Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • GUT
    Commissioner
    • Jan 2014
    • 7841

    #1051
    G'Day Ben

    Please don't be condescending towards me I have been reading these posts for a LONG time even though only just registered.

    The evidence only overwhelmingly points to this being her Joe IF we disregard the height. IF on the other hand we accept what the records say, it is highly unlikely, yea perhaps even impossible that this man and her Joe are one and the same.

    Thanks Mate

    GUT
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment

    • Ben
      Commisioner
      • Feb 2008
      • 6843

      #1052
      Apologies if I came across as condescending, Gut. That wasn't my intention.

      As with many issues, you pays your money and you takes your choice with regard to Fleming's height etc. In my view, the evidence overwhelmingly points to this Joe being Kelly's ex quite independently of the height detail.

      All the best,
      Ben
      Last edited by Ben; 01-07-2014, 09:24 PM.

      Comment

      • Barnaby
        Sergeant
        • Feb 2008
        • 767

        #1053
        Originally posted by Ben View Post
        On the subject of "malnutrition", I wouldn't get too hung up on the notion that this always equated to extreme thinness. The problem for the poor of London's East End in Victorian times was not so much one of chronic food deprivation, but rather one of poor diet. Annie Chapman, for example, was certainly malnourished, but as pictorial evidence bears out, she was also clearly overweight, as was Martha Tabram.
        Little has changed in Western culture. People with little money tend to be overweight because cheap food tends to be unhealthy and often high in calories and sugar. However, one could actually argue that it is good strategy to purchase the cheapest calories per dollar/pound if one is poor. In any event, they aren't purchasing grilled shrimp on a bed of greens: Health = good; Finances = ludicrous.

        Comment

        • Barnaby
          Sergeant
          • Feb 2008
          • 767

          #1054
          To follow up, I did some work at a methadone clinic about a decade ago and saw lots of people living on the fringes of society but did not see many people who were terribly thin. On the contrary, most were normal to overweight. Many of their diets, however, would be considered horrible. Some survived on the dollar menu at McDonalds (and $4 a day to get your calories from double cheesburgers for a heroin addict is cost effective!). Most people with little money in societies where food is plentiful still find ways to maintain a caloric surplus.

          Comment

          • GUT
            Commissioner
            • Jan 2014
            • 7841

            #1055
            G'Day Barnaby

            But food was not exactly plentiful to the very poor in East End 1890's.

            But the real point is that the records show Fleming was 6'7" and the only reason given to doubt this is that he would be just under a normal weight range.

            So my real argument is that this makes it unlikely that he was Kelly's Joe Fleming and just because we can't find another is no reason to disregard the evidence we have.

            If we are going to quote personal experiences my dad is 5'11" and 8 1/2 stone but spent his entire working life throwing around 150 lb bags of flour and Kegs of beer until in his 70's, yet one reason to given to doubt the veracity of the records was that Joe wouldn't be able to work as a plasterer. The arguments do not stack up.

            GUT
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment

            • lynn cates
              Commisioner
              • Aug 2009
              • 13841

              #1056
              height

              Hello GUT. Welcome to the boards.

              "But if we accept the record as correct this is NOT Jack. Because sure as tooting someone would have noticed if there was a 6'7" stalker going around killing women."

              What of A woman?

              Of course, I am happy to count the height an error, but it IS written in black and white.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment

              • GUT
                Commissioner
                • Jan 2014
                • 7841

                #1057
                G'Day Lynn

                Thanks for the welcome.

                That's where we differ. I'm not "happy to count the height an error" BECAUSE it is written in black and white, just because it doesn't fit some other theory.

                Could he have killed ONE woman, maybe, not 5 or more.

                Even one I find it hard to accept no one noticed but would not rule it out totally.

                My biggest problem is with dismissing the height because it makes him a bit thin when his health is described as good.

                GUT
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment

                • Ben
                  Commisioner
                  • Feb 2008
                  • 6843

                  #1058
                  Hi Barnaby,

                  Many thanks for your message. You raise some excellent points, and I'm particularly interested to hear of your personal experience.

                  Hi Gut,

                  Barnaby has given you good cause to revise your mistaken impression that malnutrition always equates to severe weight loss, which I trust you'll take on board.

                  Please don't keep insisting that he was "just under the normal weight range" or "a bit thin". He was most certainly nothing of the sort if he was 6'7" and 11 stone in weight. That would give him a BMI of 17.4 which is significantly underweight, potentially dangerously so.

