Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[lynn cates]

mistakes and mistakes

Hello David. A reasonable conjecture is that the 6 should have been 5.

I always ask, when a mistake is made, "What kind of mistake is it?" I also inquire about its frequency. And this is the kind of mistake I often make. It is 5 minutes until 10, but instead of 9.55 I say 10.55. Why? Because I am looking at the 10. I then correct myself.

I think something similar happened here. 6 was put for 5.

Of course, I am merely speculating.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

If Henrietta really said "160 years", she would have been given a bed in Stone.

[DVV]

6 o'clock, tea time

Hello David. A reasonable conjecture is that the 6 should have been 5.

I always ask, when a mistake is made, "What kind of mistake is it?" I also inquire about its frequency. And this is the kind of mistake I often make. It is 5 minutes until 10, but instead of 9.55 I say 10.55. Why? Because I am looking at the 10. I then correct myself.

I think something similar happened here. 6 was put for 5.

Of course, I am merely speculating.

Cheers.
LC

Truly deep and interesting, Lynn.

But such mistakes never happen in Sweden, mind you.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

6ft 7in, Jon - thatīs 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

Thankyou Christer, yes, to suggest it was a guess can only mean that particular person had never seen it written down.

Here is the original

Thankyou for clearing that up Chris.

[C. F. Leon]

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?

Since Chris had been so good as to put up images of the original entries (thanks, Chris!!), I think the question actually becomes: How likely is it that the record-keeper (whose handwriting is what we are seeing) is copying these records from notes, perhaps made by others? If so, then we can speculate about handwriting or mispelling, etc.

Along those lines- how common was the use of the inch ('') and foot (') symbols at the time? Were they likely to be commonly used in notes, or unfamiliar enough that someone could confuse them? (as I do often) I do think that most people would put a more obvious gap with (6' 7") than they would using (67") .

[DVV]

It is fascinating to observe that the only casebookers who post here, merely to say "6'7, he was that tall !" are those who fight against Ben in every Hutch thread.

Thought Flemtchinson was a non-starter.

I might be wrong, at last.

[DVV]

Since Chris had been so good as to put up images of the original entries (thanks, Chris!!), I think the question actually becomes: How likely is it that the record-keeper (whose handwriting is what we are seeing) is copying these records from notes, perhaps made by others? If so, then we can speculate about handwriting or mispelling, etc.

Along those lines- how common was the use of the inch ('') and foot (') symbols at the time? Were they likely to be commonly used in notes, or unfamiliar enough that someone could confuse them? (as I do often) I do think that most people would put a more obvious gap with (6' 7") than they would using (67") .

Actually, there are more than one record-keeper. It's a mess.

The truth lies in the records themselves : not a mention of such a height, not a mention of such a thinness.

Takes food, sleeps well, works well. (My advice to the 6'7 squad)

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Since Chris had been so good as to put up images of the original entries (thanks, Chris!!), I think the question actually becomes: How likely is it that the record-keeper (whose handwriting is what we are seeing) is copying these records from notes, perhaps made by others? If so, then we can speculate about handwriting or mispelling, etc.

Questions are always good, speculation is fine, where some go wrong is when they draw conclusions from speculation.

It is fascinating to observe that the only casebookers who post here, merely to say "6'7, he was that tall !" are those who fight against Ben in every Hutch thread.

Thought Flemtchinson was a non-starter.

I might be wrong, at last.

The distinction to me, is between those who work with records/documents, and those who guess there way through everything.

On which side of the fence are you Dave?

[DVV]

Hi Jon,

common sense (6'7 labourer in 88, 11st, no mention from Mary, ie Barnett, McCarthy, Venturney, nothing from the MEDICS) and evidence (same as previous parenthesis + Debs "inches" solution + "160 years" + Lynn's speculation).

Good fence, don't you think ?

More comfortable than : "Hey ! it's written once ! that's true !"

Cheers

[Wickerman]

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

Dave.

Debs suggestion does not match the written record, there's no way to interpret 6 ft 7 in, as sixty-seven inches. The suggestion only sounds reasonable until you see the written record.

Let me explain something, many years ago I thought to question what Det. Halse said about the height of the letters in the graffiti, the 3/4" comment.

It occurred to me that possibly it was written 3-4" (not 3/4"), which makes a hell of a difference, and on the face of it, makes perfect sense.
But, when you compare my suggestion to the origin of the record, my suggestion falls apart.
Halse spoke the words at the inquest, they were not written in some untidy hand, and the spoken word "three-quarter" sounds nothing like "three-to-four" inches.

We must always compare our suggestions with the original record, before we dash across the finish line.

What tangible reason do you have to question the actual record? - not liking it, is not an answer. If it read 9 ft 7 in you might have a point (actually, no 'might' about it), but as 6 ft 7 in is not impossible, rare yes, but not impossible, then why make an issue out of it?

[DVV]

Original record, Jon ?

You have all Fleming's records from Stone to think about it.

And MJK inquest.

Take your time.

Frankly, it's well and good to argue Fleming wasn't the ripper, that's the game. Well and good also to argue he wasn't Hutch.

But the 6'7 argument is a gross nonsense.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

common sense (6'7 labourer in 88, 11st, no mention from Mary, ie Barnett, McCarthy, Venturney, nothing from the MEDICS) and evidence (same as previous parenthesis + Debs "inches" solution + "160 years" + Lynn's speculation).

Good fence, don't you think ?

More comfortable than : "Hey ! it's written once ! that's true !"

Cheers

Sorry Dave, didn't see this reply.

I'll tell you what I do notice, that there is a small handful of Casebook'ers who prefer to build theories on what 'was not said', rather than what actually 'was said', or wrote.

There is sound reasoning behind the old truism, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You've called Frank Leander already ?

All the best

Nah, David, no need for that - Chris immediately identified the two handwriting styles as different back then, and it would seem you had nothing to object to that?

... which was why I was baffled by seeing that ressurection of your old argument again, buried deep down as it already was. But never mind.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If Henrietta really said "160 years", she would have been given a bed in Stone.

Not necessarily, no. If she had recently spoken of this insanity with a family member or friend and given it some afterthought, she may well have arrived at a more specific than general figure, and if that figure was 160 years, then why would she give a rounder number when speaking to the asylum officials?

Things can be more simple and less sinister that we think they are.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Truly deep and interesting, Lynn.

But such mistakes never happen in Sweden, mind you.

Cheers

I try to minimize the mistakes, yes, but I donīt think it is necessarily a national treat. And I actually took great care to point out that mistakes always have and always will happen. But you missed it, apparently...

All the best,
Fisherman