Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Wickerman]

Interesting, Jon, isn't it ?
You know what I mean, I know you disagree, but anyway, that IS interesting.

I'm encouraged that you now think the police were busy with Hutchinson, instead of dumping him.



But I do agree with Observer. Our problem is we have no concept of the depth of these investigations. I'm sure they looked for Fleming, and if he was not of the criminal class, then he wouldn't be difficult to find, regardless of his height

[DVV]

But I do agree with Observer. Our problem is we have no concept of the depth of these investigations.

So how can you agree with Obs ?
According to what I've quoted, you should rather agree with my : "They might have tried to."

As for Fleming being easy to find, far from sure. All we know is that once caught in 1892, he said his name was James Evans. And IF he was in the VH, go back to what Henry Moore had to say regarding this kind of lodging houses.

I personally agree that we don't know how deep were their investigations. To be frank, I doubt they were so deep.

Remember they were after the Ripper, who was supposed to kill random victims. Why waste their time with a plasterer ?

[Michael W Richards]

I know that there are far more serious issues being bandied about than my suggestion that Fleming might not figure into this picture at all, but it is worth reminding that we know about Fleming but we dont know anything about the man Mary was seeing while with Barnett other than his name was Joe....or, thats what he told her his name was, or thats a name she gave him for the story to Julia.

The melding of the plasterer detail with the latter Joe I dont believe is a matter of record is it? Just asking...perhaps Ive missed that or forgotten it.

Heres Julias statement from November 9th; ""I was awake all night and could not sleep. I have known the person occupying No.13 for about 4 months.I knew the man who I saw downstairs [[[Joseph Barnett]]] he is called Joe, he lived with her until quite recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her going out on the streets, he frequently gave her money, he was very kind to her, he said he would not live with her while she led that course of life, she used to get tipsy occasionally. She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe [Barnett]. I saw her last about ["1.40" - deleted] pm yesterday. Thursday about 10 A.M"

Hardly a finger pointed at Fleming. But it does suggest that the person who is called "Joe" in this story had jealousy issues, since he "ill-used her" because she was with Barnett. Since she is murdered in a fashion which has hints of both anger and of spite or malice that Joe is a relevant individual. And it also suggests that Mary did go out on the streets either before Barnett and her shacked up or since that point in time, which would make her a woman who does that sort of business in the streets. Not in her own home and her likely rented bed.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

So how can you agree with Obs ?
According to what I've quoted, you should rather agree with my : "They might have tried to."

You are right in so far as you accept they might have set their sights on locating Fleming, but if you think that they failed, I would disagree.
In that respect, I side with Observer, if the police set out to find him, then they found him.

As for Fleming being easy to find, far from sure. All we know is that once caught in 1892, he said his name was James Evans.

Agreed, but how would the Infirmary know about his alias if it was a secret?, and as it apparently was not a secret, then all the police had to do was ask.

I personally agree that we don't know how deep were their investigations. To be frank, I doubt they were so deep.

Remember they were after the Ripper, who was supposed to kill random victims. Why waste their time with a plasterer ?

The spouse (legally or otherwise) is always a prime suspect, and because a spurned lover is just as culpable, then I would say quite naturally they will seek him out.

I would be cautious about accepting conclusions published in the press, that is where we are inundated by the concept of a single killer. In my view, the police were more familiar with the concept of uxoricide, or the murder of a spouse. In this they were on familiar ground so the tools and methods, well tried, were already in place.
It is the concept of a serial killer where they struggle.

[Ben]

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your contributions of late, Dave.

A truly admirable job of wading through the nonsense.

Can you believe some people are still wasting their presumably precious time posting endlessly about the "BMIs" of celebrities? As though the heights and weights of famous modern-day athletes and actors have any bearing on the real height of a lunatic pauper patient from the late Victorian period. Let's deal with this all over again, just to illustrate to the "opposition" the futility of the repetitive "wear 'em out" debating style. 17.3 is an extremely low BMI, very much underweight, and most commonly associated with sufferers of anorexia. It is seldom associated with good health, and in the very few instances in which those with BMI or 17.3 or lower have no obvious health issues, the individuals concerned tend to be high profile athletes or members of the performing arts. They are rarely, if ever, lunatic paupers and slum dwellers who wander the streets before being dragged in by the police and committed to an asylum. When such people as these have as low a BMI as 17.3, the obvious and inescapable conclusion is that they became that way due to ill-health, as occasioned by their impoverished circumstances.

