Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

Is it? Then why do you harp on about it every time I make the point that she may/may not have done so? And that it could have gone unrecorded officially?

Fisherman

Because I reaaly, sincerely and definitely don't think you are making a point, here, Fish.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Oh, Fish... it really doesn't seem to sink in...

I mean(t) : "Your argument is a nonsense, since it doesn't matter whether they saw him or not. Because if Fleming was that tall, they would have known this (huge) detail and would have told the police, since they obviously divulged all they knew about Joe. Such a height, of course, would have helped the police to trace the man who ill-used Mary......."

Cheers

So THAT was what you meant? Then why did you not say so? You instead said "As for the argument that Barnett and Venturney never saw Fleming... well, how do some people dare posting such nonsense ?"

... which I found a bit rich, even coming from you. But I realize now that you have come to your senses and decided that what you said was not what you meant. Good!

As for the rest of your post, the argument that people who had never seen Fleming would be able to give his exact heignt, well - it is of course balderdash. If Kelly only said he was very tall, then that was all they knew. And going by what you and Ben say, anything above 5 ft 10 would count as terribly tall. And this could have been all the police were told - that is, IF they were told anything at all about the man´s height: "Mary Kelly told me that she had been seeing a rather tall man called Joseph Fleming..." or "Yes, there WAS somebody she mentioned, some Joe something ... he was supposed to be a tall man and Mary said he ill-used her at times ..."

That´s how his height could very easily have been obscured to the limit that the police payed no extra attention to it. Tall - fair enough.

I´m afraid it is only in your universe that these things are necessarily brought across, David. Just as it is only in the Hutchinsonian universe that 5 ft 7 is incredibly, extremely tall (which makes one wonder what the guys in the 7 and 8 foot ranges are...?) and that a BMI of 17.3 is freakishly, extremely thin (making you wonder what 16.4 Nicole Kidman is?)

There´s Uma Thurman, for example, to help out - who range about that exact figure of 17.3.

A pic:

http://www.images-wallpapers.com/femmes_celebres/Uma-Thurman/slides/Uma-Thurman-08-1600x1200.html

What a skeleton, eh?

The myth is busted, I´m afraid. 17.3 IS mildly thin.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Because I reaaly, sincerely and definitely don't think you are making a point, here, Fish.

Cheers

Yes, but that´s just you and your Hutchinsonian friends, David. In the real world, people sometimes speak about other people´s physionomies, and sometimes they do not.
It does not suit your theory, I know, but I really don´t care about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You are, of course, spot on once again, Dave.

It is unthinkable that Kelly would not have relayed the most striking detail about Fleming, i.e. his gargantuan height when speaking to Joe Barnett and Julia Venturney, and equally preposterous that nether of them would, in turn, have relayed this detail at the inquest or in their police statements. If they could describe his occupation and his personal attitude towards Kelly, they would certainly have passed on the height detail. It is unrealistic in the extreme to argue otherwise.

It is nonsense to argue that Kelly would have withheld the detail of Fleming's height because she didn't want to divulge "stories of former lovers". It wasn't a story, it was simply his height, and if she was prepared to impart the fact that she was "fond" of this other Joe, she was certainly capable of providing basic physical details.

[DVV]

Fleming's height : history of a cover-up !

Yes, but that´s just you and your Hutchinsonian friends, David. In the real world, people sometimes speak about other people´s physionomies, and sometimes they do not.
It does not suit your theory, I know, but I really don´t care about that.

The best,
Fisherman

What theory ?

It's funny you talk of "the real world".

For how long have you been far from it ?

In the real world, people talk of physical appearance, and more obviously so when somebody is extraordinarily fat, or tall, or green (like Hulk).

We KNOW Mary has talked of Fleming to Barnett, Venturney and Mrs McCarthy. And she has talked quite a lot. Indeed, Fleming wasn't a mere acquaintance, it was a man she was once about to marry, and who was still dating her, although she was with Barnett.

And we KNOW that 6'7 was more than a remarkable height in those days.

What else do you need ?

Actually, Ed-Lechmere is smarter than you are on the subject. He has logically admitted that if MJK ex-fiancé was 6'7 tall, she would undoubtedly have told her friends.

Oh, Fish, you even failed to convince your Lechmerian friend !

Cheers

[DVV]

You are, of course, spot on once again, Dave.

It is unthinkable that Kelly would not have relayed the most striking detail about Fleming, i.e. his gargantuan height when speaking to Joe Barnett and Julia Venturney, and equally preposterous that nether of them would, in turn, have relayed this detail at the inquest or in their police statements. If they could describe his occupation and his personal attitude towards Kelly, they would certainly have passed on the height detail. It is unrealistic in the extreme to argue otherwise.

