Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

then your mate is shorter than JF would have been according to the Stone records, but heavier than he ever was from 1892 to 1895 (in his thirties).

And 6'7 in 1888 is more than one inch taller than 6'6 in 2000.

Cheers

Indeed David. But not much in it.

A Victorian Eastender will always be a tad lighter than one born in the 1970`s.

The funny thing is that although I followed this thread I didn`t even think of my mate - maybe showing that it may be possible for people not to mention a "giant".

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your post, Fish.

It shows how out of your mind you are.

Mathematics aren't your hobby, it seems.

Even with numbers, you fail to provide any normal reasoning.

See you, and thanks again for the fun.

On the contrary - mathematics are an exact discipline. It cannot be faulted. And it shows very clearly that much as you will have it that the Victorians were half or height or something along those lines, they were actually no such thing at all. They were comparatively a bit shorter, but thatīs about it.

People over 2 metres were unusual back then, but they are unusual today too, albeit somewhat less unusual. But we should not buy into any suggestion that Evans was an extremely rare creature heightwise - thatīs the point I am making. Galton suggests that 500 men in London reached 6 ft 5 or over at the time we are looking at. That says it all.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Well I guess you can be left to discuss your highly credible and popular theory among yourselves!

[DVV]

All right.

As everybody knows, the problem is : how remarkable was a 6'7 tall guy in London 1888, given the average height of his contemporaries, and then, how tall, in 2013, has to be a man to be as remarkable as a 6'7 tall guy was in 1888.

Ouf !!

Average height in 1888 : 167 cm
Average height nowadays : 177 cm

Fleming was supposed to be 201 cm tall.

Which is : average height + 20.36 percent (of this average height).

So, for nowadays : 177 + 20.36 percent (of 177) = 213 cm.

Therefore, a "2013 Fleming" would be 213 cm tall.

Which is definitely remarkably tall, to say the least.

Now, casebookers, how many of your friends is 213 cm tall ?

Personally I have none.

[The Good Michael]

All right.

As everybody knows, the problem is : how remarkable was a 6'7 tall guy in London 1888, given the average height of his contemporaries, and then, how tall, in 2013, has to be a man to be as remarkable as a 6'7 tall guy was in 1888.

Ouf !!

Average height in 1888 : 167 cm
Average height nowadays : 177 cm

Fleming was supposed to be 201 cm tall.

Which is : average height + 20.36 percent (of this average height).

So, for nowadays : 177 + 20.36 percent (of 177) = 213 cm.

Therefore, a "2013 Fleming" would be 213 cm tall.

Which is definitely remarkably tall, to say the least.

Now, casebookers, how many of your friends is 213 cm tall ?

Personally I have none.

When I was in the military, I had one friend 6'10" and another 6'9". I have one friend now 6'7". It isn't even unusual to me as when I played rugby, plenty of guys were 2 meters or more. But it doesn't really matter. If someone's heart is set on 6'7" being nigh on impossible, that's what it is. I have no dog in this fight.

Mike

[Fisherman]

One of my friends is that tall.

And I believe that if we have a statistical coordination with Galtons world, we will have many hundred Londoners of that approximate height.

Otherwise we must accept that it was more common back in 1888 to grow that relatively tall - would you prefer that picture?

Nothing, you see David, is changed by how short your circuit of friends is. It still remains the exact same story: Most people did not grow as tall as Evans/Fleming did, but hundreds of Londoners and thousands of Brits actually did. Evans/Fleming was never a rarity to that extent. He was one of thousands of very tall Brits, and one must accept that of these thousands of people, some were sturdy and some were skinny and some ended up in asylums.

We are not dealing with a case where we may conclude that all people in the asylums were 5 ft 6 and weighed 70 kilograms just because that was the average.

Some people are not average, David, believe it or not.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Mike - you are correct. Itīs in the eye of the beholder, blind or not.

[DVV]

When I was in the military, I had one friend 6'10" and another 6'9". I have one friend now 6'7". It isn't even unusual to me as when I played rugby, plenty of guys were 2 meters or more. But it doesn't really matter. If someone's heart is set on 6'7" being nigh on impossible, that's what it is. I have no dog in this fight.

Mike

Please Mike, I've been playing rugby all my life and it's only in recent years that very tall second rows have become relatively common.

Still today, the average professional second row is UNDER 6'6.

Fleming, if living in 2013, would be 2,13 m tall.

Which is 5 cm taller than Richie Gray - the tallest player of the last Six Nations championship.

Oh, but it's normal that Mary said nothing, and that nobody saw Fleming.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo DVV

No one 6'7" precisely. 6'9", 6'10", 6'4", 6'5", 6'6", another 6'5" and another 6'4". That's about all I can remember.

[DVV]

One of my friends is that tall.

