A Intresting find?

[Bob Hinton]

Problems

The problem you have here is one of uniqueness. (Is there such a word?) Step back a minute. Let’s leave the Flemings alone for a minute and simplify the problem.

Let us say we are looking for a murderer. A suspect crops up and is immediately put forward as the killer as he has motive means and opportunity. Now if this person is unique, there is no one else who shares these features then we may say that it is probably that this person is our man.

However if someone else is found who has exactly the same features then all sense of probability goes out of the window unless we can establish further pointers.

In the case of Flemming our start is the inquest as that is where we are first introduced to this character. From that we learn three vital pieces of information. His Name, his occupation and his link to a geographical area. Now if there is only one person that matches all three then we can say that it is possible we have the right man.

However if, as in this case, we have multiple contenders then we cannot point to any particular one, unless we have further information.

Imagine if you will that the process of finding a person is like sieving flour. Let us say that the only information we have about a person is that he is male. Then our sieve would only have two holes in it, one for male and the other for female. All those lumps that fell through the male mesh could be contenders. Then we bolster our information with height. The mesh is further reduced so that only males of a certain height fall through. And so on. Every time we get more information we reduce the size of the mesh until we end up with a mesh so fine that only someone who fits all the criteria will fall through – and that in all probability is your man.

Here though we have a mesh so broad that anyone named Joseph Flemming or Fleming alive in 1888 is falling through – and there are an awful lot of them!

[Debra A]

Isn't the problem that we have ONE Joseph Flemming, plasterer, b c 1858 in Bethnal Green who fits the bill of MJK's man, located in 1881 at Crozier Street, and two different Joseph Flemmings who could fit the bill in other census entries to be the 1881 man?
We have your man Edward Joseph Fleming b 1857, son of George Fleming, a shoemaker and Sarah Fleming. Then we have Joseph Fleming son of Richard Fleming, a plasterer, and Henrietta Fleming.
Both have connections to Bethnal Green, both born the right time to be the 1881 plasterer. The question is which one of these two men became the plasterer of 1881 isn't it?
We can't go by spelling alone in determining this as both were registered and baptised Fleming with one 'm'

We have also one man in 1891 who is the right age, born in Bethnal Green and is a boot finisher by trade, he also fits the details of either of the two men mentioned above.
Its' easy to assume that the son of a shoemaker would enter the shoe trade himself and also that the son of a plasterer would become a plasterer himself, but it isn't always that simple is it?!

[Bob Hinton]

Come out, come out wherever you are.........

Dear Debs,

And therein lies the problem. The start point is the inquest and the information we get from that. That leads us to 1881 man who fits the three things we know perfectly, spelling the same as the official record, occupation and geographical position.

Now back to the 1871 we have a divergence, two candidates here BUT only one has the spelling as per 1881 and inquest. Therefore if there is no pressing reason to disregard this man we must accept him as being the same as 1881 man. Back to 1861 and again we only have one candidate who conforms to the 1871, 1881, and 1888 spelling of his name. We must therefore accept this is the same man UNLESS there is good evidence to the contrary.

Now back to his birth. Here we have both candidates with a different spelling, using a single M. But only one conforms to the information we have already established about this man and that is his parents are George and Sarah. This is also strengthened by the fact that his possible sister in the 1871 is called Sarah (it was common to use the mothers name somewhere).
Your point about following a fathers trade is well taken, but in this case Joseph Flemming was in the workhouse in 1871 and outside the normal influences.

Research usually boils down to who has the most amount of common factors; in this case it is the person who is the son of George and Sarah, and this is the person we must accept as being the 1888 Joe Flemming, unless we discover pressing evidence to the contrary.

[Debra A]

Bob, with respect, what we have in the inquest testimony is useless as a clue to the way Flemming spelled his name anyway. As far as is known, Joseph Flemming was not traced and did not give any evidence at the inquest. The mention of his name comes from Barnett alone, so therefore the spelling of Flemming with a double 'm' in the inquest reports is irrelevant as it was written by someone who wasn't even familiar with the way Flemming would have spelled his name. It's not as if Barnett would have said Mary once went out with a chap named Joseph Flemming, definitely spelt double m, a plasterer from Bethnal Green.

