Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

The GSG was copied correctly by one person. Apples and oranges, David. I am suggesting that both the height of 6'7" and the odds of a height mistake on the only record of a modern suspect are similarly long. For what it's worth, I don't believe the 67 inch theory is particularly viable. I believe there was someone 6'7" in the asylum and it was either Fleming or another person brought in at about the same time. If that were the case...that it was a mix-up of names with details because the official was super busy, I'd absolutely accept that. If all records were always recorded in feet and inches, I don't see that 67 inch mistake being made. Just my opinion. I would like to see a list of others admitted on that day or within a day either way.

Mike

Well, perhaps neither Long nor Halse did copy the GSG correctly. Who knows ? And beside, we find "jewes" instead (?) of "juwes" in some reports. Mistakes do abound.

As for 67 inches, Debs merely made a suggestion. I don't think "all records were recorded in feet and inches" - Debs said some were in inches only, I have no reason to doubt her word.
Yours is also a reasonable one. And I have still that "6" problem in mind.

[Lechmere]

Mike
It is a long cherished belief among the more strident Hutchinsonites that he was actually the seccond coming of Fleming. Strictly they are Flutchinsonites but they pretend to be open minded on the subject to avoid derision.
it is a religion as can be Sussed out by the sermons

[Phil H]

It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Flemming was NOT exceptionally tall, but we cannot IGNORE the written evidence. Whatever may be LIKELY, we have no reason wholly to dismiss the entry.

It's far too tall for the East End 1888.

Not a safe conclusion. He could have been known and accepted as very tall and people had got beyond mentioning it. Equally, you can have exceptionally tall, heavy, short etc people in any population. I don't think that is a safe conclusion.

Too tall to be not commented on by the medics.

We don't know what the medics commented on. we only know no comment was made in the records we have.

Too tall to have not been mentioned by MJK and her friends.

Again Flemming is only mentioned at second hand, we have no idea how he was perceived or spoken of at the time. the fact that his exceptional height was not mentioned in the records we have tells us/proves nothing.

And 11st to 11st8lbs make a more than surprisingly thin fellow.

So he was very thin? People are.

Either on this thread or elsewhere on Casebook, I posted a picture of "Long Sol" Meredith, an American Civil War general (Union forces). That was in the 1860s so very much in the time-frame we are considering. Lincoln himself was tall and "rangey". Meredith was six seven and evidently not portly (see re-posted pic). While his unusual height was referenced in his nickname, it does not appear to have stopped him doing his job.

So while I myself work on a normal height for Flemming and assume a mistake in the records, I am equally open (as I should be) to a tall thin man.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

The GSG was copied correctly by one person. Apples and oranges, David. I am suggesting that both the height of 6'7" and the odds of a height mistake on the only record of a modern suspect are similarly long. For what it's worth, I don't believe the 67 inch theory is particularly viable. I believe there was someone 6'7" in the asylum and it was either Fleming or another person brought in at about the same time. If that were the case...that it was a mix-up of names with details because the official was super busy, I'd absolutely accept that. If all records were always recorded in feet and inches, I don't see that 67 inch mistake being made. Just my opinion. I would like to see a list of others admitted on that day or within a day either way.

Mike

[DVV]

What are the chances Fleming was 6'7"? What are the chances that of all people in all asylums in all of Britain, the one record that pertains to a theoretical suspect was wrong? These are great questions with long odds. That's what I think.

Mike

What were the chances that the police would be unable to copy the GSG correctly ?

Only twelve words, considered a very important clue. Everybody would have expected Halse and Long's versions to match perfectly.

They simply don't.

[DVV]

1. Mistakes happen, but the overwhelming majority of asylum records are correct. So this does not alter the fact that the record takes precedence over wishful thinking.

2. ... and lo and behold, everybody recognizes this, since there are OTHER records that tell us that the record in question is wrong. If there had been any other records of his height telling us that it was wrong too, then we would all adjust to that. But there is not, which is why rule one steps in again: The overwhelming majority of the records are correct, and the record takes precedence over wishful thinking. Yet again.

3. 6 ft 7 is only too tall for those who are not that tall. For those who ARE that tall, it is not too tall. So itīs record precedence again.

4. Same thing goes for the weight. The world has seen a number of skinny people since day one. Record 4 - Wishful thinking 0.

5. I fail to believe that he was invisible. I think thousands and thousands of people saw him, almost all of them reacting to his height. I also think many people heard about his height - but I also think that some of them only heard that he was "very tall" or something to that effect.
Record 5 - Wishful thinking 0.

How many times do you want your revisionist picture of a thin, tall man crushed, David? 6 ft 7, 11 st 8 lb. Itīs in the records.
What do you think people will say about the records of Peter Crouch when they look at them in the future? "This must be wrong"? "He cannot have played professional soccer, he must have been very sickly with that BMI"? "We can safely conclude that this man was in fact 67 INCHES high, meaning that he was in truth 5 ft 7 - now we can all see that his weight tallies with his height"?

Flemings weight and height are in the records. It is unusual, but not anywhere near impossible. And as long as it is not, the simple truth is that the record prevails, completely regardless of what you may think about it, and completely regardless of whatever outlandish claim you make about how sickly a freak he was. He has gone down in history as 6 ft 7, weighing around 11 to 12 stone and being of good bodily health. That is what we must deal with - and I donīt mean deal with by means of a saw.

The best,
Fisherman

Wishful thinking, Fish ?

What have you to say, except the tantramantric : "it's written once, so it has to be true" ?

