Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Ben]

The rubbish is always presented by you, Ben. Never by me.

Haha! Good one.

But seriously though, you did select a very poor website to extract your excruciatingly pointless celebrity BMIs from. Bad googling, Fisherman! The most reliable website tells us her BMI is 19.5, which is perfectly more normal. By all means, spend your evening researching Gwyneth Paltrow's weight and produce the results here if you really think that's a worthwhile thing to talk about on a serial killer website. Poor Gwyneth would be pretty freaked out if she knew! Similarly, I think you've worn poor James Stewart's name out enough times now, so that'll have to be you all done with that distracting, irrelevant nonsense too.

A person with a BMI of 17 is only “mild” in their "thinness" in comparison to the even more severe cases, but that doesn't mean that a BMI of 17 should be considered "mild" in isolation, just as a BMI of 16 is not remotely "moderate". It is simple medical terminology used for convenience in order to convey a grading system. You've presumably heard of a "mini stroke", but according to your reasoning, I suppose the word "mini" implies something utterly inconsequential (like a sneeze perhaps? That’s pretty “mini”), despite the reality being anything but. The other name for a mini stroke is a Transient Ischemic Attack, which sounds a lot more scary, doesn't it?

I never suggested that anorexia was a BMI. I simply observed that according to all reputable medical sources, 17.5 is considered very low, and is a BMI most commonly associated with anorexia. A BMI of 16, meanwhile, is considered dangerous. That's "extreme" enough for me to describe it as such, thanks very much, unless we're to engage in time-wasting, life-wasting pedantry.

And do I really have to waste time explaining how ludicrous it is to argue that Fleming's dietary habits suffered after being taken off the slum streets as a wandering lunatic, and taken into proper medical care? I've already explained how ludicrous it is to argue that he was that incredibly tall (taller perhaps than the tallest man in England at the time), that ridiculously thin at 11 stone, a pauper mental patient taken off the streets, yet miraculously in "good" bodily health. But I can do that again too if you fancy going round in endless circles forever. I'm game.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish.
I forgot the sun was still shining in Sweden.
But don't be ashamed.
Your article isn't bad.
Except that Fleming killed Stride, no matter Glenn may say.
But I noticed he killed Tabram.
No scavenger, no bayonet.
Waow. How come ?
Poor me, I used to trust Fish and Killeen so much.

Cheers

Well, if you´ve lost faith in me, then yes: Poor you!

I see that you have managed to cram Stride and Tabram into the thread now, and that was to expect since they are of course matters where I have changed my mind.
When it comes to Fleming, it is not quite the same thing, David. In my article, I said that Fleming may have been the killer, and I gave a scenario for how this could have applied.

I still say Fleming may have been the killer.

I still think that my scenario is the best one IF he was.

Nothing much has changed in that department. Except I think that the 6 ft 7 measure severely diminishes the chances that Fleming the asylum man really was the killer. Most people would probably agree with that, and I understand that this is why you cannot possibly tolerate the asylum record.

Thing is, David (and Roy, who so suddenly disappeared), that I have not for a second fought for the view that Fleming could not have been the killer on this thread (or any other thread, for that matter). I have not touched upon the subject, other than to say that even if he was 6 ft 7, as suggested by the records from the asylum, it still applies that he could have been the Ripper, just the same.

The one and only thing that I have brought up and discussed is the asylum record telling us that he was 6 ft 7. Nothing else. And I have done so in order to press the point that recorded evidence always trumphs personal speculation until we have evidence that the records are wrong.

It has been said that this evidence exists, in the form of it being impossible to be of good bodily health when being of a 17.3 BMI. This notion has been disproven. Examples of perfectly healthy people weighing in at 17.3 BMI:s and lower are about in abundance. And we actually don´t know what the phrase good bodily health encompassed. "Not sick" may have been the simple answer.

It has also been said that 6 ft 7 is so exceptional a length that it would almost not have existed. This notion has also been disproven. Though it was suggested that the tallest man in England may have been a mere 6 ft 6, we now know that we needed to add a full foot to that length before we had the tallest man in Yorkshire.

This, and this only, has been what I have discussed on the thread. I fail to see how I´ve changed my mind on the Tabram business has a bearing on the matter. As I have said before, I suspect that posters who have a talent for adapting to new evidence and who can reshape their thinking to fit better with emerging evidence, will outlast the ones who desperately (or ignorantly) cling on to theories and ideas that have received cannon shots below the waterline.
I´m sure you agree with that, don´t you?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Actually, Ben, my post to Dave will work for you too.