I'm not really surprized, Fish.

I bet he's in good health, although weighting around 72 kg, and is a signature expert.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

I'm not really surprized, Fish.

I bet he's in good health, although weighting around 72 kg, and is a signature expert.

Cheers

He is in normal health, he weighs far too little though (he has consulted a doctor who has measured his body fat and reached the conclusion that he lies on a dangerously low level), but he is too young to be a signature expert.

Thanks for asking, by the way. I actually remembered that I have TWO friends that tall. The other guy is a retired photographer with a serious overweight problem.

But what the heck - one can have other, much more disturbing problems ...

Plus, of course, no matter how tall my friends are and what they weigh, it still applies that London would have had hundreds of people as tall as Evans/Fleming, and some of them would have been sturdy, some skinny and some may well have ended up in asylums.

See, David; that just wonīt change. Like Iīve told you before.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

2.13 meters is extraordinarily tall in 2013, and so was 2.01m in the LVP.

This is obvious.

So how did Fleming go unnoticed, have no nickname, etc etc ?

Because 6'7 is most probably a mistake.

[The Good Michael]

2.13 meters is extraordinarily tall in 2013, and so was 2.01m in the LVP.

This is obvious.

So how did Fleming go unnoticed, have no nickname, etc etc ?

Because 6'7 is most probably a mistake.

How do you this is true? Any personal details wouldn't have shown up at the inquest because all information was already known and what was at the inquest was a formality of presenting that information in the legal forum. Had Fleming already been checked out, no details would have needed to come up at all. In fact, sticking to the script was how things went. Determining the circumstances of a person's death needed no information on a peripheral person's height. You keep saying that there would have been this information leaked somewhere, and that everyone would have known. I don't believe this information was necessary for anyone. Let's say, just for fun, that Fleming was 6'7" and this info had no bearing on determining Kelly's cause of death according to the course of the shortened inquest....and let's say there were 2 other people in the area that were 6'7". Why don't we have any information about them? In fact, there's no information about anyone in the case that's more than a few sentences. Kelly was the one killed and we don't even know if she was thin or stout, dark or fair, Welsh or Irish. We only have anecdotes about her, nothing about Barnett who testified, nothing at all on Morganstone, nothing about Hutchinson...why should Fleming be any different? The argument is that if he were 6'7" of course we would know more. Not without reason and there was no reason.

Mike

[Phil H]

I think - as my earlier example of US General Solomon Meredith indicates - even in the period in question exceptionally tall men could operate without undue attention being called to their height.

For all we know, Flemming may have been called "Long" Joe by those who knew him (Meredith was "Long Sol") but he was accepted as who and what he was. A stranger who did not know him might gawp, but probably forget once he saw others made nothing of the man's height.

As I have said before, we can doubt the written evidence, we may believe a mistake has been made, but as historians we are not entitled to dismiss written evidence. To do THAT we need proof that either the individual concerned in the written record is not OUR Flemming, or that the man was definitely of a different height.

Phil

[DVV]

Once again, it's not ONLY about the inquest, Mike.

You can bury your head in the sand as deep as you wish, but Venturney referred to Joe in her police statement also.

And "Joe", who "ill-used" MJK was a suspect, at least somebody worth questioning. But it seems that Venturney didn't know how remarkably tall he was.

Oh, I know - you will argue that Mary never told Julia how tall was the guy...
And I'll object that it's extremely unlikely.

And there are also Mrs McCarthy, Phoenix, etc. Again, not a word.

But most importantly, we know that Fleming used to visit Mary.
And we know that the police have made extensive enquiries, asking her friends, neighbours, publicans, etc.

And we have never heard of her having been seen with a remarkably tall man.

Like it or not, but 6'7 was extraordinarily tall in 1888, especially in the poor classes.
As 213 cm is extraordinarily tall today.

Lastly, since I'm not tired yet, we have this laughable weight, between 11 and 11st8.

A weight that really doesn't match the height, as evidenced by Crouch - whose characteristic is precisely to have a freakish and most bizarre figure.

[DVV]

As I have said before, we can doubt the written evidence, we may believe a mistake has been made, but as historians we are not entitled to dismiss written evidence. To do THAT we need proof that either the individual concerned in the written record is not OUR Flemming, or that the man was definitely of a different height.

Phil

I see what you mean, but what kind of proof shall we expect ?

Debs has spent more time than all of us checking records of all kinds, and she suspects that there is something wrong here.

We may have no proof, but various évidences that it is a mistake :

the weight, and all I've pointed out in my previous post, using good common sense.

If you read the police statements, the inquests, the press (Mrs McCarthy), you will understand that they all said all they knew about this fellow.

And noone seemed to know he was the tallest guy of the East End.

This is more surprising than a mere clerical mistake. Much more.