The CONTROLLERS of Spitalfields

[Phil H]

I take the title of this thread from a chapter title in Fiona Rule's book "The Worst Street in London".

She names six families who owned or controlled the area north of Spitalfields Market - the area, she claims, from which virtually every character involved in the JtR mystery came (p 97).

The families were those of:

1. Frederick Gehringer who ran a haulage business and a public house in Wentworth St.

2. Jimmy Smith and his son (also Jimmy) greengrocers of brick Lane - they also ran a common lodging house and the son ran a coal dealership and delivery service. the son is stated to be a man who "straightened up the police" and had a side-line in illegal street gambling. One local described him as the "governor" around Brick Lane.

This family were related to (30 Johnny Cooney (brother-in-law) and many of their lodgings were said to operate as brothels. Cooney ran the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury St.

4. Daniel Lewis and sons - controlled lodgings in Thrawl St and George Yard - close links to Smiths and Cooneys but little else known.

5. John McCathy - Dorset St (nuff said). MJK's landlord if you do not know.

Rule cites an illegal prize fight organised by McCarthy and Jimmy Smith's brother where Sgt Thicke was persuaded to give both men glowing character references. (Smith had assaulted a policeman.)

6. William Crossingham - McCarthy's neighbour and business associate. Essex man - his daughter married McCarthy's brother. Moved back to Romford in early 1900s.

I'll post my observations in a separate follow-up post to keep them apart from this "factual" material.

Phil

[Phil H]

Comment

I all my reading over the years I have never seen a summary like this of this aspect of the East End. Indeed, I missed the point in first reading Fiona Rule's book.

Those who have read Jim Garrison's book on the JFK killing will know that a consistent criticism is that, although he was a DA operating in New Orleans, he makes no mention of the mafia crime bosses.

Yet in the JtR case we seem not to discuss whether a "cabal" of semi-criminal local bosses could have played any part in the murders, their cover-up, in influencing the police away from certain area, or simply by being there (could witnesses have been coerced or frightened to come forward, for instance?).

Take a few examples. Could the women or some of them have been killed as examples, or for reasons related to these men and their interests. (The killer, protected by these bosses, might have been a sexual maniac, but that would be a separate issue)?

A coal delivery service - at what times did it operate? Carts with sacks of coal could conceal other things.

The police "straightened" - Fiona says this meant persuaded to turn a blind eye to things (page 99) what could that imply. Thicke (or thick - according to the A-Z) is a relatively conspicuous figure in the enquiries personally arresting Pizer (Leather Apron). He was apparently a suspect himself in 1889. Also named "Johnny Upright" - a sarcastic nickname maybe?

Could the confusions around Pizer/Leather Apron have something to do with the influence of the local "bosses"?

Further, I can see ways in which the Morgensterns (as brothel owners) might in some way have been known to or these six families. One assumes that these men and their close associates were well-known local, recognised and deferred to. Could that be why a man like "Astrkhan Man" could walk around with his gold so brazenly?

I would be interested to hear what others think about this aspect of the case.

If the JtR murders had taken place in the same area in the 1960s, and the books which covered the crimes failed to mention the Krays or Richardsons, would that not be an odd thing?

Or have I got it wrong? Has this aspect of the period been debated and dismissed before? Or is it the elephant in the room - the unmistakable but unspoken presence.

What do others think it might mean - anything or nothing?

Phil

[lynn cates]

list

Hello Phil. Super idea for a thread.

I have a list of residents for Dorset, 1881, if that would help in your research.

Wonder if Gehringer is a variant of Gerlinger--the pub where Mary claimed Jacob sometimes visited?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

research

Hello Phil.

"Has this aspect of the period been debated and dismissed before?"

Not sure; however, some are working in this direction now.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Phil

As Lynn says, great idea for a thread...I recall this being mentioned by Rule, now I come to think of it, but hadn't previously put two and two together...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Interesting to see a range of thoughts not previously considered.
The old Dickensian world of Oliver Twist and street gangs controlled by a Fagan-like character may not have died out by the 1800's.

Further, I can see ways in which the Morgensterns (as brothel owners) might in some way have been known to or these six families. One assumes that these men and their close associates were well-known local, recognised and deferred to.

