Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Phil H]

We may be looking at the wrong Flemming for all I know.

But it is unsafe to ignore written records or to dismiss them without evidence to support that dismissal.

We now know, through detailed but straightforward research that Mrs Buki, Elizabeth Phoenix and Morganstone (like Flemming all friends, lovers or associates of MJK in the same relative time-frame) all existed and quite a bit about them. One day, maybe, the same will be done for Flemming and all will become clear.

Phil

[DVV]

We may be looking at the wrong Flemming for all I know.
Phil

Certainly not.

Fleming/Evans was MJK's ex - way beyond reasonable doubt (as Ben said - and has repeatedly explained).

The only other Fleming of some (little) interest is actually a Flemming, called Edward Joseph - and his trade and whereabouts make him a non-starter.

By the way, Phil, we are talking of Joseph Fleming, not Joseph Flemming - see his birth certificate.

Now, instead of a "proof", we should rather expect a confirmation that he was so tall.

There is none. Not one. The weight doesn't fit the height.

In fact, if Fleming was that tall, he should deserve several entries in the Guinness Book of records :

1 : tallest East Ender at the time of the Ripper murders

2 : thinnest dock labouber ever (remember he had his hook with him, and 8 shillings, so in all probabiblity he had been recently working, on June 30)

3: most discreet giant in the world

[The Good Michael]

but Venturney referred to Joe in her police statement also.

And "Joe", who "ill-used" MJK was a suspect, at least somebody worth questioning. But it seems that Venturney didn't know how remarkably tall he was.

Oh, I know - you will argue that Mary never told Julia how tall was the guy...
And I'll object that it's extremely unlikely.

get a grip. Of course Kelly would have told people details about Fleming. It's just that he wasn't a suspect and what was told, the little details, are unknown because they were unimportant to the case, just as all details of Venturney, Kelly, Barnett, and everyone else are unknown. We don't know because nothing was recorded or it all was lost or stolen. I'm tired of arguing this really. You surmise and you always drag Debs into this as if she were the unbiased cog of sanity that can support you. She has no idea what Fleming's height was either. She thought 6'7" was strange and offered an idea. Really though, we all think 6'7" is unusually tall. The weight is low, but not impossibly so, just odd. But there is nothing really known about Fleming except what's in the census and a few snippets of surmise. And that's kind of the same for most people involved in all the murders. Yet when the first actual medical record comes up it must be wrong. This is the sticky thing. It isn't wrong until proven wrong. That is my point. That has always been my point.

Mike

[DVV]

Indeed, Mike.

The weight is very low.

The guy was more than very tall.

And much more than discreet.

[Phil H]

If Flemming is good enough for the Shelden's, it is good enough for me.

Phil

[DVV]

You're a wise man, Phil.

Actually he is good enough for Debs and Chris Scott too.

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

And that's just what Lechmere an Co are doing.

[DVV]

We have an equation here for suspects that runs something like this, using an example of another suspect:

Montague John Druitt + Sir Melville Macnaghten notes = suspicion of being JtR

Or

James Maybrick + The Diary and the Watch = suspicion of being JtR

So what makes Joeseph Fleming fit this very simple equation?

God Bless

Darkendale

No doubt Fleming is a better suspect than Druitt and Maybrick.

He was MJK's ex, moved to Whitechapel in September 1888, did not show up after her murder, and died in Claybury in 1920.

He was 29 in 1888, 5'7 tall - which matches well BSM and Sailor Man.

[harry]

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

[Phil H]

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you.

Harry

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.

Not at all, all sources have to be evaluated, of course, but a written source cannot be simply ignored.

W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

You can object with reason. Had the source said he was eight feet ten, it might be easier to dismiss, but 6'7" is NOT (and was not then) an impossible height for a man - exceptional maybe, but not IMPOSSIBLE. So, unless you have a source that says the exact same indiividual was a different height, I do not see how you can dismiss it.

Motive is also an issue here. Seeking to make Flemming of normal height so that he can fit into a particular scenario or be a better "suspect" woulod clearly be wrong - it is cutting evidence to fit a solution.

I do not question that it is perfectly reasonable to "raise an eyebrow" at the written height - it seems odd - but as an historian I say again, it cannot be dismissed.

Phil

[DVV]

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you.

Phil

Nope.

MJK's ex identity has been definitely established.

Evans/Fleming was born in Bethnal Green, was a plasterer, was 3 or 4 years older than MJK, moved to Whitechapel in September 1888.

Those who hope to find a better candidate for MJK's ex must be ready to wait until the return of Jesus, I'm afraid.

And Harry is right : we have enough evidence to suspect a mistake in the case of Fleming's height.

Here is a man who would be both extraordinarily tall and extraordinarily thin, although being an ex-plasterer and a dock labourer. And who went completely unnoticed, although he used to visit Mary.

As an historian, if I were to accept all that was written in the Ethiopian royal chronicles, I would have done a pretty bad job.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Ah! And this is why Phil H is awesome.

Arguing that there is another man that fits the bill better than Fleming/Evans is as crazy as arguing Van Gogh was the ripper.

We simply don't know - there have been plenty of strange coincidences in the Ripper case when proper researchers start to dig into individual's backgrounds.

I am old enough to remember the "Barnett books" which fingered two different men - one of them HAD to be wrong, but I assume the author who researched the wrong man assumed he was right!! Like you. When was the last time you were called homie?

Harry

Posters are on pretty dangerous grounds when they insist we must accept written historical records.

Not at all, all sources have to be evaluated, of course, but a written source cannot be simply ignored.

W e are obliged to take note of what the records say,but as in many cases of historical nature,w e can strongly object to their accuracy.Flemmings height is one of them.

You can object with reason. Had the source said he was eight feet ten, it might be easier to dismiss, but 6'7" is NOT (and was not then) an impossible height for a man - exceptional maybe, but not IMPOSSIBLE. So, unless you have a source that says the exact same indiividual was a different height, I do not see how you can dismiss it.

Motive is also an issue here. Seeking to make Flemming of normal height so that he can fit into a particular scenario or be a better "suspect" woulod clearly be wrong - it is cutting evidence to fit a solution.

I do not question that it is perfectly reasonable to "raise an eyebrow" at the written height - it seems odd - but as an historian I say again, it cannot be dismissed.

Phil

Thanks for saying it homie. When was the last time you were called homie?

[Phil H]

Why should I EVER have been called "homie"?

DVV - as so often you are misguided. Just MHO of course.

And

... Harry is right : we have enough evidence to suspect a mistake in the case of Fleming's height.

No you do NOT have enough EVIDENCE. You have circumstantial reasons, nothing more.

Phil

[harry]

I never said we should dismiss the height as given,and if there are circumstancial reasons to believe it wrong,then all the more reason to challenge it.

[Phil H]

Not QUITE what you said in your previous post, harry - the one to which I responded.

[harry]

Near enough Phil.