I maintain that spelling cannot be used to count in or out either of these two candidates. Both roughly fit the 1881 man and both started out Fleming one 'm' .

[Bob Hinton]

Then here we will have to disagree. You say that both started out as spelling their name with one ‘M’ but that is incorrect. You have not established any link between these two men and the 1888 Flemming. You cannot establish a link because you are following your chain from the wrong end. You must start the chain at the inquest. Otherwise you are looking to see how many Joseph Flemmings were born in the 19th century and saying “It could be any of them”. That should leave you with a choice of about 60,000 if you count in both spellings.

You are looking at the problem with hindsight and hopping over the links. For example you say both these men started out Fleming with one ‘M’. But how are you saying that? You are saying that because both men were born at approximately the same time. But how do you know the ages? Because you have taken that information from the 1881 census, but that is wrong. You have to follow each link and make sure it is attached to the next.

What you are doing is starting with the 1888 information and using that to find the 1881. The 1881 fits the 1888 perfectly so the chances are pretty good that it is the right person. However what you are doing then is to calculate his age using the 1881 information, then skipping over the links to find anyone born at the calculated date of birth. Then you are working forwards again from that point. That you cannot do as there is no chain of evidence just a load of haphazard links.

My chain is thus.

1888 information and three pieces of information, name: JOSEPH FLEMMING occupation: Plasterer Geographical tie: Bethnal Green. This leads me to

1881 census where I find a man named JOSEPH FLEMMING, occupation plasterer, born in Bethnal Green and living in the same area. It also gives me his approximate age. Using these four pieces of information (Name, Occupation, Birth Place and Age) this then leads me back to the

1871 Census where I find a person right name, right age and right birthplace in the Workhouse with a 6 year old girl Sarah Flemming. Now from this information I can hazard a guess that there is a 50/50 chance that his mother’s name is Sarah. I use this new information to travel back to the

1861 Census where I find the same person listed with father George and Mother Sarah.

You see my chain is unbroken all the way, from link to link, same age same name and where listed same occupation.

[Debra A]

Bob, you are failing to make any sense to me now.
I traced the birth entry of 'your' Joseph Flemming, the man you say corresponds to the 1881 entry that most agree could be MJK's Joseph Flemming.

'Your' Joseph Flemming had a father George, a shoemaker or cordwainer, a mother Sarah, siblings George, Charles and Sarah. Is this not so? You agreed earlier you thought it was your man.

I have found the baptism record at St leonard Shoreditch for Edward Joseph b 1857 son of George and Sarah, George being a cordwainer. Other children of this couple that correspond to the 1861 and 71 census entries you say are your candidate (Charles and Sarah) were also baptised in the same place, showing this is highly likely to be the family you are talking about.
Edward Joseph Fleming was registered at birth and baptised as Fleming.

I couldn't find the older sibling George earlier but now I have, baptised at the same place, same parents and same address as Edward Joseph....under the name Flemings (one m one s)

I'm sorry Bob,I'm just not following your argument at all.

[Debra A]

1871 Census where I find a person right name, right age and right birthplace in the Workhouse with a 6 year old girl Sarah Flemming. Now from this information I can hazard a guess that there is a 50/50 chance that his mother’s name is Sarah. I use this new information to travel back to the

But that can't be how you worked backwards on this, the Joseph Flemming in workhouse with sister Sarah in 1871 has a place of birth listed as unknown.

Edit: I think I have also located the marriage of George Fleming cordwainer to Sarah Wood, in 1843. If it is the same couple, both of them were illiterate and wouldn't have had a clue how to spell their names anyway

[coral]

I may be a bit naiave here - but weren't all the census before 1911 recorded by enumerators.

I assume that they knocked on your door - asked for your name - then wrote it down. Did they ask how your surname was spelt? Even if they did - would the resident be literate enough to know how it was spelt.

Also when a parent registered the birth of a child or had it baptised were they literate enough to know the correct spelling of their own surname.

I agree with Debra - exatly who at the MJK inquest would know the exact spelling was 'Fleming' or 'Flemming'?

Coral

[Chris]

I may be a bit naiave here - but weren't all the census before 1911 recorded by enumerators.

I assume that they knocked on your door - asked for your name - then wrote it down. Did they ask how your surname was spelt? Even if they did - would the resident be literate enough to know how it was spelt.