Or : "6'7 isn't too tall."
Which is wrong, clearly and statiscally so.

It's far too tall for the East End 1888.
Too tall to be not commented on by the medics.
Too tall to have not been mentioned by MJK and her friends.
And 11st to 11st8lbs make a more than surprisingly thin fellow.
(I'm 20 centimeters shorter, 5 kilos heavier, and I'm already thin.)

A likely mistake, that's all you have against Fleming's candidacy. Or so it seems.

And you use this likely mistake to prevent any serious discussion about Fleming.

However, Colin Roberts, Lynn Cates, Dave, Garry, Debs, Roy and others agree that 6'7 is a possible or probable mistake. And they are not obsessed by Fleming-the-Ripper, as far as I know.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

What are the chances Fleming was 6'7"? What are the chances that of all people in all asylums in all of Britain, the one record that pertains to a theoretical suspect was wrong? These are great questions with long odds. That's what I think.

Mike

[Fisherman]

It certainly doesn't take precedence, given that :

1 : Mistakes are not uncommon

2 : There is an uncorrected mistake on the same page

3 : 6'7 is far too tall

4 : 11st is far too light

5 : Nobody seems to have seen Fleming-the-Giant, and nobody seems to have heard about Mjk's ex giant.

1. Mistakes happen, but the overwhelming majority of asylum records are correct. So this does not alter the fact that the record takes precedence over wishful thinking.

2. ... and lo and behold, everybody recognizes this, since there are OTHER records that tell us that the record in question is wrong. If there had been any other records of his height telling us that it was wrong too, then we would all adjust to that. But there is not, which is why rule one steps in again: The overwhelming majority of the records are correct, and the record takes precedence over wishful thinking. Yet again.

3. 6 ft 7 is only too tall for those who are not that tall. For those who ARE that tall, it is not too tall. So itīs record precedence again.

4. Same thing goes for the weight. The world has seen a number of skinny people since day one. Record 4 - Wishful thinking 0.

5. I fail to believe that he was invisible. I think thousands and thousands of people saw him, almost all of them reacting to his height. I also think many people heard about his height - but I also think that some of them only heard that he was "very tall" or something to that effect.
Record 5 - Wishful thinking 0.

How many times do you want your revisionist picture of a thin, tall man crushed, David? 6 ft 7, 11 st 8 lb. Itīs in the records.
What do you think people will say about the records of Peter Crouch when they look at them in the future? "This must be wrong"? "He cannot have played professional soccer, he must have been very sickly with that BMI"? "We can safely conclude that this man was in fact 67 INCHES high, meaning that he was in truth 5 ft 7 - now we can all see that his weight tallies with his height"?

Flemings weight and height are in the records. It is unusual, but not anywhere near impossible. And as long as it is not, the simple truth is that the record prevails, completely regardless of what you may think about it, and completely regardless of whatever outlandish claim you make about how sickly a freak he was. He has gone down in history as 6 ft 7, weighing around 11 to 12 stone and being of good bodily health. That is what we must deal with - and I donīt mean deal with by means of a saw.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Two things, David.

1. Go back on the thread and read my posts. You will find that I have already - numerous times - made it very clear that my stance is that it may or may not have been a mistake, but as long as we have the standing record from the asylum, this takes precedence.

Fisherman

It certainly doesn't take precedence, given that :

1 : Mistakes are not uncommon

2 : There is an uncorrected mistake on the same page

3 : 6'7 is far too tall

4 : 11st is far too light

5 : Nobody seems to have seen Fleming-the-Giant, and nobody seems to have heard about Mjk's ex giant.

[DVV]

The signatures, again and again.

There is a thread for them.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Good to hear, Fish.
Can we have a constructive discussion about Fleming's candidacy, then ?
Without "nuts", and accepting, at least for the sake of discussion, that his recorded height could be a mistake ?

Cheers

Two things, David.

1. Go back on the thread and read my posts. You will find that I have already - numerous times - made it very clear that my stance is that it may or may not have been a mistake, but as long as we have the standing record from the asylum, this takes precedence.

2. Why should I be mindful not to hurt your feelings, seeing as you have not spent much effort trying not to hurt mine? I seem to remember you speaking about how laughable my stance is ...? Som man ropar i skogen får man svar, as we Swedes say. And live by.

The Flemchinson theory is - at best - a very scrappy concoction, undermined totally by the very closely matching signatures of Hutchinson the witness and Toppy.
I could put it that way, or I could call it nuts. In the end, it amounts to the exact same thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Good to hear, Fish.
Can we have a constructive discussion about Fleming's candidacy, then ?
Without "nuts", and accepting, at least for the sake of discussion, that his recorded height could be a mistake ?

Could be a mistake, of course. People make mistakes all the time. Likely? I want proof.

Mike

[DVV]

Well, for my part, Iīd say that it is only parts of what is said about Fleming that is nuts. Not everything, not by any stretch!

All the best,
Fisherman

Good to hear, Fish.
Can we have a constructive discussion about Fleming's candidacy, then ?
Without "nuts", and accepting, at least for the sake of discussion, that his recorded height could be a mistake ?

Cheers

[Fisherman]

For the record, I CAN say that Sam ended up feeling absolutely certain that good old Toppy was Hutchinson the witness. He did not have a scintilla of a doubt, actually.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish, you cannot say so.
Sam believes the signatures match, that's all.
But the reasons for which he suggested Fleming was Hutch are still valid for those who think the signatures don't match.

Cheers

"For those who think that the signatures ..." - I see - well, then Iīm out.

Fisherman