Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Fisherman]

Oh yes.
A 6'7 skeleton used to visit Mary, and nobody noticed.
He sure was walking on his knees in Spitalfields.
That also explains why she was very fond of him.

You need to work on your sarcasm - and take a look at the reality. The people who spoke of Fleming at the inquest were Barnett, who said " ... she described a man named Joseph Fleming..." and Venturney, who said "I knew Joe Barnett ... she said she was fond of another man, also named Joe."

Does that sound to you as if Barnett had actually met Fleming? Does it sound as if Venturney met him?

To me, it speaks another language altogether - these two mentioned a man who Kelly in turn had mentioned to them. They had apparently HEARD of him, but they had - by the looks of things - not seen him.

And Fleming was not a skeleton - he was mildly thin, remember, as per the WHO. If you want a perfect comparison BMI-wise, then the actor James Stewart offers such a parallel.
Does he seem a sickly man to you, the old Hichcock action actor? Because to me he seems like a perfectly healthy, thin man, with good physical abilities.

So much for your sarcasms, David. It´s back to the drawing board for you. Or, if you choose, you can of course stay put and deny that the WHO knows what they are talking about and claim that Venturney and Barnett simply MUST have seen Fleming - if that´s how you want to do things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If one looks at the persecution complex held by Fleming [ according to records] one could suggest that his height may have been a instigator.
6'7 is a noticeable height today , and would have been freakish back in 1888, and he may have become paranoid over the years , which brought on his inherited insanity.
The question is ''Is it a fact that ''this''James Evans was Kelly's Joe?
The likely answer is Yes, so we are left with.. Why was his unusual height not mentioned when the subject crept up?
It may have well been so, but never recorded as in ''She went with a very strange guy , really tall he was''..
Was he JTR?
We have no absolute certainty that the killer was ever seen, we can make assumptions, but as descriptions varied , Fleming may have been.
What it all boils down to is, Mary Kelly was insanely butchered, she allegedly informed a court resident, that a man named Joe used to ill use her, because of her involvement with Barnett[ one Joe against the other].
It is a fact that in cases like that, murders can occur, and here we have the additional knowledge that the man that instigated the abuse , ended up as a inmate, for the insane.
Out of all the named suspects over the years , he has to be the first eliminated from inquiries surely?
Regards Richard...would we have dismissed Joe Barnett if he had ended up in the same institution that easily.?

[Sally]

You're quite right Richard - Fleming could have been 6' 7" and developed a persecution complex for that reason. Then again, it could've been for any other reason - how can we know?

And for reasons already explained by several posters, ad nauseum,
the '6 'may have been a transcription error.

Again, we cannot know.

All we are left with is speculation, generally (not always) a product of personal preference.

We're all in the dark, when it comes down to it.

[Garry Wroe]

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

It looks like 11st 8lbs to me, Dave.

[Chris Scott]

I've had a couple of queries about the asylum records for Evans/Fleming so I thought I'd post here all I have.
First the full record from Stone:

James Evans
Asylum Records - Stone Asylum

LMA Reference: CLA/001/B/02/010

Book: City of London Lunatic Asylum
Case Book
Males
No. 10

Page: 63
Name: James Evans
Age: 37
Admitted: July 4th 1892
Previous Occupation: Dock labourer
Social condition: Single
Address of Friends: Henrietta Fleming, 261 Nile Street
No. in register: 1985
Religion: Church of England
Education: St Luke's - mother

State on Admission: He is stupid, dazed and in a confused state. Delusions of persecution.
Eyes: Brown, equal pupils
Expression: Vacant
Form of Head: Semilunar scar of left temple
Abdominal Viscera: N
Vascular System: N
Tongue: Moist and furred
Bruises &c.: Skin abrasion on front of left tibia
Respiratory organs: N
Pulse: 100
Epileptic: No
Suicidal: No
Dangerous: No
Skin: -

Phenomena of Disorder - Manner and period of attacks etc.
Signed W D Duncombe
He was sent from Bishopsgate Police Station on June 30th 1892 as an insane person. He had a delusion that he was being followed by people who wish to kill him; at the present time he thinks the same. Otherwise he is quiet, although he looks about him in a vacant manner.

Previous History:
Found wandering and sent to Infirmary of City of London Union.
His mother states there has been insanity in the family for 160 years
Previous attacks: First
Duration of Present Attack: Three days

Form of Insanity: Melancholia
Supposed cause: Drink? Initialled H P
Bodily Health: Good
Height: 6ft 7in
Weight: Weight: 11st 8lbs

