Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Lechmere]

It seems to be the case that the proponents of Joe Fleming as the Ripper necessarily have to be followers of Lysenkoism.
We have been told that the social conditions and diet meant that there would have been very few people of 6 feet and 7 inches. Of course today not many people are that tall and when they are it has everything to do with genetics and heredity and nothing to do with diet. Better diet can increase average heights of populations over a few generations. This is not what we are dealing with here.
The notion that 6 foot 7 inches was freakish even in 1888 should be dropped.

Tumbletv's height was commented on as he was a publicity seaker, seldom out the news.
Joseph Fleming Was a local nobody so why should there be any accounts of his height?
Would there be a subsequent record...
"August 7th: There is little or no change in his state of mind, and he is still a lanky git".

The whole point about his height is that it points (not conclusively) to this individual not being Kelly's ex and this being the reason his height never got mentioned.
as I have pointed out the only reference to Kelly having an ex called Joe Fleming comes from Barnett and Barnett's recounting of Kelly's past history is unreliable to say the least. It is poor provenance for the existence of an ex called Joe Fleming.
the fact that two Joe Fleming's happened to live in roughly the right area is an unremarkable coincidence.

Lastly, why on earth should the 160 year reference be wring? If Henrietta stated that figure then surely sheets saying with what accuracy She could muster that health issues ran in her family.

[Lechmere]

Ben
No one knows what lodging house Jack London stayed in - the value we should place on his account in comparison with the other sources I mentioned is another matter.
the Victoria home was a common lodging house in a poor part of London that necessarily attracted poor people - hence the booth rating. I am sure that if you stayed in a similar establishment neither you would not enjoy the experience, just as London didn't back then.
however your personal opinions about the Victoria home and it's means controlling entry are utterly worthless as they fly in the face of numerous contemporary recorders I have quoted.

[DVV]

Sure !

That must have been a pleasure for Barnett to talk publicly about that Fleming of whom MJK was very fond of, and who used to visit her, and worse, to ill-use her WHILE and BECAUSE she was living with him.

Most unreliable, indeed.

We're all peacefully waiting for your discovery.

Have you found out anyone called JF ? From Bethnal Green and in the building trade, I mean.

I guess you've not.

Cheers

[DVV]

as I have pointed out the only reference to Kelly having an ex called Joe Fleming comes from Barnett and Barnett's recounting of Kelly's past history is unreliable to say the least.

As everybody knows, Barnett, Venturney and Mrs McCarthy's accounts do not tally at all.

Three different guys there.

How candid is this Chris Scott.

I'm surprised he's been published and has sold some copies.

[Wickerman]

Certainly, Jon.

Being dead sure that it's not a mistake when everything suggests otherwise is utterly academic.

Cheers

Everything?

[Wickerman]

As everybody knows, Barnett, Venturney and Mrs McCarthy's accounts do not tally at all.

Three different guys there.

How candid is this Chris Scott.

I'm surprised he's been published and has sold some copies.

I seem to recall one poster suggesting "the other Joe", was Joseph Isaacs, funny enough, he claimed to have visited France too

[Ben]

A BMI index of 16 is dangerously thin, as acknowledged by all sources. I challenge you to look at person that thin, and decide for yourself if they appear only "moderately" so, and be honest. The World Health Organisation is required, for obvious reasons, to be restrained in their terminology (they can't call people emaciated, gaunt, skinny phuckers), but that doesn't mean we should misinterpret it in so hideous a fashion. A BMI index of less than 17.5 is considered the prime area of focus for the conventionally accepted definition of the term anorexia, and we learn that most anorexics have a BMI index of less than 17.5. Fleming was 17.3, if we accept the error as accurate, which is seriously low.

Remember that anyone with a BMI index of 18.5 or lower is already considered a potential health concern, and is advised to consult his or her doctor, and that's quite a bit heavier than the proposed BMI for Joseph Fleming. So regrettably for your argument, "moderately thin" equates to dangerously thin and anorexic, in medical terms. Don't shoot the messenger; I didn't invent the term - just exercise a little more caution in future when picking fights that are based purely on semantics.

Fleming, as a poor lunatic "wanderer", would not have been in "good" bodily health if he was both 6'7" in height and 11 stone in weight, and yet he was recorded as such in a document that was known to contain errors. It therefore makes no sense at all to accept as accurate that which can't realistically have been correct. In any case, Debs' very persuasive argument is that the person who wrote the "6" in 6'7" meant to write a "6", but that the height was supposed to read 67 inches. Her suggestion makes sense, not least because it's based on an actual knowledge of the practice of registrars. Also, despite the continued insulting suggestions that those who dismiss the 6'7" entry only do so in order to promote Fleming as a suspect, it's worth remembering that Debs has no such agenda and generally stays clear of suspect discussions.

