Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9912/francis_galton.htm

"The values on the horizontal axis represent the range of heights of Englishmen in the Victorian age. The vertical axis is a relative scale indicating the proportion of Englishmen from the total population who have a particular height within the range. We see that the average height of an Englishmen is 5'6” and the range of heights is between 5'3” and 5'9”.

"An Englishman less than 5'3” would be considered unusually short, and one taller than 5'9” would be unusually tall. You would expect to see only about one in a thousand Englishmen above or below the normal range."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

That's hilarious, Mike and Lechmere.
I guess you find yourself clever posting this just after Chris Scott has taken the pain to share some fascinating biographical détails.

This thread isn't specifically about Fleming's height, but if you want to cling to this 6'7 and prevent others to discuss all aspects of Fleming's cadidacy, here is a well balanced post from Fisherman in 2009 that you could medidate :

David!

I agree with you that if Fleming was Marys ex-lover AND frequent visitor, itīs baffling that we have no mentioning of his height. Moreover, there is a lot of material pointing to the fact that the Victorians were the shortest Brits, historically. Iīve found it on the net, where there is this passage:

"There's an interesting table printed in "The Tudor Tailor" by Ninya Mikhalia and Jane Malcolm-Davies on height of people from London. For simplicity's sake, I'll list only the males:

Prehistory: 5' 7"
Roman: 5' 6.75"
Saxon: 5' 8"
Medieval: 5' 7.5"
Tudor: 5' 7.5"
Georgian: 5' 7.25"
Victorian: 5' 5.5"
1998: 5' 9""

So, if this is something to go by, "Joe the Giraffe" would in fact have been a more deviating person in Victorian England than in any other era of the kingdom! And so, the case you argue is a sound one, David. But as long as we have that 6.7 record staring us in our faces, maybe we should not call it a given.

Just noticed this post of yours, David. I thought Iīd complete the picture with this post of mine from 2/2 2009, since you seem to have missed it:

"Tempting thoughts, David, no question about it. But no matter what, as long as the records have Evans/Fleming down as 6.7, unsubstantiated hunches and gut feelings must remain exactly that: unsubstantiated.
Thatīs not to say that you are wrong"

At the time, I had recently written my piece on Fleming as a possible bid for the Ripperīs role, and so I had the choice of getting on the train with you, claiming that Fleming could never have been 6 ft 7, or accept that the records would have to prevail until other evidence surfaced to change the picture.

So far, it has not.

I mentioned a stiff week ago that I was expecting an answer about the correlation between height, weight and health in Evans/Flemings case. I had sent a question about it to a Swedish site concerning itself with eating disorders. The site is one where experts like medicos and nutritionists, all involved with eating disorder problems, answer peopleīs questions. Many of those who ask questions are people who will not accept that they have an eating disorder, and so the people who answer the questions will normally take care to tell thin people that they need to gain weight. It is thus a site that should suit the purposes of those who want to see mild thinness as extreme and disease-ridden...

I provided the BMI of Evans (17,3), mentioned that it was a historical number from the late nineteenth century, wrote that the man with this BMI had been said to be of good bodily health - and then I asked if he could have been so, given his BMI. The answer? In translation: "Of course, all people are different, and a BMI alone cannot determine whether a person is of good health or not."
I understand that this may well be rewritten and "interpreted" by those who do not like this truth, but it nevertheless remains exactly this: the truth. Evans could have been of good bodily health and he could have been of bad bodily health. The one thing we have to go on are the repeated assertions from the asylum that he WAS of good bodily health, taken together with the experts judgement that a BMI alone can not be used to establish what level of health somebody represents.

I think that without putting very much effort into it, Debra nails things very nicely in one of her recent posts:

"I personally think the height is a bit suspect. That's all!"

Not incredibly suspect, but suspect. Of course. One SHOULD pause when reading it and ask oneself if it is reasonable. Then, when finding that there was reasonably a number of people of this height and beyond in the East End, and when coupling it with the knowledge that a low BMI is not indicative of bad health in itself, least of all when it belongs to a category described as mildly thin by the WHO - and letīs not forget that Evans/Fleming was at a BMI of 18,1 when originally incarcerated, not 17,3 (and equally, letīs not forget that BMI is not a health indicator on itīs own) - then we arrive at Debraīs standpoint; a bit suspect, thatīs all.

