Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Fisherman]

...you don't know that he was 6' 7". It's a guess. You guess that the record entry is correct...

This approach to official records really does open up an immense amount of possibilities for Ripperology!
Myself, I would have thought that the taken down record entry was THE EVIDENCE , and that any unbolstered statements that says that the entry is wrong would be the guesswork, but apparently the rules have changed.

Desperate times call for desperate measures ...

Fisherman

[DVV]

This approach to official records really does open up an immense amount of possibilities for Ripperology!
Myself, I would have thought that the taken down record entry was THE EVIDENCE , and that any unbolstered statements that says that the entry is wrong would be the guesswork, but apparently the rules have changed.

Desperate times call for desperate measures ...

Fisherman

Very well, Fish.

Therefore and by the same logic, the son of Henrietta and Richard Fleming was 37 years old in 1892.

Who has to resort to desperate measures ?

Debra is sure completely biased trying to explain a likely mistake that never was. She's obsessed with Fleming, as everybody knows.

Not to mention the alternative explanation about 5 and 6. But why wasting your time over this ? Henrietta said "160 years", it's written. No matter if this number is as odd as 6'7, while 150 and 5'7 look so obviously more likely.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Very well, Fish.

Therefore and by the same logic, the son of Henrietta and Richard Fleming was 37 years old in 1892.

Who has to resort to desperate measures ?

Debra is sure completely biased trying to explain a likely mistake that never was. She's obsessed with Fleming, as everybody knows.

Not to mention the alternative explanation about 5 and 6. But why wasting your time over this ? Henrietta said "160 years", it's written. No matter if this number is as odd as 6'7, while 150 and 5'7 look so obviously more likely.

All the best

It does not matter in the least that we can produce record errors, David - that only points to the well known fact that people who record get things wrong at times. Those are the exceptions to the rule. And what that means is NOT that the better guess is that official records will be wrong.

They are instead correct in almost every instance.

And I really don´t think that Debra is suggesting that a mistake must have been made. As far as I can tell, she is simply offering her view of HOW a mistake COULD have been made, IF it was made. I applaud her for it - it provides useful insight.

But it´s a far cry from saying that a mistake WAS made. We have a heigth and a weight that do not offer any impossibilities at all. Why, it´s not even impossible that Fleming was the Ripper and 6 ft 7! That should be some sort of comfort to you.

But we should NOT have a situation where it is claimed that saying that Fleming/Evans the inmate was 6 ft 7 is making a "guess". It is no such thing; it is sticking with the records and stating what must be regarded as the truth until evidence surfaces to disprove it.

And let´s face it, you don´t want your man to be 5 ft 7 because you think that any person representing a deviation from more normal heights and weights is a nuisance, do you? No, you simply recognize the fact that a 6 ft 7 Ripper contender is less viable than a 5 ft 7 ditto, and so you are willing to look away from the records for that very reason, in spite of the fact that a number of men answer to the figures given.

That´s one funny thing about the Hutchinsonians, by the way: It is vital that George Hutchinson, the witness, must NEVER be identified, whereas Fleming the plasterer MUST be the asylum man.

I´m just glad I am not having this sort of trouble ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

No, Fish.

Debs is providing an explanation because such mistakes DO occur. At least, that must be what she thinks. What she KNOWS.

And as you're well aware of, Fleming wasn't 37 years old in 1892.

Isn't this a mistake from the very same records ?

And no (again). I dont "want" Fleming to be 5'7. I make an "intelligent guess" (thanks for this) that 6'7 for 70 kilos is most certainly a mistake. Especially in 1888. Especially for a dock labourer or a plasterer, which are trades that require great physical strength.

So all in all, it seems that you want him to be 6'7 more than I want him to be 5'7.

Shall we dig the grave and bet some money ?

Take your pick and I'll take my shovel.

