police activity at MJK's funeral

[Chris Scott]

Hi DR
When I first read it I thought it might have been McCarthy's wife, but the reporter, after mentioning Barnett and "someone" from McCarthy, specifically says *the rest were women" which to me indicates that the "someone" was male.
Below is an enlargement of the mourners from the newspaper drawing

[DRoy]

Chris,

The man in the back matches one other drawing of Barnett. Can't recall which paper it came from. That doesn't help identify the "animated" character in front. However it isn't too far off from a drawing i've seen of Bowyer. The mustache in the drawing above seems a little fuller. I doubt it to be McCarthy's young son. It's my understanding there was another young fellow working for McCarthy but again the drawing above appears to show an older person.

Cheers
DRoy

[Ben]

Many thanks indeed for those uploads, Chris!

And DRoy, I agree entirely with your observations. I don't think the artist ever intended consciously to depict the man as unusually tall. He was probably aware that the man was Barnett the boyfriend, and used a bit of artistic licence to feature him more prominently that the others. It remains extremely unlikely that Fleming was 6'7". As Debs has suggested on another thread, it is far more likely that the entry was supposed to read 67 inches, which is the equivalent of the far more plausible 5'7". His weight was reported in one entry as just 11 stone, which seems doubly unlikely for such a lofty height, especially as his bodily health was reported as "good" at the time.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chris.
Thanks for posting these images, I have always considered the sketch to be a accurate one, for instance the drawer has the women' bonnets of different design, which shows particular attention to detail.
The someone from McCarthy could be anyone, it certainly was not his son, maybe a male relation, or even Bowyer[ although I doubt that].
One can surmise that both the males present laid tributes, whilst the women bowed, and it appears that the priest had by that time left the immediate area, as no other suitably attired person was sketched.
Have you ever come across a description of the priest, somewhere there is the suggestion that he was a 'Giant of a man', I will have to seek it out.
Regards Richard.

[DRoy]

Richard,

I'm on a cell phone so I can't post the photos of Barnett and Bowyer. When I have a chance i'll post them.

I didn't think it would be Bowyer either until I matched his photo. It does look like him!

DRoy

[Chris Scott]

Hi Ben
I don't want to get into the argument about Evans's height, but on the matter of his weight, if you look at the asylum notes I posted he was weighed intermittently and all the weights are 11 stone something

[Albert]

Many thanks indeed for those uploads, Chris!

And DRoy, I agree entirely with your observations. I don't think the artist ever intended consciously to depict the man as unusually tall. He was probably aware that the man was Barnett the boyfriend, and used a bit of artistic licence to feature him more prominently that the others. It remains extremely unlikely that Fleming was 6'7". As Debs has suggested on another thread, it is far more likely that the entry was supposed to read 67 inches, which is the equivalent of the far more plausible 5'7". His weight was reported in one entry as just 11 stone, which seems doubly unlikely for such a lofty height, especially as his bodily health was reported as "good" at the time.

All the best,
Ben

Why do you believe the 11 stone is correct but the 6 feet isn't it?
Cheers
Albert

[Chris Scott]

Hi Ben
"it is far more likely that the entry was supposed to read 67 inches, which is the equivalent of the far more plausible 5'7"."
It is very tempting to reinterpret or re-read the evidence to what we think it should be or logically must be but all we can go on is the document as it survives and in my opinion the entry, however problematic, clearly reads 6ft 7in and does not give us the plausible interpretation that the writer meant 67 inches.

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

I'm referring to the entries you very kindly posted a few years ago on the "records for Stone Asylum" thread:

June 12th 1894: Special report: "Suffering from mania, very incoherent. Has many delusions, regarding person, his expression is uncertain, is in good health. The heart and lung sounds are normal."
July 1st: Weight 11st 1lb
Mentally rambling and incoherent. many delusions about persons. Works well in Dining Hall and Mess Room. Health good.
Oct 1st: Weight 11st
Rambling and incoherent. Works in D.H. and Mess room. Good health.
Jan 1st 1895: Weight 11st 5lbs
Works in the corridor, mess room and dining hall. He is rambling and incoherent, abusive. Good health.
Feb 14th 1895: Weight 11st 5lbs
He was today transferred to London County Asylum at Claybury as relieved.

So it appears that one at least one weighing occasion, he was only 11 stone.

Hi Albert,

Why do you believe the 11 stone is correct but the 6 feet isn't it?

Given how unlikely it is that Fleming was 6'7" AND 11 stone AND in "good health", it follows that one of these was probably wrong, and obviously the height is the most extreme of the three. Also, his weight was recorded several times, unlike his height, and "11" appeared every time.

All the best,
Ben

[DRoy]

Richard,

Here are the two photos I was talking about...

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

I'd respectfully beg to differ, and would argue the reverse; that despite the temptation to take a superficially unambiguous entry at face value, if it seems highly improbable and makes no sense, it's usually because it's wrong. I argued much the same a post ago with regard to Anderson's comments and the Swanson marginalia, which I also don't accept at face value. Note that the age given in the Stone entry is wrong, despite the "37" looking very clear.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

According to the BMI, a guy 6'7" is within ideal weight if he is at least 164.2 pounds. 11 stone is 154, so Fleming was low at one point. When he was 159 pounds, he was a bit under ideal. As we've seen with footballers and with so many basketball players, sometimes tall, active people have a high metabolism and are thin. Fleming wouldn't have been alarmingly thin. He was within a reasonable range and probably healthy. Nothing in this at all, though I don't think he was in the drawing. That guy looks a bit like McCarthy's sketch to me.

Mike

[DRoy]

Mike,

That guy looks a bit like McCarthy's sketch to me.

Wouldn't the paper have said McCarthy instead of saying someone from McCarthy's?

DRoy

[The Good Michael]

Mike,



Wouldn't the paper have said McCarthy instead of saying someone from McCarthy's?

DRoy

I think so, but it could have been from a statement from Mccarthy saying they'd be sending a representative from the housing area before selecting one. I was only suggesting similarities between the man in that particular sketch and one of Mccarthy. The reality is, the sketches are so dark that detail cannot be discerned.

Mike

[Ben]

According to the BMI index, 154 pounds for a 6'7" man belongs very much in the "underweight" category. Have a look here, and note that 6'7" is off the scale!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5297790.stm

There can be no question, to my mind, that we'd be talking of an extremely low weight for an extremely tall man.