I agree that not too much importance should be attached to the spelling of surnames, but I think householders when able did fill in their own returns before 1911, which were then copied by the enumerators.

[curious]

Then here we will have to disagree. You say that both started out as spelling their name with one ‘M’ but that is incorrect. You have not established any link between these two men and the 1888 Flemming. You cannot establish a link because you are following your chain from the wrong end. You must start the chain at the inquest. Otherwise you are looking to see how many Joseph Flemmings were born in the 19th century and saying “It could be any of them”. That should leave you with a choice of about 60,000 if you count in both spellings.

You are looking at the problem with hindsight and hopping over the links. For example you say both these men started out Fleming with one ‘M’. But how are you saying that? You are saying that because both men were born at approximately the same time. But how do you know the ages? Because you have taken that information from the 1881 census, but that is wrong. You have to follow each link and make sure it is attached to the next.

What you are doing is starting with the 1888 information and using that to find the 1881. The 1881 fits the 1888 perfectly so the chances are pretty good that it is the right person. However what you are doing then is to calculate his age using the 1881 information, then skipping over the links to find anyone born at the calculated date of birth. Then you are working forwards again from that point. That you cannot do as there is no chain of evidence just a load of haphazard links.

My chain is thus.

1888 information and three pieces of information, name: JOSEPH FLEMMING occupation: Plasterer Geographical tie: Bethnal Green. This leads me to

1881 census where I find a man named JOSEPH FLEMMING, occupation plasterer, born in Bethnal Green and living in the same area. It also gives me his approximate age. Using these four pieces of information (Name, Occupation, Birth Place and Age) this then leads me back to the

1871 Census where I find a person right name, right age and right birthplace in the Workhouse with a 6 year old girl Sarah Flemming. Now from this information I can hazard a guess that there is a 50/50 chance that his mother’s name is Sarah. I use this new information to travel back to the

1861 Census where I find the same person listed with father George and Mother Sarah.

You see my chain is unbroken all the way, from link to link, same age same name and where listed same occupation.

So, Bob, this means that the man in the asylum is NOT the Joseph Flem(m)ing associated with MJK?

since his mother's name is Henrietta?

So that likely the Brawny Giant refers to the asylum Joseph Flem(m)ing and not to MJK's beau.

Then, MJK's beau was married, is that logical?

curious

[Bob Hinton]

Not quite

So, Bob, this means that the man in the asylum is NOT the Joseph Flem(m)ing associated with MJK?

since his mother's name is Henrietta?

So that likely the Brawny Giant refers to the asylum Joseph Flem(m)ing and not to MJK's beau.

Then, MJK's beau was married, is that logical?

curious

I'm not saying that the man in the asylum is not 1888 Joseph Flemming. What I am saying is that for someone to put him up as such must show that their candidate is the ONLY one, or as near as possible the only one, who fits.

You cannot go around saying "Well I've found someone in 1881 who fits the bill, but the other records don't match so I'll just say someone made a mistake in the spelling and leave it at that".

Now for all you out there who insists that various enumerators, census takers etc made a mistake in the spelling of this person’s name, don't you think out of the thousands and thousands of enumerators taking the details it’s an incredible coincidence that every one of them from 1861 to 1881 made precisely the same spelling mistake for the same person in every single census and this is even more incredible the person taking the inquest records in 1888 made exactly the same spelling mistake? I mean what are the odds?
Now if you take that further the proponents of the “spelling mistake” also have to explain their thinking on this, because apparently it changes every couple of years.
1888 Yes we accept the spelling of Flemming
1881 Yes we accept the spelling of Flemming because this chap fits like a glove.
1871 Well we’ve changed our mind here because the Fleming we’ve picked doesn’t fit with the previous two so we are now going to cry spelling mistake.
1861 Nope actually still doesn’t fit with who we have picked, so spelling mistake again.
Birth record still doesn’t fit so we are playing the spelling mistake card again.

Now if there was no other candidate for 1888 Flemming I would probably say ok you may have a point, but when we do have records going all the way back with the same spelling of the name and details, you really have to ask “Why yours and not mine?”.

And that’s what I am doing. What is the evidence that Joseph son of Henrietta is the right one?