The fact that Fleming was described as being in "good" bodily health at 11 stone in weight tells us, therefore, that he could not have been as tall as 6'7"...or else he would most assuredly not have been in good bodily health.

"Mild", "moderate" and "severe" are simple adjectives used by the World Health Organisation in order to convey the varying extents of "thinness" within an an already extreme underweight group. That does not mean that a BMI of 17 is considered "mild" in isolation, or that such a dangerously, shockingly low BMI of 16 is considered "moderate". People can either digest this reality or spend pages and pages wasting time trying to argue the hilariously false, but if they're insistent on the latter, let's at least lose the irrelevant celebrity comparisons, let's stop googling chatroom talk, and let's stop pretending that repeated, pointless references to the BMIs of third world countries are remotely comparable. Was Fleming an Ethiopian? No. So shaddap.

Debs provided an article from 1891 which cited a Lincolnshire man, James Bradshaw, as being probably the tallest in England at the time, at 6'6" in height, i.e. one inch shorter than that proposed of Joseph Fleming. In spite of all the hastily googled "examples" that followed on from Debs' article in an attempt to "disprove" it, none of them have undermined its claim in the slightest. The 6'6 man was suggested to have been the tallest man in England in 1891, remember, whereas Fisherman's examples were all either dead, in Scotland, Ireland or America at the time. Fisherman keeps going on about a Yorkshireman who was taller than Fleming, despite the fact that the Yorkshireman in question was in either America or Canada at the time, and not in England.

Regardless of the accuracy of the article (which to date had not been effectively challenged), it still underscores the fact that 6'7" would have been regarded as an exceptionally tall height in those days, and thus very improbable for Joseph Fleming. It's an interesting "coincidence" that if we accept Debs' informed and plausible suggestion that the entry was meant to read 67 inches, we'd end up with the equivalent "normal" height of 5'7".

It makes no difference at all if neither Barnett nor Vanturney ever saw Fleming. It is inconceivable that such an extreme physique would not have been mentioned, originally by Kelly, and subsequently passed on by anyone to whom she related his story, i.e. Barnett and Venturney.

I wish people would be a bit more imaginative with regard to the "checking" powers of the 1888 police, which were severely limited. Joseph Fleming moved into Whitechapel (and most probably the Victoria Home) in late 1888, and was a known user of an alias, "James Evans". If he was using that alias, or perhaps another one, in the aftermath of the Kelly murder, there was next to no chance of the police discovering that James Evans, one of the many thousands of nondescript penniless dossers in the area, was in fact Joseph Fleming. This wasn't an era for CCTV, nor was it an episode of Eastenders, where everyone knows everyone else's business. Fleming was a nameless, faceless individual in thousands, and anyone using a false name could have done so with impunity in the busy, crowded, 500-strong Victoria Home.

Thanks for providing that extract, Lechmere, but no, I'm afraid there is no good reason to think that the registrars would continually refer back to page one, when their priority and focus was to update and add the latest information, Remember that the age was also wrong, but nobody bothered to correct that either.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Excellent point about Bruce Spence - extremely conspicuous in terms of both extreme height and weight. Imagine him, only considerably skinnier, and you've got certain peoples' mental perception of Joseph Fleming's physique. No need to open the black gates or Mordor for Fleming - he'd have squeezed through the crack, no problem. I reckon Smoegal's BMI is closer to "normal", and remember that in Middle Earth, extreme abnormal thinness is divided into three sub-categories - "fluffy", "nice", and "lovely" (for the wraiths, of course) - according to WHO's definitions.

[Fisherman]

DVV:

Anyway she talked. Of Fleming. And didn't bother to mention the giant he was. As we know, that sort of detail doesn't interest the papers. They hate sensationalism.

Mmm. But they can only write about what they hear and see.

How convincing. Which would mean he knew Fleming's trade, his address years ago, the fact that he used to visit Mary, that she was fond of him.... But his height was a taboo. Hush hush !

So, you are envisaging this sort of conversation:

Mary: I used to have a beau called Joseph Fleming.
Joe: Exactly how tall was he?
Mary: Why, he was very tall and ...
Joe: No, no, no. I need to know his exact height.
Mary: But why?
Joe: Because if you get killed by the Ripper, the papers are going to come talkning to me. And they are ever so fond of these kinds of records.

...whereas I preceive that this could be a bit more realistic:

Mary: I used to have a beau called Joseph Fleming.
Joe: U-huh.