Mild best wishes,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Putting aside the comedy for a moment, Debs makes two good points.

Is there a paper trail that confirms which Fleming is Mary's ex lover?

No,there isn't Jon. We can place James Evans/Fleming in Whitechapel at some points in time though,at least.
Interestingly, either both Josephs spent a great deal of time in Bethnal Green workhouse and are inseparable in the admission and discharge records for that institution and either one of them was there cenus night 1891 listed as a general labourer or it is James Evans/Fleming who is listed as a boot finisher in the 1891 census-which is odd as it's the other Joseph (whose father was a shoemaker) supposedly had an apprenticeship with a shoemaker in BG according to his settlement records.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs,

A great many thanks for chiming in and clarifying your position on the issue, which, after reading again, I'm frankly even more persuaded by than I was before. I was previously under the impression that whoever wrote 6 ft 7 inches had done so unthinkingly and in haste, when he meant to write 67 inches. I now understand your suggestion to imply that entry was written down elsewhere as 67 inches and then hastily copied into the "feet" and "inches" section. Or, as you put it:

Thanks, Ben. But it really was just meant as a suggestion because I had trouble getting my own head around a 6ft 7in JF!

[DVV]

No,there isn't Jon. We can place James Evans/Fleming in Whitechapel at some points in time though,at least.
Interestingly, either both Josephs spent a great deal of time in Bethnal Green workhouse and are inseparable in the admission and discharge records for that institution and either one of them was there cenus night 1891 listed as a general labourer or it is James Evans/Fleming who is listed as a boot finisher in the 1891 census-which is odd as it's the other Joseph (whose father was a shoemaker) supposedly had an apprenticeship with a shoemaker in BG according to his settlement records.

Hi Debs

according to my notes, the Fleming listed in the 1891 census at 9 Victoria Park Square, Bethnal Green, was married and apparently worked as a boot-finisher.

It makes a poor match compared to Fleming the plasterer, ie Fleming/Evans, at the same time a plasterer (son of a plasterer) and from Bethnal Green.

Cheers

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets try and clarify this.
We have a admittance to Stone asylum under James Evans.
We have a admittance to Claybury asylum under James Evans.
We however have a death certificate stating Joseph Fleming otherwise James Evans.
It is quite clear when investigated that James Evans was a alias of Joseph Fleming, who appears to have been the ex of Mary Kelly, taking many factors into consideration.
One could speculate, that the authorities attempted to disguise his identity until his death, maybe nothing more sinister then to protect his family's name, ie, the shame of having a relative kept in a institution.
However one could also speculate, that this patient was suspected of being the man that killed at least five women in the east end of London.and because of this more then just his name was hidden, his file could have had contained a deliberate mistake in height, thus making the real Joseph Fleming vanish in confusion.
That would be a alternative answer to the question mark which appears over the recorded height [which appears to have many flaws].. so not a mistake but deliberate could be the answer..
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

That would be a alternative answer to the question mark which appears over the recorded height [which appears to have many flaws].. so not a mistake but deliberate could be the answer..
Regards Richard.

No way. Why choose height? Why not just kill the guy or ship him off somewhere? "We know he's a murderer, and we are embarrassed, so let's disguise him by....lying about his height." Seriously ill-thought out if it were true...which it isn't.

Mike

[Debra A]

Hi Debs

according to my notes, the Fleming listed in the 1891 census at 9 Victoria Park Square, Bethnal Green, was married and apparently worked as a boot-finisher.

It makes a poor match compared to Fleming the plasterer, ie Fleming/Evans, at the same time a plasterer (son of a plasterer) and from Bethnal Green.

Cheers

Hi DVV

The other Fleming never married either.
Chris Scott did note that the marriage column contained ditto marks and the entry above said married if I remember rightly?

There are two men born c 1859 in Bethnal Green who were known as Joseph Fleming in the records.
[Edward] Joseph was in the Bethnal Green childrens home in Leyton with his sister Sarah from an early age after they were orphaned. He is then traceable in the BG workhouse records for several years after an entry saying he was transferred from Leyton. He also had a couple of spells in prison in his youth. His settlement records claim he had settlement in Bethnal Green by Birth and was once apprenticed to a shoemaker in BG. We know his father,George, was a shoemaker from other records.