It would appear that brothel owners generated a degree of control over their immediate neighbourhood.

Could that be why a man like "Astrkhan Man" could walk around with his gold so brazenly?

If it was his own neighbourhood, and the local 'boss' knew him, he may have had a degree of protection. It's like, no-one gets mugged on my patch without my say-so, etc.
On the other hand, if it was Isaac's then he was a local thief anyway, he wouldn't get mugged or 'picked' because he was one of them.
Honor among thieves.

Or have I got it wrong? Has this aspect of the period been debated and dismissed before? Or is it the elephant in the room - the unmistakable but unspoken presence.

What do others think it might mean - anything or nothing?

Phil

I don't think it has actually been studied to any degree. So whatever influence these late 19th century 'Fagan's, might have had on the Whitechapel murders in unknown.
But it is refreshing to see an interesting and otherwise unconsidered aspect being raised.

[Ginger]

A coal delivery service - at what times did it operate? Carts with sacks of coal could conceal other things.

Coal delivery would have been, I believe, the sort of job undertaken while the customers were at home, and awake.

The excellent "Horse-World of London" reports: "The coal horse breakfasts at four in the morning and goes out to work at six..." (W.J. Gordon, Religious Tract Society, London, 1893)

http://www.1900s.org.uk/1900s-coalman.htm has an account of a child's memories of coal delivery in the early 1900s. The coalman brought the bagged coal right into the house.

Better houses (surely not those in the East End) got their coal delivered through a "coal hole". The following two websites have pictures of a variety of these:

http://coalholesoflondon.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/londons-coal-holes/

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/londonology/Londonology/Coal_Holes.html

I doubt that the East Enders (at least those we're concerned about) would have purchased a hundredweight sack of coal from the coal man. I'd imagine that there was some system of distribution catering to those who could afford to buy their coal only a few pounds at a time.

Edit: Very, very best of the coal hole covers: http://coalholesoflondon.files.wordp...scaled1000.jpg

[Phil H]

I lived in a Victorian house with a coal-hole as a child and teenager. The coal was still delivered and poured down the shute. Very practical. Our cast-iron cover got brokn by a careless delivery man, so we had to have a solid steel one made to replace it - not half as nice.

On the bossmen, I think Fagin is too mild an example (would he not be more at home in the "Jago" running the Old Nichol Gang (if it existed)?* I am thinking of something more akin to a late Victorian model of the Krays or the Richardsons.

The people Fiona Rule mentions appear to be much more focused, affluent, open and dynamic and probably (almost certainly) ruthless - which once again raises the question of McCarthy and MJK's unpaid rent. Why would he allow that and what was he getting in return?

fagan had a gang of children, I suspect that men like Cooney, McCarthy or Crossingham had real heavies behind them - we glimpse some maybe in Donovan and Bowyer.

Sorry not to agree your comparison.

Phil
* I fear that too many TV adaptations of Oliver Twist, not to mention Ron Moody, have softened the character of Fagin too much for it to be a useful comparison for anything.

[Mayerling]

Re: Softening Fagin

Morning Phil,

Dickens was the first one to try to "soften" Fagin. A female friend of his (who was Jewish) criticized the character (named for a former friend of Dickens when he worked in that blacking factory, Bob Fagin, but based on a Jewish thief trainer who had been tried in the late 1830s and sent to Australia). She felt calling the villain, "Fagin the Jew" was anti-Semitic. Dickens protested, but thought it over. Subsequently he changed Fagin a little. When the woman asked how (she had now bought the published novel, and not the serialization), he explained he had shown a scene of Fagin making himself lunch, and eating a pork sausage - thus Fagin was a bad Jew as well. The stunned lady walked away from Dickens and did not speak to him again for several years. Finally it hit Dickens that he had missed the boat in trying to make amends. So he created "Mr. Riah" the benevelent Jewish man in Our Mutual Friend, used to collect rents but helping. Riah is so helpful and nice he is probablly the most sickeningly nice figure in literature. I once suggested that if Fagin saw Riah acting "normally" in the street (as Dickens would have him) he would have chased him away with a sharp stick!