Not all men are all too fond to be fed stories about former lovers, David. Havenīt you heard?

Exactly. As we all know, girls never describe the physical appearance of their boyfriends.

Some will, some wonīt.

Well, they took the pain to describe his tongue.
And not a mention of his height ? his incredible petercrouch-like thinness ?

Once again, they did record it, down to the last inch.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

17.3 is an extremely low BMI.

No, it is not. It answers to the WHO:s description of mild thinness. The extremly low BMI:s are found way down the scale, at the 13:s, 14:s and maybe even the 15:s.

You cannot change the mathematic rules of this universe, Ben. The extremes are always found at the far end of the scales, and they are very rarely described as "mild" by those who set the agenda.

"Mild", "moderate" and "severe" are simple adjectives used by the World Health Organisation in order to convey the varying extents of "thinness" within an an already extreme underweight group.

Once again untrue, unless you consider one gram under normal weight "extreme". The mildly thin grouping lies in the 17.0-18.5 spectre, and it is called mild because it follows directly on the normal weight spectre. Before you reach extreme thinness, you must travel a long way down the scale, passing the mildly thin people first.

You DO recognize that there ARE mildly thin people, I hope? Where would you put them on the scale if your word was to override the WHO?

Debs provided an article from 1891 which cited a Lincolnshire man, James Bradshaw, as being probably the tallest in England at the time, at 6'6" in height, i.e. one inch shorter than that proposed of Joseph Fleming.

Fisherman keeps going on about a Yorkshireman who was taller than Fleming, despite the fact that the Yorkshireman in question was in either America or Canada at the time, and not in England.

Oh - so that made him Americas tallest man? Like if you go to Sweden, you would argue that you are Swedens most discerning and level-headed Ripperologist?

Regardless of the accuracy of the article (which to date had not been effectively challenged), it still underscores the fact that 6'7" would have been regarded as an exceptionally tall height in those days, and thus very improbable for Joseph Fleming.

THIS is correct! 6 ft 7 WOULD have been very tall and it would not have been an improbable height for Joseph Fleming only, it would have been improbable for ANY man.
It would however NOT have been impossible, since there were men of that height (and much, much taller) around.
And therfore it applies that when we have a record telling us that he was 6 ft 7, then he probaly WAS 6 ft 7.

If we have all inmates in a chinese prison listed as dark-haired but for one who is listed as blonde, then - incredible as it may see - the better guess is that this inmate was listed as blonde because he WAS blonde. It would have been a very improbable thing, jst as being 6 ft 7, but it would in no way be impossible. Thatīs how records work.

It makes no difference at all if neither Barnett nor Vanturney ever saw Fleming.

No? None at all? And of this you are sure? It would not have enhanced the chances that they mentioned his height if they actually had seen him?

Are you sure you thought that over before you wrote it?

It is inconceivable that such an extreme physique would not have been mentioned, originally by Kelly, and subsequently passed on by anyone to whom she related his story, i.e. Barnett and Venturney.

So thatīs a given? Kelly can not have said just that he was a very tall man? And even if she only put it like this, these witnesses must still have made it a big issue at the inquest?

If you cannot see how this reasoning is logically famined, there is little I can do for you. Of course it would have made all the difference in the world if the witnesses had seen Fleming!

I wish people would be a bit more imaginative...

Yes, obviously! My word! Thanks, but no thanks..!

Thanks for providing that extract, Lechmere, but no, I'm afraid there is no good reason to think that the registrars would continually refer back to page one, when their priority and focus was to update and add the latest information, Remember that the age was also wrong, but nobody bothered to correct that either.

Which of the records would you think was the harder one to see through?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just for you, Ben, since you think an Englishman in USA cannot be the tallest man in England (how clever of you!):

Meadows Page - 7 feet 4 inches (223.5 cm)

"In the 19th century Meadows Page and his brother George Page became known as the Newbourne Giants. Meadows was said to have stood about 7 feet 4 inches (223.5 cm) tall, head and shoulders over everyone else, they became an attraction at the Woodbridge Easter Fair when the show's tallest man would hold a guinea above his head and challenge anyone to reach it. They were hired by Samuel Whitings travelling show in 1869 and became known as the Newbourne Giants. Meadows gave up his circus life in 1875 and died in 1917.
Just outside the porch, on the eastern side of the path, there are three 19th century gravestones to the Page family, and the third one is the gravestone of the Suffolk giant, George Page. It is rather faded now, but you can make out his name and title. He was 7ft 7in tall when he died in 1870, after a life spent in a travelling circus. The story goes that George joined a fair run by Samuel Whiting on May 1st 1869, together with his brother Meadows, who was about 7 ft 4 ins. "

and:

