Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Lechmere]

Since you are now dealing in facts (well 2 anyway) - he claimed residence in Whitechapel in September1888 - we don't know where he was living then.
also I said Barnett was unreliable - not that what he said about Fleming was specifically dubious.

Your theory is confounded by the asylum record though - record that is very difficult to ignore or contradict due to the way it was recorded and kept,

[DVV]

he claimed residence in Whitechapel in September1888 - we don't know where he was living then.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to point out that we have no proof he was living in the VH since September 88 ? If so, I agree. We have no proof. All we know is that he gave his address at 41 Commercial Street in November 1889, and said he had been living in the parish of Whitechapel for 14 months.

also I said Barnett was unreliable - not that what he said about Fleming was specifically dubious.

Then what was your point ? Barnett said MJK was fond of a man named Joseph Fleming : a plasterer from Bethnal Green. And this refers to the Joseph Fleming we're talking about, not the shoemaker called Edward, son of a shoemaker. For the time being (and probably for the next centuries), it's safe to accept that MJK ex was Joseph "Claybury" Fleming.

Your theory is confounded by the asylum record though - record that is very difficult to ignore or contradict due to the way it was recorded and kept,

The height is contradicted by the weight and the constant "good health", Lechmere.
You've also admitted that if Fleming was that tall, it would have been mentioned (by Barnett, Venturney, McCarthy - and probably others who would have seen Mary with a giant).
Then, since Joseph "Claybury" Fleming is beyond reasonable doubt MJK's ex, you have your own contradiction to solve : choose between a mistaken height, and an invisible giant.

As for "the way it was recorded and kept" argument, have you noted another uncorrected mistake on the very same page ?

Fleming wasn't 37 years old in July 1892 : he was barely 33.
And his mother knew this.
She came to the asylum to talk about her son, didn't she ?
However : the mistake is still there. Uncorrected.

It may help you choosing between a clerical mistake and quite an unlikely giant.

[Wickerman]

As for "the way it was recorded and kept" argument, have you noted another uncorrected mistake on the very same page ?

Fleming wasn't 37 years old in July 1892 : he was barely 33.

How old a person 'looks' is in no way comparable to someone standing a clear foot shorter than his medical records suggest.

The first is ambiguous, the second an absolute, visible contradiction.

If, as you like to maintain, this height was so extraordinary then you defeat your own argument, naturally then, because 6' 7" IS so extraordinary, then (obviously?) everybody reading it would have questioned it.

Unless, the record was correct.

[Roy Corduroy]

Don't get me wrong, Dave. I put a lot of stock in Debra's suggestion the recorded height is likely an error.

But -

if Fleming was that tall, it would have been mentioned (by Barnett, Venturney, McCarthy - and probably others who would have seen Mary with a giant).

Who saw him? I don't know that any of those three said they did.

Roy

[DVV]

Alas for you, Jon, Henrietta has come to Stone, and the first purpose of her visit was to clarify the identity of that madman who called himself "James Evans".
How can an identity be established ?
Name, date of birth/ age.
Quite simple.

Henrietta, in order to prove he was her son, has undoubtedly provided his name and age.

And the age wasn't corrected.

End of the story : there are two uncorrected mistakes in the same page.

[DVV]

Who saw him? I don't know that any of those three said they did.

Roy

Hi Roy,

that's not what I'm saying.
My point is that a height of 6'7 was remarkable enough to have been mentioned by Mary.
And then to be relayed by Barnett, or Venturney, or Mrs McCarthy.
As for "the others", I just observe we have never heard of Mary havng been spotted with such a tall fellow.
More than two meters is very tall in 2013, and was much more remarkable in 1888, especially in the social class to which the witnesses belong.
I can't figure Mary telling Julia how fond she was of this guy, that he was jealous and "ill-used" her - without adding how remarkably tall he was.

Add to this his weight and "good health", and the giant fades away.

Cheers

[Sally]

The basic assumption that mistakes would, necessarily, have been corrected as a matter of course is demonstrably fallacious.

I think one must ask: Who for? And why?

Those keeping records in the infirmary (applies to a great many other institutions etc. as well) weren't writing for posterity - and that includes (shocking, I know) for the Ripperologists of the future.

They were record keeping for themselves, essentially - because that was part of the job.

Any staff at the time would've known who the inmates were (because they were engaged in maintenance, including record keeping) and so, one must presume, they would also have known how tall Fleming was, and quite probably, how old he was too. Would they have cared enough about a clerical error to go back and change it?

