Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

If Dr. Patterson was in the habit of making a note of people's heights using the longer "_ft_in" description, while one of his colleagues preferred to record them in inches only, the former could easily have written "6 ft 7 in" in haste, and without giving it much (or any) thought. If Dr. White - or more likely, his registrar - recorded heights only in inches at the time of the initial measurement-takings, the number 6 would crop up more often than not (i.e. for anyone under 5.75 feet), so it wouldn't be unlikely for one of those frequently observed "6"s to end up in the wrong place.

If further research should prove that nobody working at that establishment recorded heights in inches, I will gladly revise my stance, but as things currently stand, virtually anything is preferable to accepting that Fleming was of such an extreme height-to-weight ratio (and an extreme height in anyone's book) and yet still in "good" bodily health.

However, I doubt we'll ever quite see eye to eye on this one (not least because I'm a trifle shy of 5 ft 2 myself ), so it's probably not worth continuing the height debate.

Agreed.

And I'm a lanky lad at 6'5".

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'Day Caz and Ben

If today you read an inmate was 7ft 3in you would stop and say boy a big boy, you would not say Oh a mistake they must mean, 6 ft 1in or 73in.

The people making the records in the hospital for Joe took them down every day if 6ft 7 was wrong they would surely have noticed it when most people were 5ft 6 on ave!

GUT

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

If today you read an inmate was 7ft 3in you would stop and say boy a big boy

Not if his weight was recorded as dangerously and painfully low for someone of that height, and yet his bodily health was described as being "good". You'd recognise the obvious anomaly - or rather the complete impossibility - and realise that a mistake in the record taking must have taken place. You might wish to familiarise yourself with the whole thread, and understand how a mistake could easily have been made.

Regards,
Ben

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

You say

"Not if his weight was recorded as dangerously and painfully low for someone of that height, and yet his bodily health was described as being "good". You'd recognise the obvious anomaly - or rather the complete impossibility - and realise that a mistake in the record taking must have taken place. You might wish to familiarise yourself with the whole thread, and understand how a mistake could easily have been made."

Two points

1. I have read the ENTIRE thread, I am not of the habit of going off half-cocked and acting on part of the evidence.

2. You say "You'd recognise the obvious anomaly" but you think the staff wouldn't.

GUT

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

Apologies for assuming you hadn't familiarised yourself with the full debate.

2. You say "You'd recognise the obvious anomaly" but you think the staff wouldn't

Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting; that it was hastily copied down without much thought given to it, as often occurs during the during of paperwork. The fact that we analyse it at our leisure as a fascinating document does not mean that those responsible for it had quite the same attitude to it. There is simply no way he was that tall, that thin, and yet still of bodily health. It doesn't matter how we account for the fact that a mistake occurred. It evidently did somehow.

Regards,
Ben

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

No you ASSUME a mistake was made.

A world of difference


GUT

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Just been double checking if Flemming was 6ft 7in and 11 Stone the ONLY figures I've seen. Then that gives him a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 18.04. [IE 11 stone approx 70KG, 6'7" approx 1.97m].

Modern tables say that a healthy weight range is BMI between 18.5 and 24. I stress and repeat MODERN.

Thus for you to suggest that (and I quote) "There is simply no way he was that tall, that thin, and yet still of bodily health." Is simply Totally and utterly wrong.

If you have something to show that the record of 6'7" was wrongly recorded I withdraw all comments BUT until I see them I stand by my contention that a weight of 11 Stone is not some proof that 6'7" MUST be wrong.

You earlier suggested that I needed to read the entire thread before commenting on his height. I'd suggest you need to do some reasearch before you state that There is simply no way he was that tall, that thin, and yet still of bodily health. Because I believe I have demonstrated conclusively that he may have been Slightly under ideal weight but by no means impossibly so.



GUT

[Ben]

Just been double checking if Flemming was 6ft 7in and 11 Stone the ONLY figures I've seen. Then that gives him a BMI (Body Mass Index) of 18.04.

No, it doesn't.

That is "Totally and utterly wrong"

It gives him a BMI of 17.4, which is considered dangerously low, and commonly associated with sufferers of anerexia and poor nutrition, according to actual medical experts. Had you done your research and consulted an actual BMI chart, as opposed to skimming through this thread and drawing hasty conclusions based on a few numbers you've seen and misunderstood, you'd have spotted this.

It doesn't bother me if you want to persist in the belief that Fleming was an emaciated giant, but do let's get our facts straight before making erroneous statements as to what you've "demonstrated conclusively".

Why do you stress and repeat "MODERN" by the way? Are you suggesting people were taller and skinnier back then?

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Yes I am certainly suggesting people had a lower BMI in 1888 than they do today. Not taller certainly but it is a FACT that just as people are taller today they are also heavier haven't you ever heard of the obesity epidemic. It is also well known that those in the East End were of the poorest class and suffered from malnutrition.

