The Fashion Street Enigma

[Tom_Wescott]

After leaving Michael Kidney, Liz Stride went to stay at her regular 'home away from', the lodging house at 32 Flower and Dean Street. She had known deputy Elizabeth Tanner for 6 years and the two spent quite a bit of time together, even when Stride was not staying at her house. For some reason, Stride told Tanner that she and Kidney lived on Fashion Street, when in fact they lived on Devonshire Street.

On the final night of her life, Catherine Eddowes gave the police the false name of 'Mary Ann Kelly' and the false address of '6 Fashion Street'.

My question is, what is so special about Fashion Street? Was it appreciably better off than Devonshire Street that Stride (who was an habitual liar) would choose it as her imaginary address? We can all understand why Eddowes needed to give a false address, but again, why Fashion Street?

Any ideas? What do we know or what can we learn about this street?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

In 1704 it was called Fasson Street, but by 1888 had become very unfassonable.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Just bumping this thread to see if anyone has any ideas.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

My question is, what is so special about Fashion Street? Was it appreciably better off than Devonshire Street that Stride (who was an habitual liar) would choose it as her imaginary address?

In the 1889 Booth Map, about three-quarters of Flower and Dean Street is marked as black ("Lowest class. Vicious, semi-criminal"), whereas Fashion Street is pink (three levels higher: "Mixed. Some comfortable, others poor"). The remaining quarter of Flower and Dean is also mixed, but I assume that is the part occupied by the Rothschild Buildings.

There may be some more detailed information in the police notebooks in the Charles Booth Online Archive on the LSE website, though those come from about a decade later:

http://booth.lse.ac.uk/

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris, thanks for that. But how does Devonshire compare? That's the street Kidney and Stride were living on. She substituted 'Devonshire Street' with 'Fashion Street' when speaking to the women of 32 Flower and Dean Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

I don't know of any Lodging Houses in Fashion Street. Number 6 wasn't one, but just behind it, entered from number 4 Fashion Street was a Jews Soup Kitchen.
I would think Devonshire Street would have been a much better street to live on then Fashion Street.

Rob

[John Bennett]

'Fashion' is actually a corruption of Fossan (as hinted at in Simon's post). It was the northern boundary of land owned by the Fossan brothers who sold bits off to people like John Flower and Gowen Dean and Henry Thrale.

The rest is history, as they say. Not that this helps with the 'enigma', though!

[Chris]

Hi Chris, thanks for that. But how does Devonshire compare? That's the street Kidney and Stride were living on. She substituted 'Devonshire Street' with 'Fashion Street' when speaking to the women of 32 Flower and Dean Street.

Sorry - I didn't read your post properly.

But it seems Devonshire Street was also black on the 1889 Booth Map, so the answer is the same. I've indicated it with a little red arrow below:

[Chris]

Here is the description from the Booth police notebooks, from a "Walk with Inspector Drew" on 3 February 1898. Star Street was the parallel street immediately to the west.

http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b350/jpg/193.html

[John Bennett]

I don't know of any Lodging Houses in Fashion Street. Number 6 wasn't one, but just behind it, entered from number 4 Fashion Street was a Jews Soup Kitchen.
Rob

I believe Nos. 18 and 34 were lodging houses, but both had been closed down long before 1888 - otherwise there seem to have been none.

[Observer]

Not a very good shot, handheld at eighth of a second, and also in wrong thread, but here is the site of where 6 Fashion Street would have stood. That is where I think 6 Fashion Street once stood, if it's not I'm sure I'll be correczted.



all the best

Observer

[DaveMc]

I don't expect the women to give their actual names to the police.
Why help them to build up a record on you and use it to drop you into a workhouse?

How did the mail service work back then?

The girls are locally transient, so how would any mail find them?
Maybe 6 Fashion was a common address some of them used for that purpose.

[Monty]

Guys

I don't know of any Lodging Houses in Fashion Street. Number 6 wasn't one, but just behind it, entered from number 4 Fashion Street was a Jews Soup Kitchen.
I would think Devonshire Street would have been a much better street to live on then Fashion Street.

Rob

This is a segment of a report about Eddowes


Irish Times Monday, 1st October 1888

The public were not admitted to the square until late in the afternoon, after an official plan of the square had been made for production at the inquest. Up to a late hour in the evening the woman had not been identified, although several people have been to the Bishopsgate street police station and have seen the clothing. Two women who inspected this and also saw the corpse were certain that it was the body of a woman named Jane Kelly, but subsequently on inquiries being made, it was found that this individual was alive. A man who saw the body said he was sure it was that of a woman known as "Phoebe the Jewess," but the inquiries in this case are not yet complete.

Also, Stride was alleged to have been a Charwoman to some Jews.

Just throwing it out there...a connection?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I believe Nos. 18 and 34 were lodging houses, but both had been closed down long before 1888 - otherwise there seem to have been none.

Thanks John, I couldn't find a reference to any. The 1890 Goads didn't mention one and number 6 I think was a Chandlers Shop.

Rob

[John Bennett]

Not a very good shot, handheld at eighth of a second, and also in wrong thread, but here is the site of where 6 Fashion Street would have stood. That is where I think 6 Fashion Street once stood, if it's not I'm sure I'll be correczted.

[ATTACH]8063[/ATTACH]

all the best

Observer

Funnily enough, I took a picture of this in 1986 (one of my lost photos) and it was even worse than yours. Yours is positively arty in comparison! However, I can say that the scene looked exactly the same back then.