Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Fisherman]

I hope this is my last post on the topic of height for a while. Many moons ago, Debs posited the idea that the 6' 7" was a clerical error. She never said she thought that was the case. She only gave it as a possibility. (please correct me Debs if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly) When I look at the record, it is clearly NOT 67 inches, so that would make it an error of not a simple pen stroke, but of gross negligence. That of course is possible, but less likely than a pen stroke error. What I would like to see is a list of other such size errors where feet and inches are recorded, but only inches were meant. I would like to see these instances from any British hospital in the period of say 1888 - 1896. If anyone can produce a list from this time period, it would shore up the "error" idea a bit and I'd be inclined to waffle on the issue. This being said, I absolutely see no reason to assume a tall man's height would be mentioned in the records surrounding Kelly as no one but Kelly knew the man. He could have been tall or short and as no one but Kelly saw him from the people we know involved in the case, we can't know that.

Mike

Could you blow that up a bit, frame it and gild the frame, Mike? It belongs on every Ripperologistīs wall.
The iconoclasts of Ripperology will deny this too, but hey ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Could you blow that up a bit, frame it and gild the frame, Mike? It belongs on every Ripperologistīs wall.
The iconoclasts of Ripperology will deny this too, but hey ...

Fish, nothing more I can do. I have no agenda except one of keeping things logical and real. Yet, the logic of others and the realism of some are different and not really understood by me. I think it isn't understood by them either.

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

as you know, Fleming used to visit her.
And nothing leaked out as to her having a freakish friend.
Nobody saw that 6'7 guy, although she knew him for three years at the time she died.
He was not a vague acquaintance. He was somebody she was once about to marry.

But she never told anyone about this remarkable height. And the medics in Stone thought as well it wasn't worth a comment.

Why ?

Because he wasn't that tall.

Cheers

[DVV]

Fish, nothing more I can do. I have no agenda except one of keeping things logical and real. Yet, the logic of others and the realism of some are different and not really understood by me. I think it isn't understood by them either.

Mike

What is so realistic in your posts, Mike ?

A girl would have the tallest guy of London as her boyfriend and never mentioned it ?

Medics saying nothing about such a height and thinness ?

Seems you only think you have no agenda.

If you had none, you'd simply admit that 6'7 is probably (or at least possibly) a mistake. And that Debs hasn't suggested so out of thin air.

[Ben]

Spot on as usual, Dave.

[Lechmere]

Girls seldom tell their current boyfriend the truth about their exes - do they DVV?

[Ben]

Fisherman,

As I suspected, you were using a rubbish, unreliable website which listed several celebrities' BMIs very briefly, as opposed to the one I used, which was specifically about Gwyneth Paltrow. The one I used is obviously the more trustworthy of the two. She was 5'9" and 60 kg, giving her a very normal BMI of 19.5. And no, peoples' BMIs can not possibly change that drastically from one "day" to the next.

... who may tell you that your just fine or that you need to put on a bit more, depending on what type of person you are.

Yes, and if you're the "type of person" who wanders the worst slum areas of London as a lunatic pauper, the doctor is unlikely to attribute your extreme thinness to regular work-outs in the gym or a passion for sprinting on the athletics track. This is why you need to take on board the point I'm making about a specific individual, and stop with the meaningless, irrelevant comparisons with celebrities. When an extremely low BMI - and 17.3 certainly qualifies as "extremely low" - is taken in consideration with a poor lifestyle, such as the one Fleming had, the inevitable conclusion is that the two are connected, and that Fleming was not in "good bodily health".

Once again - and a trillion more times, if necessary - the WHO is not on your side. It is not fighting your corner against me and the sources I provide. It is certainly not in conflict with the BBC. You have simply misinterpreted their comments on a number of issues., including the detail regarding a BMI of 15. They are certainly not suggesting that you should only go to the doctor if your BMI got that low. They're saying that you've reached the stage where consultation with a doctor is absolutely essential.

If you feel fine, eat regularly and take your exercise at 17.3, you may be the healthiest person on Moder Earth.

Which Fleming certainly wasn't, and could not have been, as a lunatic wandering pauper, thereafter to become an asylum inmate. 6'7" is freakishly tall and super skinny if the weight is as low as 11 stone. That is incredibly unusual, and only really sustainable if you're a pampered celebrity in a modern, westernised culture. If, however, you're built that way in circumstances of poverty - like a great many inhabitants of third world countries are - the reasonable conclusions is that is connected to ill health.

17.3 is an extremely low BMI, usually associated with sufferers of anorexia nervosa. Even acute sufferers of the disease often don't get as low as 17.3 on the BMI index. It is extremely gaunt, emaciated, and from a visual perspective, it would look very worrying indeed. You'd notice someone that thin and speculate, with considerable justification, that the person may be suffering from anorexia. You wouldn't look at someone like that and describe them as a "mildly" thin. I bet you all my worldly possessions you wouldn't. You've gone and misinterpreted basic expressions again, which I'll forgive as there may be language barrier issue. But just as an FYI, the WHO are not using expressions like "mild" and "moderate" as we might use them. They are simply adjectives to convey extents of extreme thinness.

