Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

Who can seriously think the police was still looking for Fleming in 1893 ?

What a daft idea.

[Colin Roberts]

From this we might gather that between five and seven adult males stood taller than 6' 6", in 1888's East End.

But, judging from the news media attention that certain 6' 6" (+) giants seem to have received in the latter stages of the Victorian era, I would think that we could safely assume that no more than three to five adult males stood as tall as 6' 7", in London's East End of the late 1880's.

Thanks for that, Colin.

You're welcome, David!

Please accept my apology for the venomous nature of my outburst, a few weeks ago.

I am sorry!

Colin
5 people that tall in the East End is more than I would have thought. If you include all of London there must have been a couple of dozen.

..., I would think that we could safely assume that no more than three to five adult males stood as tall as 6' 7", in London's East End of the late 1880's.

Not "five": "no more than three to five".

I see those as being very different assumptions, Ed.

A mean height of 5' 6", and a standard deviation of 3" would probably be more accurate, but my intention was simply to address Jon's utterly fallacious assertions

I understood you perfectly, Colin, and applaud you for your conservatism. For what it's worth I suspect that you are still being overly generous with both descriptives, meaning that in all likelihood a 6' 7" East Ender would be rarer than even your amended projection.

I am, Garry! For several reasons:

- We don't have any height data that could be considered truly reliable, as pertaining to Joseph Fleming's 1888 patch; and the figures that I used were admittedly pulled out of thin air.

- The Gaussian normal distribution is itself "overly generous", i.e. too conservative as an estimator of human height frequencies, in as much as it allows for perhaps too many outliers beyond three standard deviations: not to mention heights that are simply unattainable, such as 20' and -20'.

- The news media attention that those that stood as tall as 6' 6" were apparently getting in the late Victorian era, would suggest that such heights were truly extraordinary, and that Peter Crouch would have been more of an anomaly then, than he is today.

As for my personal stance on the issue of Joseph Fleming's actual height: I am on the fence.

We should neither discount the possibility that he was 6' 7", nor the possibility that the record was in error.

Above all else, I'm not sure that it really matters. Either way, he should be considered a person of interest.

---

As an off-topic aside:

Jon's suggestion that a statistical analysis would dictate an outright coincidence between the mean and all as yet unseen observations ...

An exception never shows up in statistics, only the average.

…, James Bradshaw existed, but the stats say he couldn't.

... is a testament to the absolute inability that so many of us have to interpret a geographic profile:



The profile dictates that the murderer must have lived in the area that is covered by the red color-shaded isopleth ...

... is the manner, in which all too many of us would interpret a geographic profile, such as the one depicted above.

What then, I wonder, do all of the other color-shaded isopleths represent?

[DVV]

You're welcome, David!

Please accept my apology for the venomous nature of my outburst, a few weeks ago.

I am sorry!

Don't !

That's nothing and I'm not that sensitive, Colin.

We've known each other for years and your contribution on this thread is much appreciated.

[Cogidubnus]

What then, I wonder, do all of the other color-shaded isopleths represent?

Ah Colin, you won't fool any of us that way - they're just the descending contour lines representing the depths of stupidity!

Cheers

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

if we are going to be picky then it can be added that the East End contained different populations - the average height of some would be greater than others. For instance the Jewish population would almost certainly have been on average shorter.

It makes no difference, Lechmere. Just as it makes no difference that a Scandinavian (and thus taller) subset is included in the analysis. Put simply, the mean height is the sum of the population heights divided by the number of individuals contained within the population. The mean has therefore accounted for any and all height deviations of the subsets, irrespective of the various subgroups which constitute the population.

[Lechmere]

It only makes no difference Garry if you want to know the average height dispersal of adult male human beings in the East End.

[DVV]

He was so tall that nobody saw him.
He was so tall that nobody bothered mentioning how tall he was.

[Michael W Richards]

The supposed height differential Fleming exhibits compared with the average in 1888 is almost 1 foot. 12 inches. Im 5'11", and if I was to meet or see someone 1 full foot taller than I am, 6'11"....it would be the single most relevant factor if describing the person to someone else. If there is no other characteristic that commands more attention....skin disorders, large beards, odd clothing, ...it would be the first thing I would make a notation of.

How is it that Hutchinson mentions nothing about that feature? How is it Mary never mentions to Barnett or Julia she used to live with in effect a giant? How is that someone that is 20% taller than anyone else around him isnt cited specifically as being unusually tall?

People play down the height differences with the known averages at that time, but surely anyone meeting a basketball player today would instantly be aware of the height disparity and the enormity of some other features also...like the hands and feet.

Therefore, Its almost certain Marys Fleming wasnt a giant, so maybe its another Fleming.

Best regards

[Sally]

I'm on holiday at the moment with a (amongst others) 6' 8" tall juggler who weighs less than 11 stone. How outlandish does that sound? People stare at him constantly, even when he isn't juggling.

Also, he breathes fire and used to be in the circus.

I am even less convinced now that Fleming's height would not have been his defining characteristic if he really was 6' 7".

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey Sally...just read your last sentence and now have an insight into whose ancestor wrote the GSG!

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Oops - rumbled! Tell you what Dave, keep it quiet and I'll send you some whisky for Christmas. Every man has his price..

[Cogidubnus]

And you've twigged mine...

Dave

PS - LOTR fan? I first read it at 16, (The Hobbit at 7), and have read it at least twice a year ever since...sad?...my youngest twins got bought a copy of The Hobbit each the day after they were born, and got read it, (with appropriate voices), as soon as they could understand...

