain open minded about the issue.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere!

Yours are useful points, as always. I think we will just have to disagree about the avilability of different types of prostitutes on the East End streets between 12.45 and sunup, simple as that.

"Regarding Flemming’s height, I tend to the view that the Ripper wasn’t actually sighted by any of the witnesses."

Oh-oh! Including Lawende...? That´s interesting - do you regard the woman he and his companion saw as being Eddowes? And if so, what is your picture of what went down afterwards?

"Flemming would have stood out like a sore thumb prowling around"

More of a middle finger, methinks

"You provide motivation for Flemming murdering Kelly, not for him being the Ripper and not for him destroying her body in that manner."

Come on, Lechmere - how could I tell where Flemings and the Ripper´s motivations would have been the same, when we do not know what drove the killer...? And in all fairness I do point to total destruction being a factor in some domestic murders, like the Gingrich case, don´t I?
If you get a chance to read Ripperologist 97, it will give you a much more full picture of what I mean. It would take up too much space to through it all here, and it would not be strictly threadrelated either, so that is the best I can do.

"The point Harry made about the folded clothes is interesting. She was so incapably drunk that she left her stocking on and couldn’t have gone out again that night. Yet she wasn’t so incapably drunk to be able to light her fire and fold her clothes... and answer her door to a soft knock."

As I said before, cold temperatures may be the best of incentives for leaving your socks on (and we do not for sure know that she did, mind you!). Furthermore, I would not say that she was too drunk to be capable to go out. We could not possibly know this, could we? Some people sober up quicker than others, and some describe drunkenness in a more dramatic way than other - perhaps like Cox. And we DO know that she made it to her room on her own, since Cox saw the couple walking in front of her, and that says something, I guess.
What I am saying is that people who have been out on the town drinking themselves gloriously pissed, and who subsequently return to their homes, more often than not call it a night when they do so. And when they are found undressed in their beds the day after, clothes folded on a chair and evidence of a fire having been lit, it does not in the least way detract from that picture, does it?
Yes, she could have worked up a motivation for going out again - we simply cannot know - but as it stands and working from the extensive knowledge I have about my own drinking chums and myself many years ago, I´d go for the bunk in ten cases out of ten. Mind you, I was never a prostitute, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fisherman

I’m going on the accounts of the murder victims – why they were out that late.
No money for their room usually, having spent it on booze.
There would have been far fewer customers around in the small hours as well.
Some prostitutes would have been more desperate than others.
An explanation for Kelly’s late night soliciting is that she was behind on her rent.

If the Ripper was essentially ‘organised’ (which I take him to be and I think you do, from what I have read), then his options for ‘organising’ his activities would be limited.

There was little privacy – whether he was a married man, a lodging house dweller or a simple lodger.
He would have to do it when he would be least noticed in committing the act and by any people he lived with.
The streets were crowded at day time and very dark in the dead of night.
The area was overpopulated. Within ten yards of all the murder scenes there would have been maybe 50 asleep or snoozing or even awake and listening out!
There were quite a number of policemen on the beat.
Where did most prostitutes service their client? In the street or indoors? Quite a few lodging houses allowed ‘couples’ and were regarded as being no more than brothels. Many like Kelly probably had their own room. It wouldn’t be feasible I suspect to murder in a lodging house, so that reduces his potential victims to be either the ‘street’ variety (almost certainly the poorest type of prostitute) or the occasional one who had their own place (Kelly – and maybe Pinchin Street?) who would probably be less available late at night.

This adds up, I think, to having to take what victims as presented themselves and they would tend to be the rough type. This is far from suggesting he actually preferred the rough type.

Regarding Flemming’s height, I tend to the view that the Ripper wasn’t actually sighted by any of the witnesses. However Flemming would have stood out like a sore thumb prowling around. You provide motivation for Flemming murdering Kelly, not for him being the Ripper and not for him destroying her body in that manner.

The point Harry made about the folded clothes is interesting. She was so incapably drunk that she left her stocking on and couldn’t have gone out again that night. Yet she wasn’t so incapably drunk to be able to light her fire and fold her clothes... and answer her door to a soft knock.