James Stewart was rejected by the military, initially, for being considerably under the acceptable weight. He eventually succeeded in gaining entry, according to Stewart himself, simply by not stepping on the scales. He certainly did not persist, thereafter, in being such an extremely low weight. Michael Parkinson even ribbed him, good-naturedly, that he must have looked like a "famine victim". Frankly, I have no idea what his health was like in those early days, or if there was a specific health reason that caused such an incredibly low weight in his early years, but I certainly dispute that he never belonged in the "normal", i.e. above 18.5 category.

Now, before you fly into a rage about that, I may just as well tell you that this to some extent owes to other people, like asians, having lower general BMI values than we have.

So Fleming was Asian, now?

You've clearly figured this whole thing out.

Asian Joe - but of course.

If you think, incidentally, that a "meagre" society results in lots of people being "genetically disposed" to be have low BMIs, I'd ask you to consider Martha Tabram and Annie Chapman. The latter was certainly malnourished, and yet her BMI would have been well above "normal".

Sparse feeding on an asylum diet could have detracted three or four kilograms from his weight.

Oh, so he fared worse in terms of food intake and dietary habits when he was taken into care? What do you suppose he was doing when he was wandering the streets as an insane person - pigging out at Burger King? Raiding Kosminski's bread stash? Despite his fluctuating weight, he was continually described as being in good health, which makes considerably more sense if he was the infinitely more normal 5'7" suggested by Debs.

So you mean that if had not been for ethical considerations, the WHO would prefer these phrases? They would be better suited than mildly thin, moderately thin and severly thin?

No. Point missed again. I have no problem whatsoever with the adjectives used by WHO - I think they're very circumspect and restrained, and they usefully describe the differences in the "thinnesses" of an already extreme, health-concern group. What you've done is conclude from this that because the word "moderate" sounds a bit cushy and fuzzy, there is no concern attached to a BMI of 16, which there definitely, definitely is. It is considerably lower than the danger area normally associated with anorexics, which is 17.3.

It was the BMI he had when he was accepted as a pilot for the US Airforces in World War II. He was considered thin, but was accepted anyway.

No, he wasn't.

See above.

Now that youīve "called my bluff", how do you feel about the outcome?

Immensely reassured, and in the mood for a stamina war, actually.

[Ben]

It doesn't matter how nebulous you think the details Barnett supplied were, Lechmere.

The fact of the matter is that the information he supplied was enough to coincide exactly with the details of an actual human being, as borne out from census information and other records. Is that really just a coincidence? Of course not. The reality, therefore, is that Barnett told the truth at the inquest and provided accurate information with regard to Fleming. He didn't invent a load of stuff which accidentally coincided with a real individual, and nor did Kelly lie to Barnett for the same reason.

It has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Joseph Fleming from Bethnal Green who worked as a mason's plasterer and ended up at Claybury Asylum is the Fleming who meets all these criteria who was mentioned by Barnett at the inquest.

No, there is no reason for any of the doctors at Stone to have continually revisited the original height entry.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

as you know, Fleming used to visit her.

Where? When? How often? Swiss cheese.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Where? When? How often? Swiss cheese.

The best,
Fisherman

Every Saturday evening in a Chinese restaurant, as you have suggested.

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

When last I heard, Debs was of the opinion that the entry is an error, and that Fleming was not 6'7" in height. The "67 inches" explanation was a suggestion based on her experience of archival documents and the practices of registrars during the period. My own experience can't trump that of Debs - not by a long shot - and that is why I endorse her suggestion as an extremely sensible and plausible one. It wouldn't have amounted to "gross negligence", and even if it did, the fact that it happened (as related by Debs) is more than good enough for me. It would have meant that he was perhaps writing in haste.

I completely disagree that a man of such an extreme of height and weight would not have been commented upon by Kelly when speaking to Joe Barnett, which me might assume she did on a number of occasions. Realistically speaking, it would have been one of the first things she mentioned. As I've mentioned before, nicknames based on height were popular in those days and in that environment, and Fleming the giant would have earned one.

Regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

When last I heard, Debs was of the opinion that the entry is an error, and that Fleming was not 6'7" in height. The "67 inches" explanation was a suggestion based on her experience of archival documents and the practices of registrars during the period. My own experience can't trump that of Debs - not by a long shot - and that is why I endorse her suggestion as an extremely sensible and plausible one. It wouldn't have amounted to "gross negligence". It would have meant that he was perhaps writing in haste.

I completely disagree that a man of such an extreme of height and weight would not have been commented upon by Kelly when speaking to Joe Barnett, which me might assume she did on a number of occasions. Realistically speaking, it would have been one of the first things she mentioned. As I've mentioned before, nicknames based on height were popular in those days and in that environment, and Fleming the giant would have earned one.

Debs can answer that one. I don't remember her being sure it was an error, but I could be wrong. As for what Kelly would have talked to Barnett about, it makes a lot of difference what her life experiences were. She could have dated and married tallish men when she was younger so a few inches more may not have made a difference. She also wouldn't have spoken too much about Fleming or Morganstone to Barnett as women are rather loathe to give details about exes and men don't want to have to compare themselves. Still, I am not sure about Fleming's height and I never suggested I was. I believe and error from 67 inches to 6 ft 7 in is improbable though possible and I leave it at that. I don't even care really.