I don't know how you come up with 17.4 but I used the official Australian Govt BMI calculator as used by the RAAF. I've explained exactly what figures I used would you care to do the same to explain 17.4

GUT

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Another point to ponder, if your suggestion of a height of 67 inches is right and 11 stone, as late as 1912, the closest tables I can track down at the moment, he would be classified as overweight.

I don't dispute for even 1 second that 6'7" is T A L L even in 2014 but I also strongly contend that 11 Stone at 5'7" is also not a healthy weight.

But I also admit we will never know. I just don't think that you can say, as you seem to that 6'7" must be wrong, because he is said to be 11 stone and bodily healthy. I would also submit that underweight (by today's standards) would be much more common than overweight.


GUT

[Ben]

I also strongly contend that 11 Stone at 5'7" is also not a healthy weight

Again, Gut, I'm afraid you have quite the wrong end of the stick. If you're 5'7" and 11 stone, you are on the heavier side of "normal", as millions of people were in 1888, and as many more millions of people are today. Not tall, but maybe a little stout. If you're suggesting that exceptionally tall and painfully thin people were more common than ever-so-slightly chunky people in 1888, I'm afraid you are very much mistaken.

On the subject of "malnutrition", I wouldn't get too hung up on the notion that this always equated to extreme thinness. The problem for the poor of London's East End in Victorian times was not so much one of chronic food deprivation, but rather one of poor diet. Annie Chapman, for example, was certainly malnourished, but as pictorial evidence bears out, she was also clearly overweight, as was Martha Tabram.

I've explained exactly what figures I used would you care to do the same to explain 17.4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tools/bmi_calculator/bmi.shtml

It may be a stretch to say that the 6'7" entry is certainly wrong, but it probably is.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear, the weight – height combination would not mean that Fleming was painfully, dangerously or impossibly thin.
A glance at the page the original record was written on tells us that the height entry would have been on view every time Fleming’s notes were added to or reviewed. And this happened on a regular basis.
11 stone was his lightest recorded weight. The same record that recorded his height recorded his weight fluctuations. It barely makes sense to suggest that the medical staff would never have noticed the incongruity of his height being ridiculously out in such circumstances.

[GUT]

G'Day Ben and Lechmere

Ben

Proof please that many people in East End London 1888 were heavy?

Lechmere

Point exactly

All

It only becomes relevant if you want to prove

1. This was MJK's Joe
2. Joe was Jack

BUT if we accept what was written and Lechmere sums it up perfectly his weight was recorded over and over and no one noticed they got his height wrong.

Why do we accept that MJK had a Fleming, because she said so. Why do we think that this was her Fleming? Because we can't find another one, we also can't find (as far as I can determine) her dead husband in Wales.

My point is simply that the only reason people want this record to be wrong is so that this can be her Joe, but it can be her Joe, IF her Joe was 6'7". The argument appears to be that the only reason her Joe can't be 6'7" is because no one says that he was. But we have no proof that the witnesses ever saw her Joe. Sure they also don't say "She said he was 6'7"" and I freely accept she probably would have mentioned that fact. So if this Fleming was 6'7" he probably wasn't her Joe.

But if we accept the record as correct this is NOT Jack. Because sure as tooting someone would have noticed if there was a 6'7" stalker going around killing women.

GUT

[Ben]

Don't "oh dear" me, please. It's quite annoying.

Yes, the weight-height combination would have meant that Fleming was painfully and dangerously thin according to reliable medical sources, and no, these don't include comparisons with pampered celebrity athletes.

A glance at the page the original record was written on tells us that the height entry would have been on view every time Fleming’s notes were added to or reviewed. And this happened on a regular basis.

Which means absolutely nothing unless you're insisting that the doctors continually read the entire page from top to bottom after each new entry, as opposed to doing what they were infinitely more likely to have done, which was simply to update the book periodically. It wasn't as if Fleming was their only patient.

Now go to bed, Lechmere.

You've got a long day of fending off yet more criticism of your Crossmere theory tomorrow.

[Ben]

Proof please that many people in East End London 1888 were heavy?

I didn't say anything of the sort, though.

Please read what I actually wrote, which was that malnutrition needn't necessarily equate to extreme thinness, and that we have examples of people who were both malnourished and overweight in the 1888 east end. Similarly, if you read my message above you'll understand immediately that there is nothing remotely unusual about a doctor going through the tedium of updating his records without reading through the entire medical history of whichever patient he or his colleagues had attended to that day.

Why do we accept that MJK had a Fleming, because she said so. Why do we think that this was her Fleming?

Because that is where the evidence overwhelmingly points, as you'll discover if you take the time to have a proper read through the numerous posts on Fleming. It's commendable that you recognise the obvious reality that Kelly would have made reference to the gargantuan height of her boyfriend if her boyfriend actually had a gargantuan height. But your next step is to acquaint yourself with the strong evidence linking this particular Fleming with Kelly's one-time boyfriend, as meticulous researched by Chris Scott and others.

Don't feel you have to write a response immediately. Just have a look through the archives, and I'll see what I can find for ease of quick reference.