All the best

[Lechmere]

The Victoria Home was not like the other Common Lodging Houses. It was regarded as being one of the few exceptional ones.
It kept registers of men’s names so they could exclude bad characters.
It had a curfew and did not allow men in after a certain time (the exact time varied account to the different accounts), unless they had applied for a special pass.
All lodging houses were searched on a regular basis during the Whitechapel murder investigations as the police initially assumed that the culprit would very likely live in such an establishment. Because such a close check was made on them, it seems that this assumption was dropped later in the investigation.

During the investigation into the Mackenzie murder, an inmate from the Victoria Home was picked up and the Deputy was called to vouch for him. Clearly this fellow was not an anonymous inmate…

Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian
“At about five o'clock in the morning a man was seen lurking about the scene of the murder, and his movements attracted the suspicion of the police he was arrested and brought to Commercial-street Police Station, where he was searched. In his possession was a common butcher's knife and other small things. He, however, referred the police to the keeper of the Victoria Lodging House, who came and identified him as a man he had known for years.”

Hornsey and Middlesex Messenger
“One of these named Larkin, a man who has seen better days, was thought to be hurrying away with undue haste. He was seized and taken to the Commercial-street Station, but the deputy of the Victoria Home was sent for, and he was able to clear the man of all suspicion.”

From ‘Later Leaves’, written in 1891 about the Victoria Home. It tells us that one of the rules was:
"(3) No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without a special pass.”

The comparatively more salubrious status of the Victoria Home is also spelt out:
“As I have said, measures are taken to exclude bad characters from Victoria House. I very much question, however, if such persons would care to stay there. The place is too pure to suit them.
It is a pity there are not more establishments like Victoria House, for, of course, there are many persons — hawkers, men in search of work, the victims of landlords, etc. — who are forced to go to the common lodging-house…”

The low lodging house – which was quite unlike the Victoria Home - was characterised, by way of contrast to the Victoria Home, as follows in a letter to the Daily Telegraph dated 22nd September 1888:
“With all their dirt, noisome associations, and relatively high charges the low lodging-houses which it is sought to clear out of the way suit those who frequent them, because they impose no check whatever and ask no questions beyond the night's rent. Any man or woman, together or separate, may "claim kindred there, and have their claims allowed" if they can pay their footing. As they come, so they go, unvexed by supervision of any kind.”

Another letter to the Telegraph on the same day spells out that the inmates at the Victoria Home were supervised – unlike in other, lower establishments:
“It appears that the cause of failure was the surveillance which was exercised, and which, at that time, labouring men resented. In many respects the attractions offered to them resembled those of the Victoria Home, now flourishing in Commercial-street, where quite as much supervision is enforced.”

Also on the same day the Telegraph reported thus, seconding the curfew mentioned in ‘Later Leaves’ (but with a slightly different deadline):
“Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he must have a pass.”

‘In Whitechapel’, published in ‘The Sunday Magazine’ in 1889 set out in detail the care and attention taken in the inmates in the Victoria Home:
“Off the kitchen, near the entrance, is a little office, were are hanging the metal bed-tickets, one of which is given out to each occupier on entering. Here also (unlike ordinary lodging houses) registers are kept. Every man’s name and occupation is entered in the books, and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories…”

“There are always lodgers in the Victoria Home who have been carefully watched and long known, and who may be trusted…”

“Here (the Casual ward) are thirty-two beds, and every lodger who comes to the place must first sleep in this ward. Many men come in rags, shoeless, and filthy, and then for four or five nights lodge here on trial; if they refuse to use the baths and wash their clothes, they are told not to come again.”

‘In Whitechapel’ records how the General Manager, Mr Wilke, took a great interest in the inmates and often helped them to get out of the poverty trap. He gave his own coat to one inmate, lent money to others, knew that another was earning good money and could get private lodgings (but the inmate didn’t want to as he was worried he would not cope out of the regimented Victoria Home environment), and organised work for willing hands as clerks or costermongers.
It was not an anonymous hole such as those found on Dorset Street.

