Dew's early years.........

[The Station Cat]

Have just started reading "The man who caught Crippen" by Nicholas Connell.

Some things have come to light already, which I'd very much like to hear other forum members views on.......

Dew joined the Met in 1882 and was posted to Paddington Green Station (X Division), I assume that he was resident in the station at this period. Then in 1886 gets married and moves with his wife to Tinnis Street, Bethnal Green (which is some 40 minute bike ride to Paddington Green Station), which could hardly be described as living locally which I had always been lead to believe officers had to be, to their respective station and beggars the question, why? I have been unable to locate exactly where in Bethnal Green, Tinnis Street was, so I assume it's either been renamed or redeveloped and no longer exists.
Anyway in 1887 Dew joins the CID and is posted to H Division, he has grave concerns for his wife and children having to move to such a place as Whitechapel. Yet they've been living in Bethnal Green, which is right next door and just as bad?

[David Orsam]

But where is the actual evidence that Dew was living in Bethnal Green while he was in X Division? Connell says he moved to Bethnal Green at some point after his marriage in November 1886 but doesn't say when. It may be that he's taken this information from the birth certificate of Walter Dew (born 7 October 1887).

And evidently Dew didn't move to Whitechapel after his transfer to H Division because his son's baptism record of 15 January 1888 shows that he was living at 38 Leopold Buildings in Bethnal Green at the time.

Without having done any research into the issue myself, can I suggest that Dew probably moved from Paddington to Bethnal Green after his transfer to Whitechapel?

[The Station Cat]

I'm inclined to agree with you Dave, it seems strange to me that a young Dew would be traveling from Bethnal Green to Paddington Green everyday and then when he is posted to Whitechapel have concerns for his wife and kids, as there would seem little reason to move from Bethnal Green address to a new one Whitechapel when there so close to each other. Why bother moving?
It should also be noted that dispite it's reputation there are areas of Whitechapel and indeed Bethnal Green that were quite respectable?



"On 15 November 1886 Dew married coachman’s daughter Kate Morris
4 at Christ Church, Notting
Hill. They moved to Tinnis Street, Bethnal Green, and would eventually have five children: Walter (b.
1887), Ethel (b. 1891), Stanley (b. 1893), Kate May (b. 1895) and Dorothy Bertha (b. 1903). Another
son, Raymond, died in infancy in 1891."


Would be interested to here from anyone who can shine any light on this for me......

[David Orsam]

The other thing I would say is that while there is no Tinnis Street in Bethnal Green there is (and was) a Finnis Street and that would be easy to misread on a birth certificate.

[Robert]

I can't find Dew at Finnis/Tinnis Street. However, Connell is very good so I assume he had a reason for writing it.

In 1891 Dew was at 26 Macfarlane Rd, Hammersmith.

[Simon Wood]

In 1884 Walter Dew was Constable 312X [Kilburn].

See: The Times, 21st March 1884

[Pierre]

The other thing I would say is that while there is no Tinnis Street in Bethnal Green there is (and was) a Finnis Street and that would be easy to misread on a birth certificate.

MISREAD?

HOW can an F suddenly become a T?

As you can see, there are two lines on the F pointing to the right side. On the T, there is one and only one line pointing both to the right and to the left.

The general agreement, indeed, the Dominating Idea in the World, is that an F is an F and a T is a T.

The general agreement no 2, indeed the Dominating Theory and FACT (!) in the World is, as you yourself also well know, that there was and is a Finnis Street in Bethnal Green and NO TINNIS STREET.

There is therefore no way anyone can "misread" this.

And there is certainly no way anyone can "misread" the letter F written on a piece of normal paper.

It was not written in the dark, on a rough surface, and not written with chalk for example - but with a normal pen on a quite normal piece of paper!

And as I said, there was the real existing Finnis Street in the real world.

Really, David!

Pierre

[David Orsam]

MISREAD?
HOW can an F suddenly become a T?

My dear boy, I fully appreciate that you've never done any original research yourself, and have thus probably never seen any actual handwriting from the nineteenth century, but, to a modern reader, the letters "f" and "t", as they were written in the nineteenth century, are easily confused.

[Pierre]

My dear boy, I fully appreciate that you've never done any original research yourself, and have thus probably never seen any actual handwriting from the nineteenth century, but, to a modern reader, the letters "f" and "t", as they were written in the nineteenth century, are easily confused.

My dear boy David, I fully appreciate that you've never done any original research yourself, and have thus probably never seen any actual handwriting from the nineteenth century written with chalk on a brick wall, but, to a modern reader, the letters "w" and "dg", as they were written in the nineteenth century on a brick wall with a rough surface with chalk, were easily confused. That is also easily confirmed by analyzing the "copies" and references of the text, which are different.

[David Orsam]

My dear boy David, I fully appreciate that you've never done any original research yourself, and have thus probably never seen any actual handwriting from the nineteenth century written with chalk on a brick wall, but, to a modern reader, the letters "w" and "dg", as they were written in the nineteenth century on a brick wall with a rough surface with chalk, were easily confused. That is also easily confirmed by analyzing the "copies" and references of the text, which are different.

What modern reader are you referring to here my dear boy?

[GUT]

MISREAD?

HOW can an F suddenly become a T?

As you can see, there are two lines on the F pointing to the right side. On the T, there is one and only one line pointing both to the right and to the left.

Wow.

Just wow.

From one who claims to be an historian?????

[Pierre]

What modern reader are you referring to here my dear boy?

The modern reader in Victorian society, David.

[GUT]

My dear boy David, I fully appreciate that you've never done any original research yourself, and have thus probably never seen any actual handwriting from the nineteenth century written with chalk on a brick wall, but, to a modern reader, the letters "w" and "dg", as they were written in the nineteenth century on a brick wall with a rough surface with chalk, were easily confused. That is also easily confirmed by analyzing the "copies" and references of the text, which are different.

As someone has recently been crying out on another thread totally OFF TOPIC. If you want to talk about your stupid little theory that w=dg go back to the thread you started about it.

[Pierre]

Wow.

Just wow.

From one who claims to be an historian?????

And here comes the handyman trying to repair the mistake of his master.

[GUT]

Just maybe this will assist the great one.