My oldest grandaughter too...I've four grandchildren so far (and another on the way) but the youngest and closest in distance to me is approaching 18 months now...not long to go then...greetings fellow obsessive

All the best

Dave

[Ben]

Interesting stuff, Colin, for which many thanks.

Hi Lechmere,

I didn't realise that details of Fleming's wages in his various trades was known - you are an expert researcher Ben!

Kind of you to say so, but I'm afraid I'd be taking credit for the efforts of others, who, I can assure you, have researched the subject of Victorian wages in considerable detail and posted their findings here on Casebook a number of years ago. It was more than satisfactorily established that plasterers earned considerably more than dockers and costermongers. I can't remember if it was Gareth Williams, Chris Scott or someone else entirely who shared their findings in this regard, but I'm sure our more regular visitors to Fleming threads will remember it well.

Was it reported that Hutch showed signs of poor mental health? Again I presume that another outcome of your research.

I don't recall mentioning "Hutch" at all.

You are of course aware, being conversant with this case, that the private opinions of certain senior Scotland Yard officers, expressed in later years and probably not held in 1893, that the case was 'solved' was not shared by the officers on the ground and that the case was still open in 1893?

I think it's perfectly clear that the "opinions of certain senior Scotland Yard officers" with regard to the supposed identification and incarceration of the killer were held in 1893, which meant that whatever the "officers on the ground" felt about it at that time, they were obliged to be led by their superiors.

So you think the police didn't track Fleming down in 1888. I presume you would agree that they may have made some effort even if it was unsuccessful?

Absolutely.

In which case they would have still been interested in finding him and the division in which he was supposed to live would probably be more likely to remember the missing Fleming than others - don't you think?

Again, yes, but we need to be realistic about the chances of this investigation getting any further than that i.e. effectively zero.

If they had found Fleming in the register then although it may not have gone anywhere, we should expect a reference somewhere as I stated.

Firstly, it is very unlikely that they ever looked through any register that contained a reference to Fleming, and secondly, where would we expect to find this "reference"?

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
You think Fleming’s job prospects had declined by 1888 due to the onset of poor mental health and you simultaneously think Fleming was Hutchinson – so Hutchinson should have been showing signs of poor mental health…
Whatever research may have been done into average wages, you have no idea how much Fleming earned as a plasterer.
Plumbers could in theory earn a good wage, yet dear old Toppy live an itinerant life until the 1900s.

Can you show any evidence to support your view that the investigation had been wound down in 1893 or that the opinions of senior Scotland Yard officers had impacted on local officers at that stage?

Regarding references to any putative investigation into Fleming following his transfer from the responsibility of the City of London Union to Bethnal Green, I would have expected a rumour to appear in the press. The police were very leaky. Officers often sold snippets which is where the plethora of often misleading stories came from. Dozens of dead end leads were excitedly reported. If Fleming had been discovered in the register I would expect it to be common knowledge in Bethnal Green’s J Division. I would also have expected it to appear as a remark somewhere in one of the retirement memoirs. It could easily have been lost from the official record, but if the police came calling to Stone perhaps there should be a reference in his Case Book.

The total lack of any reference to Fleming’s detention strong suggests to me that it was not noted by the police. I would suggest that it is very unlikely that once or twice a year at least they did not consult the local asylum register. And there he is – highlighted by use of an alias!
That being the case the logical inference is that in 1893 Fleming was no longer a person of interest to the police. Or perhaps they knew that this particular Fleming wasn’t the right one.
Either way it is bad news for his suspect status.

Incidentally, we know that the City of London Poor Law Union investigated James Evans settlement and by October 1893 established that he ’belonged’ to Bethnal Green parish. This investigation included an interview with Henrietta Fleming. She gave the Union investigators information that established that James Evans (really her son Joseph Fleming) had been born (including his date of birth), baptised and brought up in Bethnal Green.
This investigation was not conducted by the medical authorities. It was conducted by the staff at the City of London Poor Law Union’s offices at 61 Bartholomew Close. This building is now part of Bart’s Hospital in the City but it wasn’t a medical facility back then.
There is no reason to suggest that the detailed findings that underpinned the decision to assign Evans/Fleming’s settlement to Bethnal Green would have been forwarded to Stone, although Stone must have been told the outcome.
In other words there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that Evans/Fleming’s exact date of birth as revealed by his mother during the investigation into his settlement, was ever revealed to the authorities at Stone.
When Evans/Fleming was transferred to Claybury in 1895 they seem to have been totally unaware of his real date of birth. This is strongly suggestive that Stone was also.
On a separate note it seems likely that Henrietta Fleming visited Stone at some point. We may or may not be able to evaluate when this most likely occurred. In any case there is no reason to suppose that during her visit she was asked or volunteered the exact detail of when her son was born. There is no reason why this detail would have cropped up.

DVV
According to Colin (and I would guess he is about right) there were between 3 and 5 men of the Evans Fleming height or greater in the East End. Can you find any press reports about any of these East End giants?
Were they so tall that nobody saw them?
Where they so tall that nobody bothered mentioning how tall they were?

[The Good Michael]

Question: where does all the relevant information about Joe and Joseph Fleming come from? Answer: From the inquest testimony

Question: what was the purpose of an inquest? Answer: To find probable cause of death (was she murdered or not?)

Question: what would have been the purpose in the inquest testimony to say someone was tall? Answer: None. It would have had no purpose.

Question: If we didn't hear any information about Fleming's height in the inquest testimony because it was irrelevant to the purpose of the inquest, where could we have learned about his height? Answer: Nowhere...or in asylum records.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike