Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Scott Nelson]

You couldn't have a 6-ft 7-inch dock worker. He'd be hitting his head on too many things.

[Lechmere]

Fleming isn't the worst suspect but his status depends on linking barnett''s story to McCarthy's to Venturney's - and this can't be proven - it is conjecture no matter how it is dressed up.
Iris dependent on this Fleming being Evans/Fleming and this can't be proven no matter how it is dressed up.
it is up to the Fleming theorists to prove these things and I don't think they ever will be able to which means Fleming can never be a major or serious suspect.
He is just a name that appears in the story and cannot even be placed at a single murder scene at the time.
his recorded height us yet another problem and it us up to the theorists to disprove the written record - which I suspect they will never be able to do.

Lastly the Fleming theorists must believe that the city and Bethnal green police both missed Evans /Fleming in 1893 as they had stopped looking for a culprit. The politeness also have failed to find Fleming in 1888.

For me that is a lot to swallow. Bit that's just me!

The Flutchinson theory - now that is to be counted alongside Van Gogh.

I passed Stone asylum today - I didn't realise it was so near Bluewater shopping centre.
I think it is now called Victoria Park and is a nice looking housing development that seems to be nearing completion.

[Phil H]

Your scholarly skills - precision, attention to detail, consistency - are legendary, harry.

Or is that mythical?

[harry]

Near enough Phil.

[Phil H]

Not QUITE what you said in your previous post, harry - the one to which I responded.

[harry]

I never said we should dismiss the height as given,and if there are circumstancial reasons to believe it wrong,then all the more reason to challenge it.

[Phil H]

Why should I EVER have been called "homie"?

DVV - as so often you are misguided. Just MHO of course.

And

... Harry is right : we have enough evidence to suspect a mistake in the case of Fleming's height.

No you do NOT have enough EVIDENCE. You have circumstantial reasons, nothing more.

Phil

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Ah! And this is why Phil H is awesome.

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you. When was the last time you were called homie?

Harry

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.

Not at all, all sources have to be evaluated, of course, but a written source cannot be simply ignored.

W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

You can object with reason. Had the source said he was eight feet ten, it might be easier to dismiss, but 6'7" is NOT (and was not then) an impossible height for a man - exceptional maybe, but not IMPOSSIBLE. So, unless you have a source that says the exact same indiividual was a different height, I do not see how you can dismiss it.

Motive is also an issue here. Seeking to make Flemming of normal height so that he can fit into a particular scenario or be a better "suspect" woulod clearly be wrong - it is cutting evidence to fit a solution.

I do not question that it is perfectly reasonable to "raise an eyebrow" at the written height - it seems odd - but as an historian I say again, it cannot be dismissed.

Phil

Thanks for saying it homie. When was the last time you were called homie?

[DVV]

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you.

Phil

Nope.

MJK's ex identity has been definitely established.

Evans/Fleming was born in Bethnal Green, was a plasterer, was 3 or 4 years older than MJK, moved to Whitechapel in September 1888.

Those who hope to find a better candidate for MJK's ex must be ready to wait until the return of Jesus, I'm afraid.

And Harry is right : we have enough evidence to suspect a mistake in the case of Fleming's height.

Here is a man who would be both extraordinarily tall and extraordinarily thin, although being an ex-plasterer and a dock labourer. And who went completely unnoticed, although he used to visit Mary.

As an historian, if I were to accept all that was written in the Ethiopian royal chronicles, I would have done a pretty bad job.

[Phil H]

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you.

Harry

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.

Not at all, all sources have to be evaluated, of course, but a written source cannot be simply ignored.

W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

You can object with reason. Had the source said he was eight feet ten, it might be easier to dismiss, but 6'7" is NOT (and was not then) an impossible height for a man - exceptional maybe, but not IMPOSSIBLE. So, unless you have a source that says the exact same indiividual was a different height, I do not see how you can dismiss it.

Motive is also an issue here. Seeking to make Flemming of normal height so that he can fit into a particular scenario or be a better "suspect" woulod clearly be wrong - it is cutting evidence to fit a solution.

I do not question that it is perfectly reasonable to "raise an eyebrow" at the written height - it seems odd - but as an historian I say again, it cannot be dismissed.

Phil

[harry]

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

[DVV]

We have an equation here for suspects that runs something like this, using an example of another suspect:

Montague John Druitt + Sir Melville Macnaghten notes = suspicion of being JtR

Or

James Maybrick + The Diary and the Watch = suspicion of being JtR

So what makes Joeseph Fleming fit this very simple equation?

God Bless

Darkendale

No doubt Fleming is a better suspect than Druitt and Maybrick.

He was MJK's ex, moved to Whitechapel in September 1888, did not show up after her murder, and died in Claybury in 1920.

He was 29 in 1888, 5'7 tall - which matches well BSM and Sailor Man.

[DVV]

You're a wise man, Phil.

Actually he is good enough for Debs and Chris Scott too.

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

And that's just what Lechmere an Co are doing.

[Phil H]

If Flemming is good enough for the Shelden's, it is good enough for me.

Phil

[DVV]

Indeed, Mike.

The weight is very low.

The guy was more than very tall.

And much more than discreet.