Jeff

[Ginger]

Yet in the JtR case we seem not to discuss whether a "cabal" of semi-criminal local bosses could have played any part in the murders, their cover-up, in influencing the police away from certain area, or simply by being there (could witnesses have been coerced or frightened to come forward, for instance?).

Take a few examples. Could the women or some of them have been killed as examples, or for reasons related to these men and their interests. (The killer, protected by these bosses, might have been a sexual maniac, but that would be a separate issue)?

An alternate interpretation occurs to me. It's been remarked upon before how rapidly the panic died down after the Kelly murder, and how the police seemed to implicitly accept that the Ripper was gone. If that cabal were running brothels, gambling dens, prize fights and **** fights, etc, then the Ripper had to be a nuisance to them at the very least. He makes people nervous about being out after dark, and he causes large numbers of policemen to swarm about the place. Customers coming from out of the neighborhood (the ones with money) are getting hassled and treated with suspicion. Perhaps killing Kelly (who may well have been one of McCarthy's prostitutes) on McCarthy's own premises was the final straw.

Perhaps McCarthy, Crossingham, Smith, et alia took matters into their own hands and did away with Jack. It's the kind of thing the police might well be aware of (or at least strongly suspect) without being able to speak of it.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Yes!

Great idea for a thread. For quite a while now I've wondered why there is never any mention about any of the players in what had to be an active area. Thanks Phil H. Interesting McCarthy is mentioned. I had been thinking about what he might have been into.

[Stephen Thomas]

An alternate interpretation occurs to me. It's been remarked upon before how rapidly the panic died down after the Kelly murder, and how the police seemed to implicitly accept that the Ripper was gone. If that cabal were running brothels, gambling dens, prize fights and **** fights, etc, then the Ripper had to be a nuisance to them at the very least. He makes people nervous about being out after dark, and he causes large numbers of policemen to swarm about the place. Customers coming from out of the neighborhood (the ones with money) are getting hassled and treated with suspicion. Perhaps killing Kelly (who may well have been one of McCarthy's prostitutes) on McCarthy's own premises was the final straw.

Perhaps McCarthy, Crossingham, Smith, et alia took matters into their own hands and did away with Jack. It's the kind of thing the police might well be aware of (or at least strongly suspect) without being able to speak of it.

Well said. That's one of the best posts I've seen here in years. Perhaps the absolute best.

JTR would have definitely queered the patch of the local villains.

It would have been to their great advantage to shop him.

[Phil H]

Are you aware that John Gardner long ago wrote some novels with (Holmes bete noire) Moriarty as the central character? In one of those he included the idea that "Jack" was got rid of by the criminal fraternity for the very reason you give.

I certainly wonder whether some of the "holes" or enigmas in the case might not result from these "controllers" either tidying away facts, removing evidence or conspiring to keep the whole case obscure.

But that is speculation, of course.

Phil

[Ginger]

Are you aware that John Gardner long ago wrote some novels with (Holmes bete noire) Moriarty as the central character? In one of those he included the idea that "Jack" was got rid of by the criminal fraternity for the very reason you give.

I certainly wonder whether some of the "holes" or enigmas in the case might not result from these "controllers" either tidying away facts, removing evidence or conspiring to keep the whole case obscure.

I hadn't been aware, no. It makes sense, though, especially if an organized group were running vice operations in the area. A vice lord doesn't want things happening that draw widespread attention, or frighten away the custom. It's not difficult to imagine that they'd be able to call in their favours, twist a few arms, and learn facts not available to the police.

It's certainly striking too how confused and contradictory some of the evidence seems, especially that given at the Kelly inquest.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Further, I can see ways in which the Morgensterns (as brothel owners) might in some way have been known to or these six families. One assumes that these men and their close associates were well-known local, recognised and deferred to. Could that be why a man like "Astrkhan Man" could walk around with his gold so brazenly?


Phil

Currently reading the Fiona Rule book for the second time.

She clearly says that the Jewish population and gangs in Spitalfields were located in the enclave south of Dorset Street: Butler, Freeman, Palmer, Tilley.
The cockney-irish population was pushed toward the market. There was great resentment against the Jewish population, especially on Dorset Street.
Astrakhan man, if he existed, made a very bold move.