                  You say you've been lurking for ages before posting and that you're thoroughly well-informed on the Fleming discussions, but have you studied the evidence that connects this particular Fleming with the recorded particulars of Kelly's ex-boyfriend? The Joseph Fleming at the inquest was described as a mason’s plasterer with Bethnal Green connections, and Fleming/Evans is the only person who fits that bill, as he does perfectly.

                  The argument that the entry is black and white and must, therefore, be true does not properly embrace the total incompatibility between a height of 6'7", a shockingly low weight (for that height) of 11 stone, and reportedly "good" bodily health. They are wholly incompatible, indicating that a mistake must have occurred.

                  If we are going to quote personal experiences my dad is 5'11" and 8 1/2 stone but spent his entire working life throwing around 150 lb bags of flour and Kegs of beer until in his 70's, yet one reason to given to doubt the veracity of the records was that Joe wouldn't be able to work as a plasterer.
                  How is this relevant?

                  5'11" is considerably shorted that 6'7", and there was certainly go guarantee that lifting bags of flour and beer barrels involved poky rooms and low ceilings, whereas a 6'7" plasterer working in the low ceilings of the Victorian East End would obviously have experienced considerable problems.

                  Regards,
                  Ben
                  Last edited by Ben; 01-08-2014, 04:35 AM.

                  Comment

                  • GUT
                    Commissioner
                    • Jan 2014
                    • 7841

                    #1059
                    G'Day Ben

                    The only reason that this Joe Fleming MUST be MJK's Joe Fleming is because we can not at this point find another Joe Fleming in Bethnal Green in the building trade, this is circular reasoning that to me isn't logical. We also can't at this stage find her husband in Wales, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, that we can't find another Joe Fleming doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

                    The relevance of dad is that someone stated Joe was too thin to be strong enough to be a plasterer, that was my point, which I didn't spell out well enough.

                    Re revising my opinion on his weight Nope.

                    Thanks

                    GUT
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment

                    • GUT
                      Commissioner
                      • Jan 2014
                      • 7841

                      #1060
                      BTW

                      You keep stating 11 Stone, the records range up to 11 stone 8

                      GUT
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment

                      • Ben
                        Commisioner
                        • Feb 2008
                        • 6843

                        #1061
                        The only reason that this Joe Fleming MUST be MJK's Joe Fleming is because we can not at this point find another Joe Fleming in Bethnal Green in the building trade,
                        No, Gut.

                        The determination that this particular Fleming must be Kelly's Fleming is based on the fact that their biographies tally to the extent that it would enormously and implausibly "coincidental" if they were unrelated, and it would mean that there was another mason's plasterer from Bethnal Green named Joseph Fleming around at that time. Have you researched the threads which discuss the only other potential Joseph Flemings who appear in the various census records?

                        You keep stating 11 Stone, the records range up to 11 stone 8
                        This is for the purpose of illustrating the fact that he was recorded as being in good health at 11 stone, which is barely possible if he wad 6'7".

                        It's tempting to go round in pointless circles with this one. All we're doing is repeating the entire thread again.

                        Regards,
                        Ben

                        Comment

                        • lynn cates
                          Commisioner
                          • Aug 2009
                          • 13841

                          #1062
                          minority

                          Hello Gut. Thanks.

                          "That's where we differ. I'm not "happy to count the height an error" BECAUSE it is written in black and white, just because it doesn't fit some other theory."

                          No more am I. Because:

                          1. I am not comfortable DISMISSING anything.

                          2. Not sure what theory this would fit.

                          Instead, I'd suggest taking the story cum grano salis. After all, weren't many blokes that tall in the neighbourhood.

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment

                          • Scott Nelson
                            Superintendent
                            • Feb 2008
                            • 2406

                            #1063
                            Originally posted by Ben View Post
                            And I'm a lanky lad at 6'5".
                            Are you really Ben?

                            Comment

                            • Ben
                              Commisioner
                              • Feb 2008
                              • 6843

                              #1064
                              Last time I checked, Scott!

                              Comment

                              • Lechmere
                                Inactive
                                • Oct 2010
                                • 3450

                                #1065
                                Oh dear - it' lucky I can multi task Ben.
                                As GUT says, to make your theory work, the clear, unambiguous and frequently referred to height entry MUST be wrong. So you try and convince your self that it is wrong.

                                GUT to add a layer of complication Ben thinks that Hutchinson was really Fleming as well. No kidding.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X