Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It may be coincidental but does not inmate Fleming mention several times the name Isaacs known as the writer?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

I agree wholeheartedly, Richard.

One of the best, at any rate.

Best wishes,
Ben

Ben, would that be the cause of the nonsensical arguments we are showered with ?

Such as :

"If a mistake, it would have been corrected " (Nonsense : on the same page, his age is still uncorrected)

"This Fleming wasn't MJK's ex" (Nonsense : Edward Joseph is a non-starter)

"Nobody saw Fleming, therefore he could well be that tall" (Nonsense : the taller, the more visible, and if he was that tall in 1888, MJK would certainly have told her friends)

"Peter Crouch is healthy" (that I wouldn't call a nonsense, but an excellent joke I'll always remember)

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Yes, Fleming apparently used to go coconut shying in his younger days with a fellow named Isaacs in Mile End Road. Many years later, as a patient at Stone asylum, he convinced himself that one of the doctors treating him was this same Isaacs. I have no idea if it's the same Joseph Isaacs who stole watches and coats, and who was reportedly in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. They'd be roughly the same age I suppose!

I thought 'the other Joe' was Joseph Isaacs.

No, that was Astrakhan man, Sally, remember? He busted out of jail, took Kelly home on the morning of her death and then found a magic alibi minutes afterwards that absolved him of all suspicion. Keep up!

Cheers,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi,
It may be coincidental but does not inmate Fleming mention several times the name Isaacs known as the writer?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

He insisted the doctor was one Isaacs from Bethnal Green, who used to play coconut shye with him.

Just as he was going to be released, that's the interesting point imo.

Cheers

[Sally]

No, that was Astrakhan man, Sally, remember? He busted out of jail, took Kelly home on the morning of her death and then found a magic alibi minutes afterwards that absolved him of all suspicion.

Oh yes. Now I remember...

Keep up!

Sorry Ben. I'll try to do better.

[DVV]

As for the infirmary records, perhaps it might be worth the time of somebody to take a closer look at the ledger, to see if the person who recorded Fleming's height as 6' 7" may perhaps have made a habit of substituting a 6 for a 5 - as I think has been suggested elsewhere.

Hi Sally, I'm personally inclined to favour the latter, due to the odd "160 years" on the same page. Even if we forget this "160 years", a 6 can easily resemble a 5.

As for Debs' suggestion, let's wait and see for other examples, if there are.

I don't know if Victorian height gaugers were graduated in inches only or in foot and inches. If those used at Stone were in inches, then I'd agree Debs suggestion is the best.

Anyway, both explanations point to a 5'7 tall Fleming. Which is already something, isn't it ?

Cheers

[Sally]

Hi David,

Hi Sally, I'm personally inclined to favour the latter, due to the odd "160 years" on the same page. Even if we forget this "160 years", a 6 can easily resemble a 5.

I agree - I do think '160' years is odd. It sounds as though it ought to be 150 years doesn't it, which would be a general indicator of ' a long tiime/as long as we can remember in our family' 160 years is oddly specific.

I don't know if Victorian height gaugers were graduated in inches only or in foot and inches. If those used at Stone were in inches, then I'd agree Debs suggestion is the best.

Yes, I wondered about that. I don't know how height was measured, or what type of instruments they used to measure height - perhaps somebody reading does? It would be interesting to know.

Anyway, both explanations point to a 5'7 tall Fleming. Which is already something, isn't it ?

It's easier to believe than a 6' 7" Fleming, in the circumstances.

[Lechmere]

In the hysteria occasioned by the need to convince yourselves that Evans/Fleming was 5 foot 7 you have conveniently collectively forgotten that the 160 reference is in a different hand. Do keep up.
I guess this is partially due to an unfamiliarity with examining original records...
and of course the intransigence seen when a belief system crumbles in the face of evidence.

Or was Stone guilty of institutional sixism?

[Sally]

In the hysteria occasioned by the need to convince yourselves that Evans/Fleming was 5 foot 7

What are you talking about, Ed? There's no hysteria here that I can see - and why would anybody need to convince themselves that Fleming was 5' 7" then?

Do tell.

you have conveniently collectively forgotten that the 160 reference is in a different hand. Do keep up.

Uh Oh. My bad.

But it doesn't really matter. It's a small thing, compared to the silly contention that it's written down so it must be true. That beats my woeful lack of knowledge about Fleming's infirmary record in the shade.

Although I suppose it does demonstrate just how much I obsess about Fleming in my spare time, eh?

and of course the intransigence seen when a belief system crumbles in the face of evidence.

Look it's an interesting matter. Richard is quite right when he says that the facts make Fleming a person of interest in this case - and I think posters on this forum have every right to discuss the issues surrounding Fleming and express their thoughts - whether you happen to agree, or not - without having to countenance personal attack.

[DVV]

Hi Lechmere,

I agree that 162 years would have been worse.

But what about that real Joseph Fleming of yours ?

We're still waiting. With little hope, I must say.

As for your unshakeable "uncorrected mistake" argument, how is it doing ?

Not so fine, I'm afraid.

Ah, that bloody "37" !

Why had it to be on the same page !

Most unfair.

