Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Sally]

But Christer, Ripperology is being infested by the Spin-doctor approach, their presence is being felt everywhere.

How right you are, Jon.

[Fisherman]

How right you are, Jon.

... says the poster who originally claimed that the asylum recorded height of 6 ft 7 was just a "guess" on Edward´s behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Ok.....I understand the issue for the detractors here.....its inconceivable that a man who was reported to have been a full 12 inches taller than the average man wouldnt be specifically noted as such.....and I understand the folks that believe if it was written down by people who examined him then it was likely accurate.

I believe Davids mention of Debra's idea that the measurement likely referred to inches is wise, and that it was probably just an error in notation thats causing this issue. If Debra was correct, that puts his height at .......5'7", the average for that time and place. It makes much more sense than assuming that people who examined what amounts to be an average basketball player in the context of todays world wouldnt have noted this anomaly specifically.

Look at Dr T......his height is often mentioned,....why....because it was unusual. As would be someone much taller than him.

So.....reasonably speaking, we dont likely have a "Ho, Ho, Ho, Bethnal Green Giant" on our hands.....

Cheers all

[Fisherman]

Yes, Michael, there would be a lot of men at 5 ft 7 and only a few of them at 6 ft 7. On those grounds, it would be more reasonable to expect that Fleming/Evans was 5 ft 7 - statistically the chance of getting things right are larger.

But once we have a record telling us in no uncertain terms that Evans/Fleming was 6 ft 7, the better guess is that he WAS 6 ft 7. Nothing can change that.

There is also an uncertainty as to whether the asylum man was the same man referred to by witnesses in the Kelly case. Likewise, there is an uncertainty whether the different winesses spoke of the same man. There is even an uncertainty whether the witnesses had actually seen Evans/Fleming.

These are all uncertainties and unknown factors adhering to the case. The recorded height, however, is no uncertainty at all - it was recorded as 6 ft 7.

At the end of the day, I am not saying that this could not have been a misrecording - it could have been, just as any recording can be faulty. That was not what made me react. What made me react was instead the proposition that it would be nothing but a guess to say that Evans/Fleming was 6 ft 7. It can never be a guess if it´s in the records. Guessing is what we do when we have no records to go by.

I am, quite frankly, seriously put off by such suggestions, just as I am put off by posters loudly claiming that Evans/Fleming was 5 ft 7 and that this height and the recorded weight together must equal poor physical health. That´s just nonsense and it does not belong to a serious discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, Michael, there would be a lot of men at 5 ft 7 and only a few of them at 6 ft 7. On those grounds, it would be more reasonable to expect that Fleming/Evans was 5 ft 7 - statistically the chance of getting things right are larger.

But once we have a record telling us in no uncertain terms that Evans/Fleming was 6 ft 7, the better guess is that he WAS 6 ft 7. Nothing can change that.

There is also an uncertainty as to whether the asylum man was the same man referred to by witnesses in the Kelly case. Likewise, there is an uncertainty whether the different winesses spoke of the same man. There is even an uncertainty whether the witnesses had actually seen Evans/Fleming.

These are all uncertainties and unknown factors adhering to the case. The recorded height, however, is no uncertainty at all - it was recorded as 6 ft 7.

At the end of the day, I am not saying that this could not have been a misrecording - it could have been, just as any recording can be faulty. That was not what made me react. What made me react was instead the proposition that it would be nothing but a guess to say that Evans/Fleming was 6 ft 7. It can never be a guess if it´s in the records. Guessing is what we do when we have no records to go by.

I am, quite frankly, seriously put off by such suggestions, just as I am put off by posters loudly claiming that Evans/Fleming was 5 ft 7 and that this height and the recorded weight together must equal poor physical health. That´s just nonsense and it does not belong to a serious discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I can see your point.....IF we had reason to believe that we have the correct data on each and every report that was made by an official. I dont see that we do.

I dont mean to trivialize your concerns Fish, but it seems to me that logically, without any other specific mention of disproportion, the notation has been misinterpreted.

All the best mate

[Wickerman]

I do remember asking to see this entry, it is posted somewhere. I've been looking but no joy.

If the entry was written:
6 feet 7 inch, or
6 ft 7 in. then it is very difficult to question.

But if it is:
6' 7", or
6 7" (the 'feet' symbol being erased), then there may be reason for doubt - the sixty-seven inch suggestion has some merit.

The question I posed was, are all the other inmate entries for 'height' given in feet & inches or just inches?
That is to say, what was the convention?

[Fisherman]

6ft 7in, Jon - that´s what the record says. You can find it in the thread about the Stone asylum records under Suspects: Fleming, first page, post four (by Chris Scott).

And yes, it IS very difficult to question.

And to suggest that those who acknowledge it are making a "guess" is absolutely staggering!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris Scott]

Here is the original

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Wow!

Now if the writer just messed up completely then so be it. But that right there is 6feet 7inches all day. Thanks.

[Chris Scott]

There has been some speculation that this should be read as 6ft 1in but on the next line, in the same handwriting, is an entry for July 7th so that the two numbers can be compared

[DVV]

Hi Fisherman,

I can see your point.....IF we had reason to believe that we have the correct data on each and every report that was made by an official. I dont see that we do.

I dont mean to trivialize your concerns Fish, but it seems to me that logically, without any other specific mention of disproportion, the notation has been misinterpreted.

All the best mate

Most probably, Mike.

Debra has provided a solution, according to which he would be 67 inches tall.

Another is that the man who has written up the datas had a problem with original "6" (or the person who wrote them first shaped 6 as 5).

Hence the very odd height, and the equally odd "160 years".

In both cases : Fleming would be 5'7 for a weight around 11st5lbs.

Neither too fat nor too thin - hence the records noting "takes food, sleeps well, works well, good health", hence Barnett, Venturney and Mrs Carthy saying nothing about an oddly tall fiancé.

Whatever the Crouchists may say, it's not a baseless guess.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Most probably, Mike.

Debra has provided a solution, according to which he would be 67 inches tall.

Another is that the man who has written up the datas had a problem with original "6" (or the person who wrote them first shaped 6 as 5).

Hence the very odd height, and the equally odd "160 years".

Was not the height given and the 160 years thing written in different handwriting, thus relating to different men, David? I seem to remember that this was so. Let´s see ... Ah; here it is, your answer when Chris Scott pointed out to you that two different hands wrote these two things:

"yes I know....that I don't know....how to explain..."

Since you once again bring it up, I take it you have an explanation now...? Was it epidemic at the asylum?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Chris Scott]

For completeness here is the original of the "160 years" comment

[Chris Scott]

The sample of the handwriting in question below is useful in that it contains samples of 1 and 6 and 7 for comparison.

[DVV]

Was not the height given and the 160 years thing written in different handwriting, thus relating to different men, David? I seem to remember that this was so. Let´s see ... Ah; here it is, your answer when Chris Scott pointed out to you that two different hands wrote these two things:

"yes I know....that I don't know....how to explain..."

Since you once again bring it up, I take it you have an explanation now...? Was it epidemic at the asylum?

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

You've called Frank Leander already ?

All the best