In the Booth papers is an interview with a Mr C Pateman, Missionary to Lodging Houses in East London. There were by then two Victoria Homes – No 1 on the corner of Wentworth Street and Commercial Street (where Hutchinson and Fleming stayed) and another, No 2, on Whitechapel Road. Pateman says:
“The best houses in the neighbourhood are the Victoria Homes and in these the management is strictest”.

Mr Wilke was interviewed around 1898 at the No. 2 Home and it can be found the Booth papers. Wilke managed both homes.
This passage contradicts ‘In Whitechapel’ which states that the inmates occupation was also registered. This may be accounted for by the dates (1889 to 1898). Yet reading both accounts also shows that Wilke was very aware of the occupational backgrounds of the inmates. However it also makes it clear that there were few casual day to day inmates. It was a relatively settled establishment and 6 foot 7 Fleming seems to have been a regular:

“Mr. W. does not think that there are 300 in the homes (out of 1,160 beds in the two establishments) who were there 12 months ago... But on any given night the no. of beds free for the chance comer is very small indeed. All names are registered but nothing else. (At the ordinary doss-house no particulars of any kind are taken).”

Many staff members were ex-inmates – and so would know long term inmates well…
“It is a great tribute to Mr. W’s care and power of discernment that the whole of his present staff, with the exception of the man at the head of the kitchen in the No. 2 Home, came as lodgers.”

Many inmates lived socially together – not in isolation:
“The 4d. beds were arranged in little compartments of 4, with corrugated iron partitions, and Mr W. said they were often occupied by those who chummed together and that there was a great deal of partnering in work, by which the slack times were tided over.”

The Victoria Home should not be judged by comparison to other lodging houses:
“There are doubtless a lot of cadgers among them, but they looked on the whole a decided grade above the dosser that one wd. Meet in the best house in Dorset St.”

A further hand written interview with Wilke’s subordinate manager at the No 1 Home can be found in the Booth papers. It is somewhat difficult to read.
This passage gain makes it clear that they operated a strict curfew. The night porters would of course have been ex-inmates who would have known long termers:
“The doors are closed at 12 midnight and although men are not hurried, the kitchen is cleared, and expected to be cleaned by about 12.30. They have 2 night porters but do not profess to take men who want to sleep in the day. This makes management simpler and helps to keep them free from doubtful customers.”

This passage makes it clear that most inmates lived there - there were not casual. It was a relatively settled community. It was not an anonymous melting pot:
“The vast majority of men live there and on any given night, except perhaps for a little time in the summer they have only about 12 beds vacant for strangers. They have above 500 beds and last week for instance they gave more than 400 free passes for the Sunday. Some of their men have been there for years; a good many go and come back again… and they know their people so well that they can always “smell out” a new comer.”

Again, it is clear that the Victoria Homes were quite unlike other Lodging Houses:
“The men are the right sort, and they know what the rules and practices of the house are and keep to them. It is not just go as you lease as in most of the doss-houses were practically no control is kept.”

Hutchinson would have made himself a minor local celebrity in November 1888. Yet he was calling himself Davies or Fleming (take your pick) at the Victoria Home in 1892.
Doesn’t tally with what we know about the Victoria Home.
And in any case given it’s curfew, a night stalking murderer would not have been able to use the Victoria Home.

The 6 foot 7 Fleming was a local lad. So if he passed himself off as Hutchinson, when he went around with the police looking for the A-man, another local person who knew him as Fleming could easily have approached him. Would the murderer have put himself in that position? Just to insert himself in the case?

[Lechmere]

Sally
The vast majority of Victoria Home inmates were long termers – refer to the Booth papers at the LSE if you doubt it. I have quoted from them above.
Some may lazily assume that the 6 foot 7 Fleming was Kelly’s ex – but that proves what exactly?
And I’m not guessing that this Fleming was 6 foot 7. It says it in black and white in his records. You and others are trying to guess that he wasn’t.

DVV
There’s basic difference between mis-recording an age (which could only be based on what the recorder is told) and a height –(based on a tape measure).
Do you know how much Fleming weighed in 1888?
We have his weight for shortly after he was picked up in 1892 when he was suffering from a pronounced form of mental illness. And you seem to think he would be well nourished in such circumstances?