"George died in April 1870, and his inscription reads Sacred to the Memory of George Page, the Suffolk Giant, Died 20th April 1870, age 26 years. He was exhibited in most towns in England but his best exhibition was with his Blessed Redeemer. The gravestone inspired the 1926 novel The Giant of Oldbourne by John Owen, who lived at nearby Felixstowe.
George's brother Meadows continued to tour until 1875, when his daughter was born. Apparently, a knife was left in their caravan; in the secret language of the fairground, this was a warning to get out. Meadows returned to his old job as a farm labourer, and died as recently as 1917."

How about this man? Or do you want me to dig up more Englishmen that were a head taller than YOUR tallest man in England? And who lived in 1891? You see, they are around.

Effectively, a man of 6 ft 6 would, in the 19:th century, never have been anywhere near being Englands tallest. That Yorkshire paper got it wrong, and they got it a lot wrong too. My money is on that man claiming to be 7 ft 6, while in fact being somewhat shorter (happened all the time as you can see on the net), and the paper misreported him as being 6 ft 6.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your contributions of late, Dave.

A truly admirable job of wading through the nonsense.

Can you believe some people are still wasting their presumably precious time posting endlessly about the "BMIs" of celebrities?

Hi Ben,

Jennifer Lopez would not believe either. Perhaps she would join the casebook, who knows ?

As for the argument that Barnett and Venturney never saw Fleming... well, how do some people dare posting such nonsense ?

Cheers

[DVV]

You are right in so far as you accept they might have set their sights on locating Fleming, but if you think that they failed, I would disagree.
In that respect, I side with Observer, if the police set out to find him, then they found him.

Hi Jon,

such an easy task, indeed.
If Joseph used to call Mary with his iPhone, I mean.

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben,

Jennifer Lopez would not believe either. Perhaps she would join the casebook, who knows ?

As for the argument that Barnett and Venturney never saw Fleming... well, how do some people dare posting such nonsense ?

Cheers

I can answer that one for you: because it is obvious from what was said that the two had heard about Fleming, not seen him. Barnett tells us explicitely that Kelly "spoke of" a man called Fleming. Why would he do that if he had met him?

Oh, and just as I am not as funny as you are, neither am I as daring when it comes to posting crap. I stay with the everyday, boring, carefully recorded evidence, and I donīt have to, ehrm, "reinterpret" it to make my case.

Try as you may, Dave, there is no future for your kind of arguments.

All the best,
Fisherman
less funny, less daring

[DVV]

Return of the invisible giant

Hi Fish,

take my advice and delete your post.

Who said Barnett had positively met Fleming ?

Everybody but you has well understood that since Barnett (and Venturney) knew his name, his trade, the fact that he was still in touch with MJK, he must have known as well how extraordinary tall he was.

But if you prefer to think Mary never told anybody how tall was her dear Joseph, good enough.

That's just something between "very unlikely" and "unthinkable".

Unless Barnett and Venturney had thought : "Ok, she told me he was a giant. But since I haven't measured him, I have no right to accuse him of being so tall. That would be so unfair."

Cheers

[Fisherman]

DVV: Hi Fish,

Who said Barnett had positively met Fleming ?

You did, David. Here it is:

"As for the argument that Barnett and Venturney never saw Fleming... well, how do some people dare posting such nonsense ?"

... if you prefer to think Mary never told anybody how tall was her dear Joseph, good enough.

Is it? Then why do you harp on about it every time I make the point that she may/may not have done so? And that it could have gone unrecorded officially?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

DVV: Hi Fish,

Who said Barnett had positively met Fleming ?

You did, David. Here it is:

"As for the argument that Barnett and Venturney never saw Fleming... well, how do some people dare posting such nonsense ?"

[/B]
All the best,
Fisherman

Oh, Fish... it really doesn't seem to sink in...

I mean(t) : "Your argument is a nonsense, since it doesn't matter whether they saw him or not. Because if Fleming was that tall, they would have known this (huge) detail and would have told the police, since they obviously divulged all they knew about Joe. Such a height, of course, would have helped the police to trace the man who ill-used Mary......."

Cheers