Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[robert newell]

Where Abby, who would have mentioned it, and where?
And why on earth do you think this gossip would have been important enough to record for all eternity?




Witness to what?
Did Fleming do something wrong?




It was in his medical records, ...it was, ...it was, ...it was
(say it thrice and it must be so)

And, no-one attempted to correct it, in three years.



We can never know if it wasn't a mistake, but neither can we go around insisting, or even pretending, it was.

Its the official record, and with nothing of an official nature to contest it, we are obliged to acknowledge the record for what it say's.

Good post Jon

[Fisherman]

...and:

"Robert Hales was born in 1813, one of nine children all of whom grew to quite extraordinary heights for the time. All were said to have been over 6 ft 3 inches tall, but Robert measured an astonishing 7 ft 8 inches whilst his sister Mary was 7 ft 2 inches. Relatives in the village on his mothers side, Mary and Anne Laskey, were recorded as being 8 ft and 7 ft 6 inches tall respectively."

A Norfolk family.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and:

"PEATEY George and Susan 1858.
Rosalind Peatey's PINE TREES AND BOX THORNS is in the local history room at Rosebud Library and is not available for loan. I have not yet written a full Peatey history but to save my left index finger, I will paste some of Rosalind's information that I have used elsewhere.

George Peatey's father, Edward was born at Cerne Abbas, 15 miles from Long Burton, in 1799. (I presume these are in the western half of Dorset where the name Peatey is almost as common as Smith.) He married Charlotte (nee Lane). Their children and christening dates were Maria 15-6-1830, George 19-2-1832, Robert 1834, Maria Elizabeth 17-6-1837 and Richard 1840.

George, who was the only member of his family to come to Australia, was 7 ft 1 inch (nearly 215 cm)and was a member of the Queen's Own regiment."

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Off to bed now; letīs see if somebody can provide the statistics ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

So therefore, by reasoning, it must be a mistake.

Can you see why I detest this form of "reasoning", Abby?

All the best,
Fisherman

What? No it must not be a mistake. It probably is. If it isnt a mistake and Fleming was 6' 7" then he could not be the ripper.

The only problem with any reasoning is yours on this one fish. So go detest yourself.

[Abby Normal]

Good post Jon

Bad post Robert.

[DVV]

Hull Daily Mail (Hull, England), Friday, September 18, 1891

Thanks Debs !

It's real fun to see Fish desperately looking for giants on the net.

The article about the "Lincolnshire Giant" just proves how extraordinary would have been Fleming, at 6'7. Not merely "unusually tall".

And still, no mention of it in the Stone records, nothing from Mary.

And no article ("The East End Giant") in the press that we've heard of.

Cheers

[DVV]

I feel sorry for James Bradshaw.

As he weighted 16 stones, which is 5 more than Fleming, he most probably was in poor health.

[Fisherman]

What? No it must not be a mistake. It probably is. If it isnt a mistake and Fleming was 6' 7" then he could not be the ripper.

The only problem with any reasoning is yours on this one fish. So go detest yourself.

I was trying my hand at sarcasm, Abby. Apparently, you missed this.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It's real fun to see Fish desperately looking for giants on the net.

Wouldnīt it have been funnier if they had not been about in numbers? And do you really think that a 198 centimeter tall man was Englands tallest person? I think not.

Read this, David:

Henry Alexander Cooper (known as Harry) was born in the Middlesbrough area.

Accounts vary as to whether he was seven and a half feet tall or eight and a half feet tall, and anywhere from 400 to 500 pounds in weight.

When Harry was a young man he worked in the ironstone mines around Brotton, Rosedale and Skelton. He would have had to work doubled over, but was able to lift huge chunks of stone into the waiting carts. He apparently would, or could, light his pipe from gas-lit street lamps.

Harry Cooper was discovered when a circus came to Brotton. He adopted a stage name, "The Yorkshire Giant", which had been used decades earlier by a fellow Yorkshire performer, William Bradley.

After touring Britain, he joined Adam Forepaugh's circus which took him to the United States in 1882. There he became "The English Giant", and within five years he announced his intention to become a U.S. citizen. Out of season, He did Museum Tours, and one of his gimmicks was to hold a $100 bill, there for the taking of anyone who could reach it out of his hand.

When his employer, Adam Forepaugh, died in 1890, his circus was taken over by history's most famous circus-master, P. T. Barnum, for whom Harry worked until Barnum's death the following year. Harry then joined the Walter Main Circus, the act that took him to Calgary. Harry Cooper died unexpectedly on the 16th of August 1899 at the age of 46."

I hope you find this as hilarious as my former posts!

The full story of Harry Cooper, pictures and all, can be found at:

http://www.communigate.co.uk/ne/brottonhistory/page73.phtml

Enjoy, David!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, Cooper was a Yorkshire man. So that Yorkshire paper really should have known better than to think that 198 centimeters would do the trick.

It wouldnīt and it didnīt.

Can we move on now?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

A more exact measuring:

"Henry Alexander Cooper - 7 feet 6 inches (228.60 cm)

Henry Alexander Cooper was born on the 12th June 1853 at Robinsons Yard,Commercial Street, Norton near Malton, North Yorkshire. After receiving a few years schooling Henry or Harry as he had become to be known was sent into farm service. He then went to Rosedale Abbey(north yorks)and became an Ironstone Miner in the local mine. This was the time which would change Harrys future forever for it was here in one of the valleys ajoining Rosedale where Harry was struck down by a severe fever, possibly typhoid because in 1869 there was a serious outbreak of typhoid in Rosedale and many died or suffered serious after effects. This kept him confined to his bed for thirteen weeks. During this time his size increased enormously. Eventually he would increase in height to a total of 7ft 6 inches with hands 13inches long and feet 17inches long."

Still laughing, David?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

What? No it must not be a mistake. It probably is. If it isnt a mistake and Fleming was 6' 7" then he could not be the ripper.

The only problem with any reasoning is yours on this one fish. So go detest yourself.

True, Abby. Although I suppose if one subscribes to the idea that the Ripper was more than one person, Fleming could still have been Kelly's killer. But then you'd be asking why nobody ever saw a 6' 7" man in the area - because he was in the area, as we know.

It certainly is a puzzle...

[Debra A]

Fisherman-The reported height was extraordinary enough for the Yorkshire papers to think he must be the tallest man-that's how common it was. That was my point. Not many men strolling around of that height or close.

Yet there was seemingly a good supply of cheap clothing readily available for a modest earning drinking dock labourer that he could fit into! He wasn't lacking in any clothing compared to accounts we read daily of East End working men who went without shirts and wore their jackets buttoned up all the time to hide the fact, had no socks, some no boots.
That's all I'm saying.
I was asked by GM to comment on whether I thought the record was accurate or not and why. I've done that. My conclusion has nothing to do with whether Fleming was the Ripper,whether he was 'the other Joe' or whether or not people would have commented on his height.

We assume this was MJK's Fleming, I don't think we can be 100 % certain on that can we? The other Joseph Fleming that I detailed the workhouse life of on JTRforums was the one who definitely lived on the Bethnal Green Rd as MJK's Joe supposedly did at one time..

[The Good Michael]

Hull Daily Mail (Hull, England), Friday, September 18, 1891

ah but the paper could have made an error. he may have been 7' 6" or 6.66 feet tall. Errors happen.

Mike