[Garry Wroe]

He would have stood out a mile if he'd been that tall, in a social milieu where the average height of a man was over a foot shorter - and yet, that wasn't a feature of any witness account of the man. If he was the 'other Joe' who visited Kelly, people must have seen him.

I forget the precise source, Sally, but it has been stated that the average height of East End denizens was two inches shorter than that of the general London population, which of course would have rendered a 6’ 7” Fleming all the more extraordinary.

I do think '160' years is odd. It sounds as though it ought to be 150 years doesn't it, which would be a general indicator of ' a long tiime/as long as we can remember in our family' 160 years is oddly specific.

Agreed. Unless, of course, such specificity related to a noteworthy event like the family settling in London from abroad.

[Lechmere]

I didn't realise that straw clutching was so noisy,

Victorians nearly always measured things using the various measures -height just in inches would be a rarity. I have told you repeatedly that every record at Stone is in feet and inches. The chances of them having some sort of height ruler just In inches is small to say the least.

The Evans/Fleming height is given on the same page (when the book is open) as the various weight measurements that were added in a manner that clearly is very suggestive that the book was used as a working document. They are scruffy and hurriedly written - not written in best.
check kosminski's colney hatch record. The admission record is very neat, the updates are scruffy.
kosminski's weight loss was twice as great as Fleming's and it wasn't commented on. For kosminski's bmi to be normal he must have been a midget but this isn't commented on...
we have no way of knowing whether Fleminig's real age was ever known

[Lechmere]

I didn't realise that straw clutching was so noisy,

Victorians nearly always measured things using the various measures -height just in inches would be a rarity. I have told you repeatedly that every record at Stone is in feet and inches. The chances of them having some sort of height ruler just In inches is small to say the least.

The Evans/Fleming height is given on the same page (when the book is open) as the various weight measurements that were added in a manner that clearly is very suggestive that the book was used as a working document. They are scruffy and hurriedly written - not written in best.
check kosminski's colney hatch record. The admission record is very neat, the updates are scruffy.
kosminski's weight loss was twice as great as Fleming's and it wasn't commented on. For kosminski's bmi to be normal he must have been a midget but this isn't commented on...
we have no way of knowing whether Fleminig's real age was ever known.

I would put it that on the balance of probabilities the height record is correct. That is the stance any sensible historical researcher would take.

[Sally]

Hi Garry

I forget the precise source, Sally, but it has been stated that the average height of East End denizens was two inches shorter than that of the general London population, which of course would have rendered a 6’ 7” Fleming all the more extraordinary.

Thanks for that Garry, that's interesting. It supports what is already known; that the social conditions in the East End were the worst in London. Social and economic deprivation would make the production of a healthy 6' 7" man truly extraordinary.

Agreed. Unless, of course, such specificity related to a noteworthy event like the family settling in London from abroad.

Yes, in special circumstances - agreed. Do you know of any such circumstances in Fleming's family?

[Sally]

I didn't realise that straw clutching was so noisy,

Noisy staw-clutching? What, like chickens, do you mean?

Victorians nearly always measured things using the various measures -height just in inches would be a rarity. I have told you repeatedly that every record at Stone is in feet and inches. The chances of them having some sort of height ruler just In inches is small to say the least.

Well, the obvious flaw in that argument is that the records being written in feet and inches doesn't necessarily confirm that the measurements were taken in feet and inches. I don't know what apparatus was being used to measure the patients in the infirmary. That was why I asked the question.

Whatever they used, it would've had to be bloody big, or long, to measure a 6' 7" man. That would've been an extraordinary event for the patient measurers at the infirmary - unless we suppose that they also measured giraffes - any evidence of that?

The Evans/Fleming height is given on the same page (when the book is open) as the various weight measurements that were added in a manner that clearly is very suggestive that the book was used as a working document. They are scruffy and hurriedly written - not written in best.
check kosminski's colney hatch record. The admission record is very neat, the updates are scruffy.

That's your personal opinion - other, contrary arguments are possible and just as plausible.

we have no way of knowing whether Fleminig's real age was ever known.

I should have thought his mother would've known, eh?

I would put it that on the balance of probabilities the height record is correct. That is the stance any sensible historical researcher would take

You think? Sorry, but no. Any 'sensible historical researcher' would take account of the relevant contexts in which the record was written. The 'it's written in a (gasp!) historic record so it must be true' approach is one I'd expect from an amateur local history buff or a first year undergraduate student. If you doubt this, go and find yourself some academic historians, and see what they tell you.

Now then - consider this, Ed: Suppose that the height recorded for Fleming was not 6'7", but instead was 5' 11", 6' 0", 6' 1", 6' 2" - or even, at a push,
6' 3".

Imagnine that. In those circumstances, I bet you'd find that virtually everybody would accept it as being correct. Most people then would simply think that he was a tall guy. It's the extraordinary height of 6' 7" that creates doubt - and reasonable doubt it is, too.

As an aside, I'm not sure why the 6' 7" adherents havent' argued for 6' 1" already. That's what I'd do - a 7 for 1 error instead of a 6 for 5 error. Far more plausible - and it would take Fleming right out of the running as the Ripper (and for secretly being George Hutchinson too...)

That would mean reversing some previous arguments concerning the super-relaibility of the document, however.