Unless there was a true pedant amongst them, why would anybody need to go back and alter a mistake in the records? I can tell you, it doesn't generally happen. Mistakes, on the other hand, do.

I'm not altogether discounting the possibility that Fleming was 6' 7" - obviously, that has to remain a possibility; but on the other hand, the contention that it must be correct because it's written down and was never corrected is merely silly nonsense.

It's amateurish.

If only it was that simple.

[Cogidubnus]

Well said Sally...it's the same old institutional mentality...

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Well said Sally...it's the same old institutional mentality...

All the best

Dave

As proven by the uncorrected 37 years, Dave.

It's time to thank Lechmere again for the photo.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Here we go again, ....jumping fences before we get to them.

The argument is not that it 'must' be correct because it was written down, of course it could be a mistake.

The argument is being pushed that it 'must' be a mistake because no-one else ever mentioned this extraordinary height.

The record stands and always will, the objection is being promoted that it is wrong, because......
And, it is this 'because' which is being examined.

An official record is being ridiculed, not due to any other contradictory facts, but only due to assumptions (coincidentally, by the Usual Suspects).

Was the 6' 7" an honest mistake? - possibly.
Or do we regard it as definitely a mistake because no-one else mentioned his height? - absolutely not.

It is a weak objection.

He could have been 6' 7", and there may or may not have been local gossip not captured by the press. Neither of which has any bearing on whether the record is correct or not.

[DVV]

The argument is not that it 'must' be correct because it was written down, of course it could be a mistake.

Alleluiah.

The argument is being pushed that it 'must' be a mistake because no-one else ever mentioned this extraordinary height.

Not exactly : it's probably a mistake. You know why ? Because people enjoy talking about extraordinary things. But that wasn't the only argument. The weight hardly fits the height, and as a proof, the only counter-argument was... Peter Crouch ! One has also the right to raise an eyebrow when a plasterer/dock labourer appears to be so thin.

An official record is being ridiculed, not due to any other contradictory facts, but only due to assumptions (coincidentally, by the Usual Suspects).

Oh, I see. Are Debra, Lynn and Roy members of the sect ?

Was the 6' 7" an honest mistake? - possibly.
Or do we regard it as definitely a mistake because no-one else mentioned his height? - absolutely not.

You're redundant. I'll be, too. To begin with, you should take the fact that nothing (it includes the Stone records) has leaked out as a counter-evidence. Not proof : counter-evidence. Add to this a very surprising weight for such a tall man (I'm heavier than 11 st and 21 centimeters shorter than 6'7, and have never fancied working as a plasterer or docker, Jon).
And lastly, we have seen Lechmere posting the first page of the records, arguing that an uncorrected mistake was most unlikely, whereas there is an ascertained uncorrected mistake on this very same page.

It is a weak objection.

No, Jon. A reasonable one among others.

He could have been 6' 7", and there may or may not have been local gossip not captured by the press. Neither of which has any bearing on whether the record is correct or not.

If you mean "everything is possible, including what seems completely unlikely", I'd agree.
Fleming could be 6'7 tall - but was more probably shorter.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

What is the benefit to questioning the record?

Where does it get you?

[DVV]

What is the benefit to questioning the record?

Where does it get you?

Are you telling me his birth certificate is wrong, Jon ?

[Wickerman]

Alleluiah.

Your "Allelujah", is a little late Dave, I already made my position clear pages back when I wrote:
"Whether the recorded height is correct or not, it is the official record and it is not impossible, plus, given the above, there are even less grounds to question it."

I am not insisting it is correct, I am though offering sound reasons in support of it, while at the same time questioning the rationale of your objections against it.

Oh, I see. Are Debra and Roy members of the sect ?

Debs doesn't support you Dave, in her own words:
"It was just my own personal thought that it sounded a bit too tall for the time and place, that's all."
Debs doesn't push strained arguments, maybe it was a mistake, maybe it wasn't. Is it impossible? - No!

It is the record, and until you find another entry which contradicts it, then lets just accept it and move on.

Fleming could be 6'7 tall - but was more probably shorter.

There, that didn't hurt, did it?

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you Dave, I see what you're saying.

What is the benefit to questioning the record?

Where does it get you?

It gets you to the East End at that time. In your minds eye. Picturing this man over six feet, no, over halfway to seven feet tall walking out the door of the Victoria Home and down Wentworth street, and throngs of children come running to see and folllow along. And your realize - what's wrong with this picture? How could the second hand accounts of Mary Kelly's beau Joe not include that he was the Bethnal Green Giant.

That's where it gets you.

Roy