[Fisherman]

DVV:

No, Fish.

Oh yes, David!

Debs is providing an explanation because such mistakes DO occur. At least, that must be what she thinks. What she KNOWS.

So? You and I know that too. What possible influence does it have on what I said - that almost all records like these are correct? None.

And as you're well aware of, Fleming wasn't 37 years old in 1892. Isn't this a mistake from the very same records?

It is ANOTHER record. If it was the same record, it would be about height, not about age. And just like I have already said, mistakes WILL happen. When it comes to age, just like Edward tells you, anybody can give the wrong age. It is slightly harder to be 5 ft 7 and claim that you are a foot taller ...
Nevertheless, until we get confirmation that a record is wrong, it is instead the exact opposite: it is correct.

To suggest that it is a "guess" that Fleming was 6 ft 7 is quite simply preposterous. It is when we do not have things on record that we guess. When we DO have things on record, we don´t HAVE to guess. Surely, David, this is rather obvious even to a Hutchinsonian like you?

And no (again). I dont "want" Fleming to be 5'7. I make an "intelligent guess" (thanks for this) that 6'7 for 70 kilos is most certainly a mistake. Especially in 1888. Especially for a dock labourer or a plasterer, which are trades that require great physical strength.

Ah - so your propensity to opt for Hutch as the killer has nothing at all to do with this - it´s instead only a burning desire to point out that it is unusual to be 6 ft 7 and weigh around 70 kilograms, nothing else ...?

So all in all, it seems that you want him to be 6'7 more than I want him to be 5'7.

I don´t have to want anything at all, mon ami - he WAS 6 ft 7 - it´s in the records.

Shall we dig the grave and bet some money ?

Take your pick and I'll take my shovel.

Shoving recorded figures to the side is a bit like digging your own grave, I will freely admit that. So dig away, my friend, dig away to your heart´s desire.

I´ve got better things to do.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Keep believing...

DVV
There’s basic difference between mis-recording an age (which could only be based on what the recorder is told) and a height –(based on a tape measure).
Do you know how much Fleming weighed in 1888?
We have his weight for shortly after he was picked up in 1892 when he was suffering from a pronounced form of mental illness. And you seem to think he would be well nourished in such circumstances?

As Fish would say, you're clearly digging your own grave(s).

If you read Fleming's records, you'll notice that his weight is given several times : always between 11 and 12 st. And always : "good health". Not a single reference to his extreme thinness. Not one. What kind of medics would that be ?


At the time of his admission : 11st8lbs
7 July 1892 : takes food and sleeps well.
11 July 92 : fairly good health.
3 Feb 93 : 11st77lbs. Works well. Good health.
1 April 93 : 11st6lbs
24 May 93 : good health
12 June : 11st3lbs
14 July 93 : 11st2lbs
1 October 93 : 11st2lbs. Works in ward. Health good.
1 July 94 : 11st1lbs. Works well. Health good.
1 January 95 : 11st5lbs. Works in corridor. Health good.
14 February 95 : 11st5lbs

Then here is a man who works well, in good health, constant weight in 1892, 93, 94 and beginning of 1895.

Which means : the doctors never worried about his alarming leanness.

He would work, take food, sleep well, and never weight 12 stone.

It's ALWAYS under 12.

So keep believing he was 6'7 because it's written once - along with a definitely odd "160 years".

Take the pick, Fish would take the shovel.

One grave for two.

All the best.

[DVV]

I´ve got better things to do.
Fisherman[/B]

Certainly, Fish.
There are many more intelligent things to do than hammering : "Fleming was 6'7 because it's written once."

When nobody has ever referred to such an incredible height and thinness. Even not the medics.

All the best

[Lechmere]

Let's dispense with the nonsense spoken about Fleming's weight.
It has been pointed out before that Peter Crouch - formerly of Tottenham Hotspur and England but now of Stoke City - is 6 foot 7 tall and weighs 11 stone 8 pounds.
Crouch is talk and skinny - he is not a circus freak nor is he undernourished.