It is nonsense to argue that Kelly would have withheld the detail of Fleming's height because she didn't want to divulge "stories of former lovers". It wasn't a story, it was simply his height, and if she was prepared to impart the fact that she was "fond" of this other Joe, she was certainly capable of providing basic physical details.

Ben, that's just things everybody would admit, of course. Except those who bury their head in the sand - for whatever reason.

[DVV]

Nothing indicates that Mary was reluctant to "divulge" détails about Fleming.
Quite the reverse.
Barnett knew his name, and where they had lived together.
He even knew she was "fond of him", and - wait for it - that he "used to visit her".

If I were Barnett, I would have given Fleming a nice head butt (in the knees).

[Sally]

Hi Ben

Excellent point about Bruce Spence - extremely conspicuous in terms of both extreme height and weight.

Oh he is, he is. He makes tall people look dwarfish, in fact – and he has a BMI (Oh No! Not that again!) of 18.5 – just in the underweight range.

Imagine him, only considerably skinnier, and you've got certain peoples' mental perception of Joseph Fleming's physique.

Well, indeed. Imagine how…. Well, notable that would’ve been. Yet not a hint of what would have been then, and still is now, an extraordinary height – especially in a that social milieu.

No need to open the black gates or Mordor for Fleming - he'd have squeezed through the crack, no problem. I reckon Smoegal's BMI is closer to "normal", and remember that in Middle Earth, extreme abnormal thinness is divided into three sub-categories - "fluffy", "nice", and "lovely" (for the wraiths, of course) - according to WHO's definitions.

Hmm… Middle Earth. Yes, I think I have the solution – Fleming was in fact an Ent! Think about it – that would’ve allowed him to remain unnoticed in the slums of Whitechapel all year round - and completely explains the BMI - most people would’ve just assumed he was a tree and thought nothing of it (although at 6’ 7” he’d have been more of a tallish shrub…) It certainly explains why nobody every noted his height… although admittedly not why nobody ever noted that Kelly’s boyfriend was of the arboreal persuasion...

But yes, Bruce Spence. When you see him with people of ‘normal’ height the effect is very striking. I’ll see if I can find something that demonstrates this later to put up if I have time. I think it’s difficult to accept that such a conspicuous figure – as Fleming certainly would’ve been if he had been so tall – apparently blended into the scene.

If on the other hand he was in fact 5’ 7” it becomes easier to explain – nothing of any note to notice.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Will you please stop using bold font when replying to other peoples' posts and use Casebook's perfectly good "quote" feature instead?

Thanks in advance.

Again with these utterly pointless celebrity BMIs. Give it a rest, please. It's annoying, point-scoring nonsense, it doesn't advance the discussion, and it's wrong anyway. It's also rather insulting to accuse people of "posting crap", so if you can cut back a bit on the vitriol, that would be good too.

Uma Thurman:

Height: 1.81 metres.

Weight: 66 kg

BMI: 20.15

Perfectly normal. Nothing like Fleming. A complete waste of time bringing up. Move along now please, thank you.

I think you're probably finished with the silly argument over what words such as "mild" and "moderate" mean in this context too. These should not be taken literally to mean "mild" or "moderate" in isolation. They are simply adjectives to descrive levels of thinness within the extreme group. I say "extreme" with the full and certain knowledge that I am applying that description with full justification, and I will never retract it, ever. Any type of "thinness" that accompanies a cautionary note to consult a doctor is "extreme" enough for me, and that would include anything appreciably less than 18.5, which 17.3 most assuredly is. In spite of your continued misintepretations, a BMI of 17 is no more "mild" than a BMI of 16 is "moderate". The former is considered typical of anorexics, and the latter is positively dangerous. Please digest and understand this, and don't get too carried away with definitions that you have decided point to something warm and fluffy. Uma Thurman's thinness, at a BMI of 20.15, is what normal people would understand as "mild", at least from a circumspect, visual perspective.

"THIS is correct! 6 ft 7 WOULD have been very tall and it would not have been an improbable height for Joseph Fleming only, it would have been improbable for ANY man.
It would however NOT have been impossible, since there were men of that height (and much, much taller) around.
And therfore it applies that when we have a record telling us that he was 6 ft 7, then he probaly WAS 6 ft 7"

No, that is truly bizarre reasoning of the type that I've objected to very strongly from the outset.

We don't accept vastly improbable things as accurate just because they're not impossible. Nobody's ever suggested that it is impossible for someone to have been that tall. It has simply been observed that it is an extreme of height, once thought to be the tallest in England, that qualified for money-earning potential as a visual spectable for a travelling circus. Add a ludicrously low weight and the accompanying claim that he was still in "good" bodily health and you have an obvious error. In this case, the obvious error is easily and plausibly explained by a mistake in the record. If the registrar meant to wrote 67 inches, we end up - coincidentally - with a normal neight of 5'7", and suddently everything is more plausible, including his wardrobe of clothes that fit him!