Nothing more than that. And we all know this. He WAS tall and he WAS skinny. But you know, people sometimes are. Thatīs all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Wonderful.
Of course, the fact that he had been a plasterer and later a costermonger helped the Coroner to establish the cause of death. So much.

By the way, Venturney did ALSO refer to Joe in her police statement. And if the police wanted to trace that guy, they would have been interested in knowing the giant he was. It would have helped.

And Mrs McCarthy, Phoenix, etc, didn't talk to establish the cause of MJK's death. They refer to that guy from Bethnal Green, and oh surprise ! no giant.

I guess some will now argue again that Barnett's Fleming, Venturney's Joe and Mrs McCarthy's man in the building trade were 3 different persons.

And I don't care much.

[The Good Michael]

Question: where does all the relevant information about Joe and Joseph Fleming come from? Answer: From the inquest testimony

Question: what was the purpose of an inquest? Answer: To find probable cause of death (was she murdered or not?)

Question: what would have been the purpose in the inquest testimony to say someone was tall? Answer: None. It would have had no purpose.

Question: If we didn't hear any information about Fleming's height in the inquest testimony because it was irrelevant to the purpose of the inquest, where could we have learned about his height? Answer: Nowhere...or in asylum records.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike

[Lechmere]

Ben
You think Fleming’s job prospects had declined by 1888 due to the onset of poor mental health and you simultaneously think Fleming was Hutchinson – so Hutchinson should have been showing signs of poor mental health…
Whatever research may have been done into average wages, you have no idea how much Fleming earned as a plasterer.
Plumbers could in theory earn a good wage, yet dear old Toppy live an itinerant life until the 1900s.

Can you show any evidence to support your view that the investigation had been wound down in 1893 or that the opinions of senior Scotland Yard officers had impacted on local officers at that stage?

Regarding references to any putative investigation into Fleming following his transfer from the responsibility of the City of London Union to Bethnal Green, I would have expected a rumour to appear in the press. The police were very leaky. Officers often sold snippets which is where the plethora of often misleading stories came from. Dozens of dead end leads were excitedly reported. If Fleming had been discovered in the register I would expect it to be common knowledge in Bethnal Green’s J Division. I would also have expected it to appear as a remark somewhere in one of the retirement memoirs. It could easily have been lost from the official record, but if the police came calling to Stone perhaps there should be a reference in his Case Book.

The total lack of any reference to Fleming’s detention strong suggests to me that it was not noted by the police. I would suggest that it is very unlikely that once or twice a year at least they did not consult the local asylum register. And there he is – highlighted by use of an alias!
That being the case the logical inference is that in 1893 Fleming was no longer a person of interest to the police. Or perhaps they knew that this particular Fleming wasn’t the right one.
Either way it is bad news for his suspect status.

Incidentally, we know that the City of London Poor Law Union investigated James Evans settlement and by October 1893 established that he ’belonged’ to Bethnal Green parish. This investigation included an interview with Henrietta Fleming. She gave the Union investigators information that established that James Evans (really her son Joseph Fleming) had been born (including his date of birth), baptised and brought up in Bethnal Green.
This investigation was not conducted by the medical authorities. It was conducted by the staff at the City of London Poor Law Union’s offices at 61 Bartholomew Close. This building is now part of Bart’s Hospital in the City but it wasn’t a medical facility back then.
There is no reason to suggest that the detailed findings that underpinned the decision to assign Evans/Fleming’s settlement to Bethnal Green would have been forwarded to Stone, although Stone must have been told the outcome.
In other words there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Evans/Fleming’s exact date of birth as revealed by his mother during the investigation into his settlement, was ever revealed to the authorities at Stone.
When Evans/Fleming was transferred to Claybury in 1895 they seem to have been totally unaware of his real date of birth. This is strongly suggestive that Stone was also.
On a separate note it seems likely that Henrietta Fleming visited Stone at some point. We may or may not be able to evaluate when this most likely occurred. In any case there is no reason to suppose that during her visit she was asked or volunteered the exact detail of when her son was born. There is no reason why this detail would have cropped up.

DVV
According to Colin (and I would guess he is about right) there were between 3 and 5 men of the Evans Fleming height or greater in the East End. Can you find any press reports about any of these East End giants?
Were they so tall that nobody saw them?
Where they so tall that nobody bothered mentioning how tall they were?

[Ben]

Interesting stuff, Colin, for which many thanks.

Hi Lechmere,

I didn't realise that details of Fleming's wages in his various trades was known - you are an expert researcher Ben!