July 7th: He is dazed, stupid and confused looking; expresses delusions of persecution, stating that men used formerly to pursue and follow him to kill him.
Takes food and sleeps well. C W Patterson?
July 11th 1892: Return to the Commissioners in Lunacy. Is insane and suffering from melancholia and has delusions of persecution, stating that men followed him with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. He appears dazed. Has fairly good health. The heart's action is rapid. The lung sounds are normal.
Ernest W White
July 25th: Suffers from melancholia, expresses many delusions and is dejected, downcast and melancholic.
August 7th: There is little or no change in his state of mind
Sept 1st: He has somewhat improved mentally and goes out daily to work
Sept 17th: Continues to improve mentally. Goes out daily to work.
Oct 1st: Has many delusions of persecution. Works well in the out of doors.
Oct 26th: No special change to report since last entry
Nov 20th: Has delusions of persecution. Works well. Health fair.
Dec 6th: No special mental or bodily change.
Feb 3 1893: Weight 11st 7lbs
Is cheerful and free from delusions. Works well. Good health. To be recommended for discharge as recorded.
Feb 13th 1893: Today whilst being examined previous to discharge, he was found to express many delusions stating that the writer's name was Isaacs, he was an old friend of the writer and frequently played at cocoanut shying with him in the Mile End Road and that he also repaired the writer's house; his discharge was at once cancelled and he was sent back to the wards.
April 1st: Weight 11st 6obs
He is sulky and morose; still adheres to his delusions about the writer shying cocoanuts with him in the East End of London; works well in the ward; has a foolish, facile expression. Resents being questioned much, Health good.
May 10th: His manner is peculiar, nervous and irritable. He talks to himself and his utterances are rambling. He expresses many delusions but works fairly well indoors.
May 24th: He is peculiar and excitable; has many delusions about persons. Resents being interfered with or questioned and becomes abusive on very little provocation. Health good.
June 12th 1893: Weight 11st 3lbs
Special report: "Is suffering from mania; is very incoherent. Has many delusions regarding persons. His expression is uncertain. In good health. The heart and lung sounds are normal.
July 14th: Weight 11 st 2lbs
Incoherent and excited. Has many delusions, saying the writer and he were old friends in Whitechapel etc. Works well indoors. Health good.
Oct 1st: Weight 11st 2lbs
Excited, rambling and incoherent. Has very many delusions. Works in ward. Health good.
Oct 30th: No mental change; health good.
Jan 1st 1894: Weight 11st 5lbs
Rambling and incoherent. Full of delusions. Health good.
1st April 1894: Weight 11st 10lbs
No mental change. He is very insane. Health good.

Entries continue on Page 97:
June 12th 1894: Special report: "Suffering from mania, very incoherent. Has many delusions, regarding person, his expression is uncertain, is in good health. The heart and lung sounds are normal."
July 1st: Weight 11st 1lb
Mentally rambling and incoherent. many delusions about persons. Works well in Dining Hall and Mess Room. Health good.
Oct 1st: Weight 11st
Rambling and incoherent. Works in D.H. and Mess room. Good health.
Jan 1st 1895: Weight 11st 5lbs
Works in the corridor, mess room and dining hall. He is rambling and incoherent, abusive. Good health.
Feb 14th 1895: Weight 11st 5lbs
He was today transferred to London County Asylum at Claybury as relieved.

The records from Claybury are pretty much non-existent. I had this from Redbridge record Office:

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 11:51 AM
Subject: RE: Claybury Asylum


Dear Mr Scott,
I am glad to tell you that the Health Authority has agreed to release to you the details of Mr James Evans, alias Joseph Fleming.
The information is as follows:
He was admitted to Claybury as James Evans, on 14th February 1895, transferring from Stone. He was then 40 years old, unmarried, a pauper (the responsibility of Bethnal Green), and had been a dock labourer. His religion is given as C of E. His illness was described as mania, to which he had a hereditary disposition, and was precipitated by the use of alcohol. This was his first attack, which had lasted 3 years. He died on 28th August 1920.

His death certificate, which mentions both names by which he had been know, reads as follows:-

"28 August 1920 at Claybury Mental Hospital, Urban District.
Joseph Fleming, otherwise James Evans.
Male, 65 years.
Of City of London Union Infirmary.
Previous address unknown. Chargeable to Bethnal Green, a dock labourer.
Cause of death, Pulmonary Tuberculosis, 6 months, 13 days
P.M. Certified by F. Paine, acting Medical Superintendent, Claybury Mental Hospital, Ilford, 1 September 1920."

[Fisherman]

You're quite right Richard - Fleming could have been 6' 7" and developed a persecution complex for that reason. Then again, it could've been for any other reason - how can we know?

And for reasons already explained by several posters, ad nauseum,
the '6 'may have been a transcription error.

Again, we cannot know.

All we are left with is speculation, generally (not always) a product of personal preference.

We're all in the dark, when it comes down to it.

Actually, we´re not. It ´s just your suggestion that we would somehow be so. The truth of the matter is that when we have nothing recorded, we are in the dark, whereas when we HAVE recordings, we are NOT in the dark.
Likewise, when we have no records, we must resort to guesswork, whereas when we DO have records, this is no longer necessary.
The whole problem with this matter is your persistance that we are left with speculation. This is not true. The records are there.

You seemingly think that Fleming was 5 ft 7. That is pure speculation and guesswork.

I accept that he was 6 ft 7. That is anchored in the records.

Once again, we can never be absolutely certain that all records are always right.
Once again, the absolutely overwhelming majority of the records of things like height and weight ARE right.

It therefore applies that until we can disprove it, Joseph Fleming/James Evans of Stone asylum was 6 ft 7 in tall.

