Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

I agree, Harry.
I'd be glad to have a look at his father's records (Shoreditch District Infirmary), if they still exist. In case his height and mental health are recorded.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

With respect to this height question, the 6'7" figure is almost certainly an error, because that would constitute almost freak status among a population that was on average about 5'7" for men at that time. The height would have been at the forefront of every statement about the man, and the press would have emphasized that detail for the interest of their readers.

Either excessively tall or short, there is little doubt if he had been that tall we would have read a comment to that effect.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

With respect to this height question, the 6'7" figure is almost certainly an error, because that would constitute almost freak status among a population that was on average about 5'7" for men at that time. The height would have been at the forefront of every statement about the man, and the press would have emphasized that detail for the interest of their readers.

Either excessively tall or short, there is little doubt if he had been that tall we would have read a comment to that effect.

Cheers

Totally agree with this. And if he was 6'7" there is no way he was the ripper.

[DVV]

Well said, Mike.
6'7 and 70 kilos.
Definitely a freak.
Which would make MJK a freakophile.
The mistake can have two explanations, both of them pointing to 5'7.
1 : Debra's suggestion : 67 inches
2: problem with the 6 : hence the odd "160 years" (instead of 150) by Henrietta.

Cheers

[DVV]

And if he was 6'7" there is no way he was the ripper.

True, Abby.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

This Joseph Fleming’s height was very clearly recorded at entry as 6 foot 7 inches and this record was never corrected.
His weight at entry was 11 stone 8 pounds and thereafter seems to have fluctuated around that level.
That meant he was somewhat skinny.
In June 1892 he was picked up by the police wandering about displaying signs of some form of mental disorder.
Is it likely that someone living on their own in 1892 and suffering from severe mental health issues would be well nourished?
I would suggest that it would be extremely unlikely.
Would such a person tend to put on weight in an asylum. I would suggest not
Is 6 foot 7 inches a sign of giantism? No. It is unusually tall, but not outlandishly so. It is tall enough to be very inconvenient for a suspect theory to be built around this man.
Is the weight, 11 stone and 8 pounds, ridiculously light for such a height, given the circumstances? No.

Of course mistakes in records can be made, but is there any specific reason to suppose that the Fleming height record is wrong? No.

I will give an example. Charles Cross (known in his lifetime as Lechmere) had a stepfather at one point, a policeman called Thomas Cross. He was ten years younger than Charles’s mother and almost nearer in age to young Charles than he was to his wife (Charles’s mother).
This is, in my opinion, a matter of significance.
Yet in the 1861 census Thomas Cross’s age is miss-reported as being 10 years older than it really was – superficially removing the ‘significance’ I referred to. We know it was miss-reported as there are more numerous other records recording Thomas Cross’s true age.
The incorrect age can be safely ignored. After all it as in a census return that would not have been referred back to until it was released into the public domain 100 years later.

The Fleming height record is not contracted by any other record and it was in a working document - not a document that would have never been re-referred to while Fleming lived.

Is there any evidence that this Joseph Fleming was the person referred to by Barnett. No.
Can any of the stories that Barnett said were told him by Kelly be properly substantiated. No.

Is it remarkable that there was someone called Joseph Fleming in the Bethnal Green area who very broadly could be claimed to match the credentials of Barnett’s Fleming? No, because there were two!

If Kelly really had a boyfriend called Fleming and if the police believed he was also Venturney’s other Joe, and presuming Fleming wasn’t located in November or even December 1888, then in 1892 when a lunatic was picked up by the police, giving his name as James Evans and living at the Victoria Home (two boxes ticked) who then turned out to really be called Joseph Fleming… then what?
Then what?
To make this theory work, nothing.
The police let him slip through their useless fingers.

Let’s add a further flight of fancy, suppose Fleming was actually masquerading as Hutchinson in November 1888. This means that he lived at the Victoria Home as Hutchinson in November 1888, but before and after called himself, at the Victoria Home, Joseph Fleming. And he got away with that.
And while Hutchinson/Fleming went around with policemen looking for the A-man, there was no prospect of a local coming up to him and saying ‘Hi, Joe, me old **** Sparrow, how have you been doing?’
And Hutchinson/Fleming knew that he would not come across anyone who had seen him with Kelly and knew him as Fleming during his involvement in the investigation that entailed attracting publicity to himself and giving press interviews at the Victoria Home.

