police activity at MJK's funeral

[Debra A]

Hi all,

Just a quick one to clarify something-
I was reading through soldiers records when I noticed that sometimes their heights were recorded in inches rather than feet and inches. This is what prompted me to simply suggest someone used to writing the heights in inches may have inadvertently filled in Flemming's height in inches without thinking too much about it.
It would have been useful if the asylum had recorded the size of his feet when making the inventory of his belongings in the orders of removal documents that I posted on another Flemming thread.That would have been a giveaway as they would had to have been big!

I can't see Flemming being 6ft 7in myself and I don't know if Chris remembers but when he originally transcribed the records he added (sic) after the height, so he was probably doubtful himself at the time?

[Chris Scott]

Hi Debs
I hope all is well with you
Just to clarify:-)
Personally I think the handwriting is very clear on this part of Evans's records and the interpretation boils down to two parts
1) What did the official actually write?
2) What did the official intend to convey?
I think part 1 is unambiguous and the official wrote 6ft 7in - what his intention was is where the debate begins:-)
I wrote "sic" because this very point had already been contentious and I was flagging up that the document actually said "6ft 7in" and folks would have to decide what they made of that.
I personally am undecided in that I can see merits on both sides:-
- the official DID write 6ft 7in and any other interpretation or departure is guesswork as to what he meant to say
- 6ft 7in even today would be a height that would cause comment and make the person concerned liable to notice and attention. Much more so in the often malnourished inhabitants of the East End in late Victorian times.
Chris

[Debra A]

Hi Chris.
I'm fine thanks. Glad to see you posing again.
The reason I waned to clarify was because I suggested that it was inadvertantly done-someone having the figure of 67 inches in their head after measuring the person but writing it down as 6ft 7in. I can see that the entry clearly says 6ft 7in-I never suggested it was mistranscribed.
I also wanted to mention that heights recorded in inches did happen in the period,as in some of the soldiers records, and I hadn't just plucked the idea out of thin air.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Chris.
I'm fine thanks. Glad to see you posing again.
The reason I waned to clarify was because I suggested that it was inadvertantly done-someone having the figure of 67 inches in their head after measuring the person but writing it down as 6ft 7in. I can see that the entry clearly says 6ft 7in-I never suggested it was mistranscribed.
I also wanted to mention that heights recorded in inches did happen in the period,as in some of the soldiers records, and I hadn't just plucked the idea out of thin air.

All very valid points very well made:-)
Regards
Chris

[The Good Michael]

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.

I agree that 154 would be underweight, but that was one period of being weighed. he was nearly 160 at one time. Peter Crouch is 6'7" and 156 and was always in tremendous health. Basketball player Manute Bol was 7'5" and under 200 pounds and played in the NBA. Some people are thin. Wanting someone to be 67 inches doesn't make it so.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

I'm pretty sure we've had a near-duplicate discussion on this before, Mike, but Peter Crouch is well known as an extreme of height and weight - more so than anyone else in the public eye in this country, and Fleming was lighter even than Crouch if we accept the entry. Either Fleming was such a tremendous extreme of height and weight (and it would have been extremely extreme in 1888) or he wasn't, and the Stone entry was in error. I find the latter explanation by far the more plausible, for the reasons Debs outlines. In addition, it is inconceivable that such a conspicuous appearance would not have been remarked upon by those who knew Fleming.

[Cogidubnus]

Present at the graveside?

Returning to our muttons, it occurs to me to ask whether anyone's ever considered what happened to the pallbearers who bore the coffin to the graveside. It'd surely be a little surprising, if not disrespectful, if they simply melted away without paying final respects?...they'd surely have to be around somewhere close at hand to help lower the coffin into the grave?

Just wondering

Dave

[Phil H]

Are not undertakers men usually "invisible" at funerals?

In my experience - I have not been to THAT many interments I must admit - the funeral directors staff are present, but as unknown personally to family and friends of the deceased, almost literally melt into the background. Mourners are often self-engrossed if not grieving, so may not even register the presence of staff.

On a minor point - in late Victorian times would it have been customary for undertakers men, or the cemetary staff/sexton to lower the coffin into the grave? Was the coffin left above the grave (on planks) until mourners had left, or lowered into the pit in their presence? Though I have visted Highgate cemetary in London more than once, the fine details of Victorian funerary practice are out of my ken.

Phil

[ceejay75]

further with the discussion on the funeral sketch.

I have picked the brains of a more established artist than myself. Who has literally produced numerous sketches and has had his work published in several titles. I wanted his opinion on composition and angles and whether he thought the sketch portrays a tall man, he answered thus ..

It is very hard to tell for sure as the artist could be depicting things as he wants and it might not be a fully accurate representation. Artistic licence is certainly possible.

But if the artist is honest and is drawing what he sees .. the focal character is standing in front of the other man, moving him to stand opposite him then standing fully upright he would be taller than the other man.

All the other characters are in relative proportion to each other, only he looks a taller man.

[DRoy]

Ceejay,

Thank you for the clarification.

I think this puts to bed the theory of the focal character being a giant.

DRoy

[ceejay75]

Ceejay,

Thank you for the clarification.

I think this puts to bed the theory of the focal character being a giant.

DRoy

DRoy

No, quite the opposite if you read that back. It means that all the other characters are of equal height yet the focal character is as tall as believed

[Phil H]

How credible is it to draw any implications from a C19th press engraving or woodcut.

However accurate the original sketch (and I'll come back to that), it had to be worked up, made reasonably dramatic, then re-drawn in a "finished way before being engraved/cut - perhaps by a totally different hand, who may have misinterpreted, mis-understood what the artist drew.

The original sketches I have seen in othe contexts are actually VERY sketchy - a few scribbles to makr positions and notes to permit the artist to reconstruct the scene back in his office/studio.

Finished engravings, even in such high-quality publications as the Illustrated London News, can be inaccurate - in the representation of buildings familiar to everyone for instance; or in the facial features of well-known people.

So can we trust an engraving such as that of MJK's funeral - which no reader would be able to judge as inaccurate or not - to tell us anything at all?

I suspect that the NUMBER of mourners around the grave might be right - but for clarity some present might be removed (such as undertakers men). The SEX of the individuals might be right, but not their "portraits or clothing (which might be generic). Further, if someone present were indeed abnormally tall, the height might be ignored, as the reader would not know that fact, and it would make the composition look odd.

In addition, the artist or engraver is clearly not very talented, or was rushed - the print is crude. How can we take it as other than representative?

That is not to say that Felmming is not represented, was not exceptionally tall, and is not shown as such. he might be all that. But I do not believe we can trust to that fact.

IMHO the engraving gives us an IDEA of the funeral of MJK, nothing more.

Phil

[ceejay75]

So to clarify the central figure in this sketch could be any one of these four men

Joseph Fleming

Representive of McCarthy (possibly the man himself)

the priest

or An Other.

Well I know who my money is on!!!

as for senior police officers, well I would be very surprised if Abberline or Reid were not there that day. Are there any records of them being elsewhere on monday 19th november 1888?