Mike

[DVV]

She also wouldn't have spoken too much about Fleming or Morganstone to Barnett as women are rather loathe to give details about exes and men don't want to have to compare themselves.
Mike

Well, Barnett knew she was "very fond of him". Looks like she had spoken too much in this instance.
Telling him he was so incredibly tall was harmless, in comparison.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

As I suspected, you were using a rubbish, unreliable website which listed several celebrities' BMIs very briefly, as opposed to the one I used, which was specifically about Gwyneth Paltrow.

The rubbish is always presented by you, Ben. Never by me. There are very many sites specifically about Paltrow, one of them this: http://caloriecount.about.com/gwynet...-bones-b437668
..where she is listed as 16.5 in BMI.

And there are more pages to bring out, if you feel the need.

you need to take on board the point I'm making about a specific individual, and stop with the meaningless, irrelevant comparisons with celebrities.

James Stewart was a pretty ordinary man when he joined the Air Force. And he did not grow thin because he became a celebrity. Believe it or not, but it works in other ways.

When an extremely low BMI - and 17.3 certainly qualifies as "extremely low" - is taken in consideration with a poor lifestyle, such as the one Fleming had, the inevitable conclusion is that the two are connected, and that Fleming was not in "good bodily health".

No - that is YOUR "inevitable" conclusion. Others disagree. The WHO included. They list 17.3 as MILDLY THIN, remember?

Once again - and a trillion more times, if necessary - the WHO is not on your side.

No, they are not. They are on their own side only - renowned professionals listing 17.3 as mildly thin.
The world-renowned physician Benedict Holme opposes this, but itīs mostly bad acting. And bad form.

You have simply misinterpreted their comments on a number of issues., including the detail regarding a BMI of 15. They are certainly not suggesting that you should only go to the doctor if your BMI got that low.

Nor am I saying so. I am saying that they say that regardless if you feel healthy, when you reach around 15.0, you SHOULD see a doctor. Before that, many people need to see a doctor at, say 15.5 or 15.9 or 16,4 or 17.8. There was the anorectic girl who apparently saw a doctor as she had dropped to 18.5.
Different people are differently suited for thinness. Some are well suited, some are not.

Which Fleming certainly wasn't, and could not have been, as a lunatic wandering pauper, thereafter to become an asylum inmate.

Iīm afraid he could have been totally healthy anyway.

6'7" is freakishly tall and super skinny if the weight is as low as 11 stone.

Then what are people at 15.0, more than 2 full units thinner than Fleming? Triple-freakishly, supeamazingly skinny? Dead?
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense .... and tosh. And balderdash.

17.3 is an extremely low BMI ...

No, no, no and no again. Extremes are the outer ends. And 17.3 belongs to the MILDLY THIN people. Those at 15.0 and below are the extremes. There are recorded BMI:s of 13.7. In Fleming/Evans case, that would mean a drop from 70 to 55 kilograms. And you know what, Ben? That is the extreme. That, and you way of arguing.

Even acute sufferers of the disease often don't get as low as 17.3 on the BMI index.

Okay, okay, once again, then: Anorexia is a DISEASE, not a weight. You can be anorectic at any weight - it is a disease that makes the victim refuse food intake.

James Stewart was rejected by the military, initially, for being considerably under the acceptable weight.

Yep - but when they saw that he was fit as a fiddle in spite of being mildly thin, they took him on just the same. And just like I said, the US Air Force would have been particular.

I certainly dispute that he never belonged in the "normal", i.e. above 18.5 category.

Be my guest. But donīt guess away (weīve had all we can take of that) - substantiate it instead!

So Fleming was Asian, now?

He was? No, I donīt think so. But he may well have been genetically predisposed for thinness. Try and be a bit more honest, Ben, and donīt twist my words.

If you think, incidentally, that a "meagre" society results in lots of people being "genetically disposed" to be have low BMIs, I'd ask you to consider Martha Tabram and Annie Chapman. The latter was certainly malnourished, and yet her BMI would have been well above "normal".

Okay - letīs look away from Ethiopia, Sudan, India - letīs just say that their generally lower BMI values are a lie I cooked up.

Oh, so he fared worse in terms of food intake and dietary habits when he was taken into care?

Maybe. Maybe not. You see, you donīt know, Ben. And I wonīt have you guessing again.

No. Point missed again. I have no problem whatsoever with the adjectives used by WHO - I think they're very circumspect and restrained and, and they usefully describe the differences in the "thinnesses" of an already extreme, health-concern group. What you've done is conclude from this that because the word "moderate" sounds a bit cushy and fuzzy, there is no concern attached to a BMI of 16, which there definitely, definitely is. It is considerably lower than the danger area normally associated with anorexics, which is 17.3.

Anorexics is not a BMI. When will you get it? Never?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Why would Barnett (whilst being interviewed) feel a need to mention Fleming's height?