Welcome to a thread bare case.

[Prosector]

If this Joseph Fleming was 6 feet 7 inches he may have had acromegaly (also known as pituitary gigantism) which, if untreated, can also lead to progressive mental disturbance (and in 1888 there was no treatment). However, if he was, it means that he would have had the condition, which is due to a tumour of the pituitary gland, since the early teens and in that case he may also have had a fair degree of facial deformity which might make it slightly less likely that he was MJK's boyfriend?

[DVV]

Let’s add a further flight of fancy, suppose Fleming was actually masquerading as Hutchinson in November 1888. This means that he lived at the Victoria Home as Hutchinson in November 1888, but before and after called himself, at the Victoria Home, Joseph Fleming. And he got away with that.

False.
Fact is that he has used another alias : that of James Evans.

As for the rest of your post, no need to reply again.

Quite funnily, you daresay that 6'7 isn't contra(dic)ted by any other source.
But what does back it up, please ?

I'm peacefully waiting for a single evidence of a second JF who could match MJK ex-boyfriend.

There is none, and who thinks you have something new that escaped both Debra and Chris Scott ?

NOBODY.

Good luck with your research.

[DVV]

If this Joseph Fleming was 6 feet 7 inches he may have had acromegaly (also known as pituitary gigantism) which, if untreated, can also lead to progressive mental disturbance (and in 1888 there was no treatment).

Hi Prosector,

don't waste your time with Lechmere's nonsense. Fleming was 5'7.
No to say your post isn't interesting, quite the reverse.
Not a single mention of gigantism in the medic files.
The tallest and thinest guy of his times, and not a word about it : nothing from Mary, nothing from Venturney, nothing from Barnett, nothing from the medics, nothing from his mother.
Can such a skinny man be both a plasterer and a dock labourer ?
More than 2 metres and less than 70 kilos.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

DVV
There is only one record and that record says 6 foot 7.
That trumps by a massive degree your unsupported contention that he was 5 foot 7.
That's just the way it is.

So he registered at the Victoria Home under three different names. Now that makes him an even less believable suspect.

Why wasn't his height mentioned?
Almost certainly because Kelly never met this person in her life.

[DVV]

So he registered at the Victoria Home under three different names. Now that makes him an even less believable suspect.

Under three different names ? Beg your pardon ?

Why wasn't his height mentioned?
Almost certainly because Kelly never met this person in her life.

Now that's better. You're admitting it's an odd thing that she never mentioned his incredible height.
No wonder : he was 5'7.

Joseph Fleming, who died at Claybury, WAS Mary's ex-boyfriend.

But perhaps have you recently found another JF who fits the bill ?

Then why don't you share your historical discovery ?

I guess it's because you have nothing.

If so, you should work harder on your own suspect and leave this thread. Who knows ? You could find something that would make Cross a plausible suspect, one day. Just as Fleming already is.

[DVV]

By the by, Moore tells us that customers were "just numbers" in large doss-houses like the VH.

[Lechmere]

Fleming Hutchinson Evans - or not - you tell me?

Read the accounts of the Victoria Home in the Booth papers - the inmates were not treated as numbers, particularly long termers.

There is no Joseph Fleming to fit Barnett's bill, which should not surprise us as virtually nothing that he says he was told by Kelly fits any bill.
It would be an exception if the Fleming story did pan out - but it doesn't. One miserable fellow who coincidentally was called Joseph Fleming has been plucked out the records and presented as Kelly's ex-boyfriend.
But he was too tall to be credible and was in the arms of the police in 1892, under a discovered false name.

[Sally]

Ed - do excuse me for interrupting: a couple of teeny tiny little points...

Read the accounts of the Victoria Home in the Booth papers - the inmates were not treated as numbers, particularly long termers.

Mmm. Those would be the accounts that say (verbatim)

'They make no inquiry about their lodgers'?

Yes, I believe that's correct.

Fact is, the old VH took in up to 500 men a night. Some were long-termers - same as in every other lodging house; many were itinerant men, staying only for a night or several; moving on elsewhere - maybe coming back every now and then.

A man could have been quite anonymous in a place like that. There are plenty of comparables for it if you think about it.

I really don't know about the Flemchinson thing - it's a theory. On the other hand though, I don't see how you can effectively argue that it isn't tenable. At such a remove from the events, and with incomplete information, it's surely almost impossible to say.