To return to the topic of this thread, it isn't a neat equation but:

Fleming's candidacy is based on believing Barnett knew and told the truth.
Believing Fleming was the other Joe.
Believing this Fleming was the one who was sent to the asylum.
Disbelieving his recorded height.
Failing to take account of how the Victoria Home was managed.
Believing the police let him slip through their fingers in 1892.

[Sally]

Sally

Ed.

The vast majority of Victoria Home inmates were long termers – refer to the Booth papers at the LSE if you doubt it. I have quoted from them above.

Yep - what, a decade after it opened? Let's see if it was always the case, shall we? Let's see how many 'inmates' who were there in the 1891 census were still around a decade later.

'Lived' can mean a few years - or a few weeks.

Some may lazily assume that the 6 foot 7 Fleming was Kelly’s ex – but that proves what exactly?

Not sure I agree that it's lazy Ed - looks like spin to me. But in answer to your question, nothing. It proves nothing. Then again, what does with this case?

And I’m not guessing that this Fleming was 6 foot 7. It says it in black and white in his records. You and others are trying to guess that he wasn’t.

No I'm not. I'm saying - and I shall repeat this for you since you seem to be having trouble with it - that a note of caution should be present due to the highly unusual height recorded for Fleming; particularly given the time and social conditions in which he lived. Accepting it at face value is naiive at best, disingenuous at worst.

That's it. Not so earth-shattering, eh? It's not my problem at all - it's yours. Whether Fleming was 5'7" or 6' 7" makes no never mind to me Ed.

Unlike you, I have long since concluded that the discovery of the Ripper's identity is a a very unlikely outcome. Seen one suspect theory, seen 'em all.

[Fisherman]

There are many more intelligent things to do than hammering : "Fleming was 6'7 because it's written once."

When nobody has ever referred to such an incredible height and thinness. Even not the medics.

What do you mean "nobody had ever referred to..."? Clearly the responsible parties at the asylum DID refer to that exact height and weight. And as Edward has told you, there are top sportsmen who answer to the description.
Are you saying that Peter Crouch is not of good bodily health? Or are you saying that he is the only exception to the rule, because if you are, there are other sportsmen that have been presented before on the boards, representing the exact same pattern. Convenientlu forgotten men, apparently.

The problem you are having, Davis, is not that nobody ever spoke of a man of 6 ft 7 and around 70 kilograms, for the people at the asylum did this exact thing. Your problem is that nobody ever spoke of a James Evans/Fleming that was 5 ft 7!!! THAT is the trouble, THAT is where the guesswork is applied. And the reason that it is being hammered home that he was given as 6 ft 7 and 70 kilograms is that you won´t accept it. You falsely claim that these figures will not fit with good bodily health, and you go out of your way to deny the written report.

And then you speak of me and Edward digging our graves ...? Even if it should prove that Evans/Fleming WAS 5 ft 7, we would still be the ones who chose to bow to the recorded evidence, and you would still be the one who preferred to guess away and make false claims.

I can live with that.

Adieu, mon ami,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

This approach to official records really does open up an immense amount of possibilities for Ripperology!
Myself, I would have thought that the taken down record entry was THE EVIDENCE , and that any unbolstered statements that says that the entry is wrong would be the guesswork, but apparently the rules have changed.

Desperate times call for desperate measures ...

Fisherman

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

[DVV]

Sally
Some may lazily assume that the 6 foot 7 Fleming was Kelly’s ex – but that proves what exactly?

What a nonsense. Lazy Chris Scott....

Fleming (who died at Claybury), WAS Mary's ex-lover.

Are you suggesting you have found another plasterer from Bethnal Green named Joseph Fleming ?

Of course, you have not.

You have nothing.

[DVV]

Sigh... Peter Crouch again...

Excellent.

I wonder if Fisherman is still of opinion that the Claybury Fleming was MJK ex-lover, or if, on this also, he has chosen to follow Lechmere.... .