"If we have all inmates in a chinese prison listed as dark-haired but for one who is listed as blonde, then - incredible as it may see - the better guess is that this inmate was listed as blonde because he WAS blonde."

Poor analogy, Fisherman.

If someone wrote "blonde" there is no realistic possibility that s/he meant to write "dark". There is no realistic possibility of error. In the case of the Fleming entry, on the other hand, it is easy to see how a mistake could have been made, and the suggestion that such a mistake did occur is made, on this occasion, by an extremely capable researcher with experience of archival records of this nature.

"No? None at all? And of this you are sure? It would not have enhanced the chances that they mentioned his height if they actually had seen him?

Are you sure you thought that over before you wrote it?"

Yes, thank you.

Since there is no realistic possibility of Kelly not mentioning Fleming's extreme height, it follows that receiving information about an extremely tall man is just as good as seeing one.

"Meadows Page - 7 feet 4 inches"

Well googled, Fisherman!

But note what I said before:

"Regardless of the accuracy of the article (which to date had not been effectively challenged), it still underscores the fact that 6'7" would have been regarded as an exceptionally tall height in those days, and thus very improbable for Joseph Fleming. It's an interesting "coincidence" that if we accept Debs' informed and plausible suggestion that the entry was meant to read 67 inches, we'd end up with the equivalent "normal" height of 5'7". "

And:

"Whether the article is true or not - and on current evidence there is no reason to doubt it - it underscores the fact that such extremes of height would have been exceptionally unusual in those days, so much so that they attracted the attention of travelling circus types."

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

He makes tall people look dwarfish, in fact – and he has a BMI (Oh No! Not that again!) of 18.5 – just in the underweight range.

!!!

And Fleming's the same height, but with a BMI of 17.3, if we accept the record as correct!

You can't get more "noticable" than that, I wouldn't have thought.

Fleming was in fact an Ent!

Yep, you've nailed it.

And remember his alleged "delusions" that he was formerly pursued by those who wished to kill him? Um, hello! Sauroman's "Let's phuck up Fangorn Forest" Uruk army sent from Isengaard ring any bells?!

"Delusions" indeed...

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sally,



!!!

And Fleming's the same height, but with a BMI of 17.3, if we accept the record as correct!

You can't get more "noticable" than that, I wouldn't have thought.



Yep, you've nailed it.



And remember his alleged "delusions" that he was formerly pursued by those who wished to kill him? Um, hello! Sauroman's "Let's phuck up Fangorn Forest" Uruk army sent from Isengaard ring any bells?!

"Delusions" indeed...

I would say off topic if I wasn't the biggest Tolkien geek in the world. Waiting anxiously for the second installment of the Hobbit movie in December.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

No Abby!

I would say off topic if I wasn't the biggest Tolkien geek in the world. Waiting anxiously for the second installment of the Hobbit movie in December.

All those movies are a disgrace. I can sum it up with one thing. The Return of the King, pirate ghosts. Pirate ghosts! MF'n pirate ghosts!

[C. F. Leon]

I would say off topic if I wasn't the biggest Tolkien geek in the world. Waiting anxiously for the second installment of the Hobbit movie in December.

I found a trailer for Hobbit 2 on YouTube and it looks SPECTACULAR-IFIC!!!

[Fisherman]

DVV: What theory ?

The increasingly ridiculous Flemchinsonian theory, of course.

It's funny you talk of "the real world".

Yes, it must feel really funny for you. Eerie, kind of.

In the real world, people talk of physical appearance, and more obviously so when somebody is extraordinarily fat, or tall, or green (like Hulk).

Okay, I´ve wasted enough time on this. It´s partly right, partly wrong. End of story.

We KNOW Mary has talked of Fleming to Barnett, Venturney and Mrs McCarthy.

Bravissimo! Well, well spotted!

And she has talked quite a lot.

...and there we go again. Into your "real" world, invented by yourself.

And we KNOW that 6'7 was more than a remarkable height in those days.

And more than very tall, interestingly!

What else do you need ?

Sense.

Actually, Ed-Lechmere is smarter than you are on the subject. He has logically admitted that if MJK ex-fiancé was 6'7 tall, she would undoubtedly have told her friends.

You have no gift for listening, apparently. Or reading. Or understanding. Or concluding. Or ...

Now, I´m of to a really nice place to do a weeks fishing. I´have conclusive evidence that I may catch fish, even!

All the best, my imaginative friend! Keep the good work going! :dunce"

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Nothing indicates that Mary was reluctant to "divulge" détails about Fleming.

... and nothing indicates the opposite. Not one word about his physical appearence was spoken at the inquest. So Barnett and Venturney would not have known, otherwise they would of course have indulged in speaking about physionomies, as per you brilliant suggestion... or ...

The best,
Fisherman