There is no Joseph Fleming to fit Barnett's bill, which should not surprise us as virtually nothing that he says he was told by Kelly fits any bill.
It would be an exception if the Fleming story did pan out - but it doesn't. One miserable fellow who coincidentally was called Joseph Fleming has been plucked out the records and presented as Kelly's ex-boyfriend.

I'm not convinced that it's quite like that Ed. There is some support for the premise that he was Kelly's Fleming I believe. It is documented, at least, that this Fleming was in Whitechapel from c.September 1888. One could argue that his residence in the area fits in very well with the Whitechapel murders.

But he was too tall to be credible and was in the arms of the police in 1892, under a discovered false name.

Sorry Ed, but you don't know that he was 6' 7". It's a guess. You guess that the record entry is correct and make no allowance for the possibility of error, that's all. It's a remarkable figure for the height of a man at that time and in those social circumstances. Whilst it's certainly not impossible that the entry is correct - and that can't be ruled out; it should at least occasion a note of caution - any suggestion that it should be taken at face value might be seen as disingeuous, I fear.

That's all. Carry on.

[Ben]

Yep, spot-on counters, Dave and Sally.

The contention that the 6'7" is probably in error is based on the sheer unlikelihood of it being correct. Simple as that, I would have thought. It is not likely - not remotely so - for a person to be described as being that tall, in "good" health, but only 11 stone in weight. It is a freakishly extreme height for a freakishly extreme weight, and therefore very improbable. As you both point out, it is inconceivable that nobody at the time should have picked up on this, especially in an era that had a penchant for appearance-based nicknames.

I'm very persuaded by Debs' thoughts on this issue too, and her suggestion that the entry was supposed to read "67 inches" seems to be based on a lot more actual experience of archival records than that possessed by the most aggressively vocal 6' 7" purists.

There are other details in the same form that we know for certain to be wrong, such as Fleming's reported age.

And no, Lechmere.

In spite of your protestations to the contrary, we should reasonably conclude that Kelly’s Joseph Fleming - the mason’s plaster with Bethnal Green connections referred to by Joseph Barnett, was also the son on Richard and Henrietta Fleming, i.e. Joseph Fleming the mason’s plaster with Bethnal Green connections. The offerings of Mrs. McCarthy and Julia Venturney are obviously more scant on detail, but it is nonetheless clear that they were referring to the same person – Joseph Fleming from the building trade, of whom Kelly was ostensibly “fond”.

And no, Lechmere, there is no evidence that the police ever discovered that James Evans' true name was Joseph Fleming. This was 1892, and since there was never any suggestion that the man found "wandering at large" warranted investigation as a potential suspect for the 1888 Whitechapel murders, the police had no reason to investigate him further after discharging him to the medical authorities, and thus no reason to discover his dual identity. Even if they did make the discovery, you can forget the idea of any "checking out" resulting in any progress. What were they going to do? Check for four year old bloodstains? Investigate four-year-old alibis? Let's be realistic here.

This means that he lived at the Victoria Home as Hutchinson in November 1888, but before and after called himself, at the Victoria Home, Joseph Fleming. And he got away with that.

He didn't need to call "himself" anything.

Sally is quite correct. He didn't need to socialise, divulge his name, or do anything other than sleep there amongst 500 other men doing precisely the same thing, all minding their own business. The moment you rid yourself of this erroneous, long persisted-in idea of an East End lodging house as some cosy institution where everyone knows everyone else and their business, the better. He could give his true name and residence on infirmary records, certainly, but nobody else need know about it. Likewise, the following is also based on the same gross misconception:

And while Hutchinson/Fleming went around with policemen looking for the A-man, there was no prospect of a local coming up to him and saying ‘Hi, Joe, me old **** Sparrow, how have you been doing?’

No prospect indeed if Fleming was knew to the home, and had only slept there - just slept there - for a few months. If he was the ripper, and didn't want people knowing his identity, we would reasonably expect as little social interaction as possible, and this was easily achievable at the crowded Victoria Home. This wasn't a place where everyone was pally-dally with each other and knew everyone's names.

Welcome to a thread bare case.

I know it's thread-bare, so probably best to abandon it. Besides, none of these are new objections that haven't been thoroughly countered many times already.