Kind of you to say so, but I'm afraid I'd be taking credit for the efforts of others, who, I can assure you, have researched the subject of Victorian wages in considerable detail and posted their findings here on Casebook a number of years ago. It was more than satisfactorily established that plasterers earned considerably more than dockers and costermongers. I can't remember if it was Gareth Williams, Chris Scott or someone else entirely who shared their findings in this regard, but I'm sure our more regular visitors to Fleming threads will remember it well.

Was it reported that Hutch showed signs of poor mental health? Again I presume that another outcome of your research.

I don't recall mentioning "Hutch" at all.

You are of course aware, being conversant with this case, that the private opinions of certain senior Scotland Yard officers, expressed in later years and probably not held in 1893, that the case was 'solved' was not shared by the officers on the ground and that the case was still open in 1893?

I think it's perfectly clear that the "opinions of certain senior Scotland Yard officers" with regard to the supposed identification and incarceration of the killer were held in 1893, which meant that whatever the "officers on the ground" felt about it at that time, they were obliged to be led by their superiors.

So you think the police didn't track Fleming down in 1888. I presume you would agree that they may have made some effort even if it was unsuccessful?

Absolutely.

In which case they would have still been interested in finding him and the division in which he was supposed to live would probably be more likely to remember the missing Fleming than others - don't you think?

Again, yes, but we need to be realistic about the chances of this investigation getting any further than that i.e. effectively zero.

If they had found Fleming in the register then although it may not have gone anywhere, we should expect a reference somewhere as I stated.

Firstly, it is very unlikely that they ever looked through any register that contained a reference to Fleming, and secondly, where would we expect to find this "reference"?

Regards,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

And you've twigged mine...

Dave

PS - LOTR fan? I first read it at 16, (The Hobbit at 7), and have read it at least twice a year ever since...sad?...my youngest twins got bought a copy of The Hobbit each the day after they were born, and got read it, (with appropriate voices), as soon as they could understand...

My oldest grandaughter too...I've four grandchildren so far (and another on the way) but the youngest and closest in distance to me is approaching 18 months now...not long to go then...greetings fellow obsessive

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Oops - rumbled! Tell you what Dave, keep it quiet and I'll send you some whisky for Christmas. Every man has his price..

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey Sally...just read your last sentence and now have an insight into whose ancestor wrote the GSG!

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

I'm on holiday at the moment with a (amongst others) 6' 8" tall juggler who weighs less than 11 stone. How outlandish does that sound? People stare at him constantly, even when he isn't juggling.

Also, he breathes fire and used to be in the circus.

I am even less convinced now that Fleming's height would not have been his defining characteristic if he really was 6' 7".

[Michael W Richards]

The supposed height differential Fleming exhibits compared with the average in 1888 is almost 1 foot. 12 inches. Im 5'11", and if I was to meet or see someone 1 full foot taller than I am, 6'11"....it would be the single most relevant factor if describing the person to someone else. If there is no other characteristic that commands more attention....skin disorders, large beards, odd clothing, ...it would be the first thing I would make a notation of.

How is it that Hutchinson mentions nothing about that feature? How is it Mary never mentions to Barnett or Julia she used to live with in effect a giant? How is that someone that is 20% taller than anyone else around him isnt cited specifically as being unusually tall?

People play down the height differences with the known averages at that time, but surely anyone meeting a basketball player today would instantly be aware of the height disparity and the enormity of some other features also...like the hands and feet.

Therefore, Its almost certain Marys Fleming wasnt a giant, so maybe its another Fleming.

Best regards

[DVV]

He was so tall that nobody saw him.
He was so tall that nobody bothered mentioning how tall he was.

[Lechmere]

It only makes no difference Garry if you want to know the average height dispersal of adult male human beings in the East End.

[Garry Wroe]

if we are going to be picky then it can be added that the East End contained different populations - the average height of some would be greater than others. For instance the Jewish population would almost certainly have been on average shorter.

It makes no difference, Lechmere. Just as it makes no difference that a Scandinavian (and thus taller) subset is included in the analysis. Put simply, the mean height is the sum of the population heights divided by the number of individuals contained within the population. The mean has therefore accounted for any and all height deviations of the subsets, irrespective of the various subgroups which constitute the population.

[Cogidubnus]

What then, I wonder, do all of the other color-shaded isopleths represent?

Ah Colin, you won't fool any of us that way - they're just the descending contour lines representing the depths of stupidity!

Cheers

Dave