Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Bridewell]

The only historical record we have states 6' 7". As that is not beyond the realms of possibility then, to my mind, that is the correct height. When we find another record which records 5' 7", then we'll have a choice to make. That's my take on it, but I realise others think differently.

[Ben]

What we have here is an entry, which, for reasons outlined and discussed many times, is very very unlikely to be correct, despite it looking clear and legible enough in the record. Debs' suggested explanation, that the doctor or registrar meant to write 67 inches, which is the equivalent of 5'7", is more than convincing enough for me, especially as we know heights were occasionally recorded just in inches.

Either Fleming was an exceptional oddity; an extreme of height for an equally extreme weight whilst still managing to be in "good health", with no-one remarking on this extremity, despite Victorian London being a haven for nicknames based on physical appearance ...or he wasn't.

I vote not.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Ben.

"Either he was an exceptional oddity; an extreme of height for an equally extreme weight whilst still managing to be in "good health"...or he wasn't.

I vote not."

Well, and succinctly put.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Thanks, Lynn.

Then I went and ruined that succinctness by editing my post to add an extra bit.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The patient was recorded in a official document as 6'7, until it is proven to be incorrect, we should accept it at face value.
No wonder why the poor chap had a paranoid complex.
The main doubt in my mind is whether or not this Evans/Fleming was the same guy that was in Mary Kelly's life?
This is not proven to date, and is doubtful if it ever will be..
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The patient was recorded in a official document as 6'7, until it is proven to be incorrect, we should accept it at face value.

Then I suppose we should accept "at face value" Robert Anderson's assertion that it is a "definitely ascertained fact" that the ripper was a Polish Jew?

The main doubt in my mind is whether or not this Evans/Fleming was the same guy that was in Mary Kelly's life?

There is far less doubt about "Evans" being Kelly's Fleming than there is surrounding the height issue...or ought to be.

Cheers,
Ben

[DRoy]

Ben,

There is a bit of a difference between something being recorded and someone making a statement. The person who entered Flemming's height wasn't making a statement, he or she was documenting.

Cheers
DRoy

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have to agree with DRoy on this one,in respect to the difference.
As for the Ripper being a polish jew, that is an opinion , which for all we know may well turn out to be right.
So I go for the asylum record to be accurate, and maybe even Anderson's statement who knows.
I am a sitting duck for believing in historical records and even period opinions.
Regards Richard.

[caz]

Ben,

There is a bit of a difference between something being recorded and someone making a statement. The person who entered Flemming's height wasn't making a statement, he or she was documenting.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy,

Don't faint, but I agree with you on this one!

I think it would be hard for most people to make an error like that. They would know as they were writing 6' 7" that they were recording a fairly unusual height.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

They would know as they were writing 6' 7" that they were recording a fairly unusual height.

But if they were hurried or not bothered, maybve they did not realise they had made a mistake?

On the other hand, I only today came across a General from the American Civil War - Solomon Meredith, who was described as "gaunt" and 6'7" tall. He was apparently Lincoln's only Quaker general and commanded the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg.

So very tall and thin could happen in the late 1800s. I attach a picture.

Phil

[Ben]

But if they were hurried or not bothered, maybve they did not realise they had made a mistake?

Indeed, Phil, especially if writing people's heights just in inches was commonplace at the time, which apparently it was. The suggestion that such an error may have occurred in the Fleming case was initially put forward by Debra Arif, and since she has considerably more knowledge than I do on the subject of archival documents and the practices of registrars, her take on the matter is more than good enough for me.

I am a sitting duck for believing in historical records and even period opinions.

In which case Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jewish suicidal poisoning law-practicing quack herbalist-hairdresser with surgical knowledge and a total ignorance of anatomy, Richard! Oops...

Cheers,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I should have phrased that with the word ''some'', it would have given me some protection from oncoming flak.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Plasterer. Dock labourer. Good health. More than 2m and less than 70kg.
Venturney, Barnett and Mrs MacCarthy forgetting this "detail". (Or was it MJK ?)
This sheer nonsense doesn't deserve any(more) reply.
I'm sorry for Debs.
Pearls before swine.

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy,

Don't faint, but I agree with you on this one!

Caz,

Yay! Finally! As much as I like to argue its nice to have some backing now and again. I'm not (that) crazy haha

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

Indeed, Phil, especially if writing people's heights just in inches was commonplace at the time, which apparently it was. The suggestion that such an error may have occurred in the Fleming case was initially put forward by Debra Arif, and since she has considerably more knowledge than I do on the subject of archival documents and the practices of registrars, her take on the matter is more than good enough for me.

Nice one, Ben. Debs knows her stuff all right, and I know all about the inches argument. But she did only say such an error may have occurred, and since I presume heights were recorded just as often in feet and inches, I'm at a loss to see how anyone could tell whether someone had mistaken 67" for 6' 7", or it was 6' 7" all along, without evidence from an original.

It's a guess either way. The thing is, if we had a recorded height of 5' 1", would anyone now be arguing that 5' 11" or 6' 1" were more likely heights for a man, even in the LVP, therefore it was almost certainly a mistake?

Love,

Caz
X