[Debra A]

I'm not saying that the man in the asylum is not 1888 Joseph Flemming. What I am saying is that for someone to put him up as such must show that their candidate is the ONLY one, or as near as possible the only one, who fits.

You cannot go around saying "Well I've found someone in 1881 who fits the bill, but the other records don't match so I'll just say someone made a mistake in the spelling and leave it at that".

Now for all you out there who insists that various enumerators, census takers etc made a mistake in the spelling of this person’s name, don't you think out of the thousands and thousands of enumerators taking the details it’s an incredible coincidence that every one of them from 1861 to 1881 made precisely the same spelling mistake for the same person in every single census and this is even more incredible the person taking the inquest records in 1888 made exactly the same spelling mistake? I mean what are the odds?
Now if you take that further the proponents of the “spelling mistake” also have to explain their thinking on this, because apparently it changes every couple of years.
1888 Yes we accept the spelling of Flemming
1881 Yes we accept the spelling of Flemming because this chap fits like a glove.
1871 Well we’ve changed our mind here because the Fleming we’ve picked doesn’t fit with the previous two so we are now going to cry spelling mistake.
1861 Nope actually still doesn’t fit with who we have picked, so spelling mistake again.
Birth record still doesn’t fit so we are playing the spelling mistake card again.

Now if there was no other candidate for 1888 Flemming I would probably say ok you may have a point, but when we do have records going all the way back with the same spelling of the name and details, you really have to ask “Why yours and not mine?”.

And that’s what I am doing. What is the evidence that Joseph son of Henrietta is the right one?

Like I said at the beginning, both the Joseph Flemming son of Richard and Henrietta, and Edward Joseph (later known as Joseph) son of George and Sarah are possibles. But neither can be ruled out by spelling on the census alone (which you have tried to do with the son of Richard and Henrietta) and both started life named Fleming anyway.

The spelling on the inquest papers was written by someone who never knew or even spoke to Joseph Flemming to know how he spelled his name and is not evidence at all.

We will never agree on this Bob so I'll leave to you to it.

[Bob Hinton]

You misunderstand me Debs, I'm not trying to rule people out I just want to know why the son of Henrietta has been ruled in. What is it about this particular person that makes him a shoe in for Mr 1888?

As I have said if he was the only Joseph Fleming, regardless of spelling, I could understand that, but since he isn't what makes Henriettas son the right one?

[Debra A]

Bob, I think plastering has a lot to do with it and it's just become an unquestioned fact now.
In 1871, Joseph Fleming, son of Richard and Henrietta is the right age and birthplace (Bethnal Green) to fit with the 1881 Joseph Flemming plasterer at Crozier Terrace, he has no occupation as he's too young but he does have the added bonus that his father is a plasterer.

It's not unreasonable to assume that the son of a plasterer (who does fit the 1881 cenus candidate for Joseph Flemming despite the spelling) would become a plasterer himself...but it can only ever be assumption and not proof I agree, and I think Chris Scott has said as much before although I can't find the post now.
He should be ruled in, but we should also consider that the son of a shoemaker, who also has the right age and birthplace, could just as well end up as a plasterer, maybe?...That's my take on it anyway, unless someone has conclusive proof that the son of Richard and Henrietta was definitely a plasterer by trade by 1881 and beyond.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
Whats my latest take on all of this.?
Fleming son of bootmaker, becomes friends with Tillett, who gets him a job as a bootfinisher, both become unemployed, and Both end up working at the monument warehouse, although Fleming also tries his hand at mixing up plaster for a stonemason, during which time he has a affair with Mjk, but by 1887 he is at the monument warehouse.
He attended the funeral of Mjk along with Barnett, but the shock of her death sent him progressively insane, and he was certified.
He was the Fleming/ alias Evans which we have been discussing.
Only one problem.... How does Henrietta come into the mix?
So lets plump for the obvious ie, The whole Tillett scenerio is a false lead, and Joseph Fleming was a 6'7 man who was the lover of Mjk he was a skilled plasterer,, and he attended the funeral of Mjk, afterwards he went steadly insane, and was certified in 1892, this man died in 1920, and he was the son of Henrietta, and Richard.
I am now going for a lay down....
Regards Richard.