It also applies that it is time to move on. You tried, you failed, it stands.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

It looks like 11st 8lbs to me, Dave.

I know, Garry. I was speaking of his average weight from 1892 to 1895.
Always between 11 and 12 st.

As everybody can see, he slept well, eated well, worked well, and there is not a single mention of his height nor thinness in the records.

Therefore, since we know his weight for sure, 6'7 is most probably a mistake, and Fish is most probably plain wrong.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

I know, Garry. I was speaking of his average weight from 1892 to 1895.
Always between 11 and 12 st.

As everybody can see, he slept well, eated well, worked well, and there is not a single mention of his height nor thinness in the records.

Therefore, since we know his weight for sure, 6'7 is most probably a mistake, and Fish is most probably plain wrong.

Cheers

... and James Stewart was a sickly skeleton.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

You're quite right Richard - Fleming could have been 6' 7" and developed a persecution complex for that reason.

Sounds far-fetched, Sally.

Mary would have been fond of a guy of a most freakish appearance who used to ill-use her ?
And never talked about it ?
And nobody knew ? (Mrs McCarthy, Barnett, Venturney)
And the medics thought such a height and weight weren't worth a comment ? (1892-95)

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Sounds far-fetched, Sally.

Mary would have been fond of a guy of a most freakish appearance who used to ill-use her ?
And never talked about it ?
And nobody knew ? (Mrs McCarthy, Barnett, Venturney)
And the medics thought such a height and weight weren't worth a comment ? (1892-95)

Cheers

... and James Stewart was a guy of "a most freakish appearance".

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sounds far-fetched, Sally.

Mary would have been fond of a guy of a most freakish appearance who used to ill-use her ?
And never talked about it ?
And nobody knew ? (Mrs McCarthy, Barnett, Venturney)
And the medics thought such a height and weight weren't worth a comment ? (1892-95)

Cheers

I agree, David - it does sound far-fetched on the face of it. I was simply pointing out in my post to Richard that anything is possible. Since we cannot know for certain, it comes down to what we personally consider plausible.

Mileage varies considerably on that count - have you noticed that?

There are those, you know, who claim to know the answers to the questions in this case. As any rational person would surely conclude, that is impossible given the little that can be verified.

[DVV]

I agree, David - it does sound far-fetched on the face of it. I was simply pointing out in my post to Richard that anything is possible. Since we cannot know for certain, it comes down to what we personally consider plausible.

You're right, Sally, but I believe we can try to assess what is likely or not.

1 : Is a 6'7 tall plasterer and dock labourer likely to weight only 11st during three years while taking food and sleeping well ? No.

2: Is it likely that the medics made no mention at all of such an uncommon height and thinness ? No.

3: Was Mary likely to be so fond of Joe-the-freak who ill-used her ? No.

4: If her ex-fiancé was that tall, she would have probably told Mrs McCarthy, Barnett and Venturney. (When a giant ill-use you, you're likely to mention he's a giant)

5 : Was this giant likely to pass unnoticed in the area when he came to visit Mary ? No.

6 : Is 6'7 likely to be a mistake ? Yes

7 : Is Fish likely to be plain wrong ? So it seems.

Cheers

[DVV]

Now I know what was burnt in the grate.
Fleming's feet, while he was sleeping.

[Chris Scott]

Now I know what was burnt in the grate.
Fleming's feet, while he was sleeping.

That made me laugh out loud and I have just spat tea all over my PC monitor!!!
Thanks for brightening the afternoon

[Sally]

Hi David,

1 : Is a 6'7 tall plasterer and dock labourer likely to weight only 11st during three years while taking food and sleeping well ? No.

Not likely, no - not in my view. I think the recorded height ot 6' 7" to be worth treating with caution because it would be highly unusual in the social milieu from which the patient came. Other than as a consequence of a medical condition, such an extraordinary height does seem unlikely.

2: Is it likely that the medics made no mention at all of such an uncommon height and thinness ? No.

Gigantism had recently been 'discovered' at the time - so perhaps one might expect some mention of it in Fleming's notes if he did have that condition. I believe that it's extremely rare though.

3: Was Mary likely to be so fond of Joe-the-freak who ill-used her ? No.

Who knows? Common sense would dictate not, but as they say, 'There's nowt so strange as folks'

4: If her ex-fiancé was that tall, she would have probably told Mrs McCarthy, Barnett and Venturney. (When a giant ill-use you, you're likely to mention he's a giant)

5 : Was this giant likely to pass unnoticed in the area when he came to visit Mary ? No.

Assuming that Fleming was the Joe who came to visit Mary, you are right - it is unlikely that an extraordinary height would not have been noted.

I think more troublesome from the 6' 7" perspective is that nobody ever appears to have commented on what would have been a truly extraordinary - and yes, freakish - height for the time and social conditions.

6 : Is 6'7 likely to be a mistake ? Yes

It may well be. I think both possibilities should be considered, and weighed. That said, the premise that there it cannot and should not be questioned is, frankly, ludicrous. What was the word now? Ah yes, disingenuous.