YOU find it questionable. I don´t.

Well you do what you like.

I'm going to defend it's "questionableness", and argue for same, for as long as the counters to the contrary keep coming - until the pages on this thread number in their thousands if necessary. There were two highly questionable uses of the number 6 on the document, and that is noteworthy, irrespective of whichever doctor or registrar wrote them.

There are a number of mistakes..

"Riddled" with mistakes, you said.

Riddled with them.

And he got lots of things "terribly wrong", you said.

[DVV]

Fleming, as a poor lunatic "wanderer", would not have been in "good" bodily health if he was both 6'7" in height and 11 stone in weight

Obviously so, Ben.
And his weight tends even to decrease (down to 11st2lbs in July 93, then to 11st1 in July 94) while he was eating and sleeping well.
The staff didn't care.
They knew Peter Crouch would be doing fine.

Cheers

[DVV]

One day, who knows, we'll learn how tall was his father, if it's in Shoreditch records.

Then some will have to argue Joseph was the son of that long Bethnal Green postman.

[Lechmere]

Asylum inmates did not tend to fatten up.

One aspect of Ripperland forum discussions that never ceases to amaze me is the propensity to continue arguing way beyond the point were common sense should tell one side that they are in essence saying black is white. Not over a debatable issue but over facts.
If you

[Ben]

Lechmere,

People were generally shorter in those days, which means that a person of 6'7" would have been far less common back then, and because it was so uncommon, it would have been remarked upon by those who knew him. It has been established far beyond reasonable doubt that the son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming was the same "Joseph Fleming" who knew kelly - the one mentioned by Barnett. The similarities are far too great for it to be credibly argued that there was another mason's plasterer from Bethnal Green named Joseph Fleming. Calling into question Barnett's reliability on the matter makes even less sense - did he muddle and/or invent details of an ex-boyfriend that just so happened to tie in with the true details of a real person?

It was seemingly the custom, in those days, to focus inordinately on people's appearances and give them nicknames accordingly (Ginger, Dark Annie etc). It therefore stands to reason than Kelly would have mentioned Fleming's gargantuan height when speaking to Barnett and Venturney, most notably in the context of his "ill-use".

The notion that 6 foot 7 inches was freakish even in 1888 should be dropped.

When taken in conjunction with the recorded weight of 11 stone, it most assuredly qualifies as "freakish".

Lastly, why on earth should the 160 year reference be wring?

Not saying it is necessarily, but 160 is an oddly specific figure, unlike 100 years or 150 years.

Nobody knows for certain what house Jack London stayed in, but all indications point towards the Victoria Home, and the picture he paints of it is very different to yours. Charles Booth referred to "rough characters" being prevalent in the home, which contradicts your unrealistic claim that the deputies were capable of excluding all wrong-uns from entry. I'm afraid the only records you haven't drastically misinterpreted, with regard to the Victoria Home, were obviously written in an attempt to advertise the place.

Ben

[DVV]

Asylum inmates did not tend to fatten up.

While lunatics wandering the streets did.

[DVV]

Isenschmid looked much better after a year at Colney Hatch.

[Ben]

As for all Victorian houses having 8 foot ceilings, I'm sure the nice, posh ones did, yes, but not the poorer areas where Fleming was likely to have worked. Low ceilings would have proliferated the poorer areas, and the top floors would have been an absolute bugger for a tall man. In any case, I think it's a reasonably safe bet that he worked on many houses that pre-dated the late Victorian period.

Unlike Fleming's weight, there was obviously no need to keep re-examining his height, which is why they clearly didn't. Nor was there any reason to keep revisiting the original introductory part of the record which provided his height (was it even on the same piece of paper?), and thus no reason at all to spot the fact that they had made a booboo in failing to record the man's height correctly. As Debs points out, the fact that mistakes of this nature did happen ought to dispense with the suggestion that it never did, or couldn't have done in this case.

Oh, just found this:

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM considers a body weight below 85 percent of the norm to indicate anorexia nervosa. This correlates to a BMI of around 17.5, according to Marcia Herrin, author of "Nutrition Counseling in the Treatment of Eating Disorders."

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/14...#ixzz2YNEI6KfV

[Observer]

Isenschmid looked much better after a year at Colney Hatch.

Yes David this is true, he imagined the warders were pork, and took a bite out of them at every opportunity.

Regards

Observer