If he is the boot finisher in 1891 then it means Evans/Fleming is the man in Bethnal Green workhouse in 1891 as a general labourer (which fits better for both). That would mean the two men are inseparable in the BG workhouse records ( I have been through them but may look again for any slight differences between entries) and both spent time there. This then could mean also that Evans/Fleming is also the man in BG workhouse at the time of the murders in 1888, as mentioned by Chris Scott, and would give him an alibi.

[Debra A]

Hi,
Lets try and clarify this.
We have a admittance to Stone asylum under James Evans.
We have a admittance to Claybury asylum under James Evans.
We however have a death certificate stating Joseph Fleming otherwise James Evans.
It is quite clear when investigated that James Evans was a alias of Joseph Fleming, who appears to have been the ex of Mary Kelly, taking many factors into consideration.
One could speculate, that the authorities attempted to disguise his identity until his death, maybe nothing more sinister then to protect his family's name, ie, the shame of having a relative kept in a institution.
However one could also speculate, that this patient was suspected of being the man that killed at least five women in the east end of London.and because of this more then just his name was hidden, his file could have had contained a deliberate mistake in height, thus making the real Joseph Fleming vanish in confusion.
That would be a alternative answer to the question mark which appears over the recorded height [which appears to have many flaws].. so not a mistake but deliberate could be the answer..
Regards Richard.

Orders of removal records from the asylum in 1893 also have his name as Joseph Fleming alias James Evans.

[DVV]

Hi Debs

but what about the Whitechapel Infirmary episode - November 1889 ?
For that Fleming, "Evans" is the best match, isn't he ?

Cheers

[DVV]

Hi DVV

The other Fleming never married either.
Chris Scott did note that the marriage column contained ditto marks and the entry above said married if I remember rightly?

From my (messy) notes :

"The trade of boot finisher is not written in as such but consists of ditto marks from the entry above and I have on occasion found this type of entry to be in error." (Chris)

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
It really was a tongue-in-cheek post, I was attempting to offer a further alternative, albeit in hindsight a non starter.
We are in a quandary , we find it hard to accept 6'7'' [ as written] yet have no proof that it was intended to read 67''.
What we are left with is, a inmate of a asylum. that may have been the Joe Fleming , ex of Mary Kelly. therefore possibly the Joe that abused her.
What can we read into that, if anything?
He at least in my eyes, has to be seriously considered as a main suspect , at least for her murder, which would tie him in to being a candidate for JTR.
Being insane, does not suggest being criminally insane, but far more likely to have better credentials then a person of sound mind.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

The New Zealand Actor Bruce Spence is in fact 6’ 7” and he looks freakishly tall when you see him standing next to average height people – plenty of opportunities to do that of course, him being an actor and all that.

It’s something that stands out – a shock to the eye.

The notion that an exceptionally tall man, an intimate of Mary Kelly, subsequently brutally murdered, was wandering about Whitechapel; and nobody saw him, or ever noticed…

More than slightly preposterous.

He’d have stood out a mile.

Anyway, yeah – Bruce Spence. He played the Mouth of Sauron in The Return of the King – and we all know how that turned out.

[Debra A]

From my (messy) notes :

"The trade of boot finisher is not written in as such but consists of ditto marks from the entry above and I have on occasion found this type of entry to be in error." (Chris)

Thanks D. I knew there was some question about that entry.
That one has to refer to Evans/Flemming (unless there were three men of the same name,age and birthplace!!)

[Edward] Joseph is the man in BG workhouse in 1891 listed as a general labourer. He spent most of his life in BG workhouse after leaving Leytonstone children's home , then prison or Poplar workhouse, with odd breaks in the Strand workhouse.
I forgot that from the BG workhouse records creed registers and admissions and discharge-I discovered that this [Edward] Joseph is the one who appears in the 1881 census in Poplar workhouse, listed as a French polisher. By default that leaves the Crozier Street plasterer of 81 as being Evans/Flemming.
And yes, [Edward] Joseph is the man who was in BG workhouse from )Oct 88 to Jan 89 and Evans/Fleming was in the Whitechapel Infirmary.

Phew...my memory is getting worse. I need to keep better research notes too (or some notes in some cases). Thank goodness I do post my research on the boards so I can always read through it again!!