Victoria Working Men's Home, Commercial St East

[Lechmere]

From these reports it is fairly obvious that Larkin was the only man from the Victoria Home arrested. The East End News only mentions one man from the Victoria Home. If two people from the Victoria Home were arrested and both were released partly on the say so of the deputy, then that coincidence would surely have been commented upon.

The East End News saying
“Several arrests were made on Wednesday, though it would not seem that they were productive of any good results.”
Probably refers to Larkin and this one:
“Shortly before midnight a man, who was noticed to solicit several unfortunates with considerable persistency, was arrested in Commercial-street, on suspicion of being the murderer of Alice Mackenzie; but little importance is attached to the circumstance, and he is only detained pending enquiries.”

The police did a lot of checking out and certainly had these lodging houses in their focus. The Victoria Home must have been turned over more times than a pancake on Shrove Tuesday.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

If two people from the Victoria Home were arrested and both were released partly on the say so of the deputy, then that coincidence would surely have been commented upon.

But not if the reference to the "Victoria Lodging House" that appeared in two of the newspapers had created the misleading impression that one of the men arrested was from the East Smithfield lodging house. This would lessen the "coincidence" factor quite considerably. Even if the press at large were able to recognise that the two descriptions referred to the same lodging house, it still wouldn't have been all that coincidental, considering the crime scene's proximity to the Home, where upwards of 400 men were nightly lodgers.

The man who was "noticed to solicit several unfortunates" was apparently arrested after Wednesday, and probably on the Friday. He could not, therefore, have been been amongst the "several arrests" that occurred on Wednesday.

The police did a lot of checking out and certainly had these lodging houses in their focus. The Victoria Home must have been turned over more times than a pancake on Shrove Tuesday.

There was only so much a good "turning over" could achieve in those days, though, that's the problem. The killer could easily have been right under the noses of the police in such an establishment, without them being in a position to find any evidence to incriminate, let alone identify, the offender.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

There was only so much a good "turning over" could achieve in those days, though, that's the problem. The killer could easily have been right under the noses of the police in such an establishment, without them being in a position to find any evidence to incriminate, let alone identify, the offender.

So true !

The Police today rely on cameras and advances in DNA and computer (mobile phone) forensics to get their man -and it's still difficult to get someone into Court.

Imagine just how difficult it was to find any cunning killer that took a few precautions in 1888. Especially in a city like
London, and especially in an area full of immigrants, itinerant casual workers, and people using aliases -and no NI numbers, ID cards, or bank accounts to trace.

[Lechmere]

I read it that the Commercial Street kerb crawler was arrested before midnight on the Wednesday – the day of the crime.

I wouldn’t fancy being a late night stalker with flecks of blood on my clothing and stay in a place that the police could be guaranteed to turn up to every time I had been about my business, but that’s just me.

[Sally]

Several arrests were made on Wednesday, though it would not seem that they were productive of any good results

Reynold's Paper, 21st July 1889

'Several' arrests were made, apparently, over the days immediately following the murder of McKenzie. I don't really see why the 'Lurker' and the 'Runner' have to be the same man - on the face of it, they appear to be different men (on account of their behaviours). Whether or not they were both living at the Victoria Home and were exonerated by the Deputy (Charles Mowl, most like) is harder to decide - quite possible, for reasons already outlined by Ben.

[Rubyretro]

I wouldn’t fancy being a late night stalker with flecks of blood on my clothing and stay in a place that the police could be guaranteed to turn up to every time I had been about my business, but that’s just me.

[/QUOTE]

But aren't you the person who has a favourite suspect with a wife and family ?

Weighing up whether I'd rather be a "late night stalker with 'flecks of blood on my clothing' (although I rather think that the killer would have taken what precautions he could beforehand, to minimise that), and an anonymous face in the lodging house -but supported by what mates I had...

..or, a late night stalker with a wife who did my laundry and wanted a detailed account of where I'd been and what I'd done of a "late night" when I
wasn't home..

I'm not sure that the choice is as "cut and dried' as you suggest..

[Lechmere]

I am that very same person Miss Retro, but he was invariably on his way to work when he dun it, not on his way home, which gave him a chance to clean himself up before returning. And the police weren't always turning his house over.

[Sally]

Yep..

The Victoria Home would have made a note of a lodger's name when he purchased a pass (once a week for those in possession of a weekly pass), but not every time every lodger entered and exited the building.

Yes.

All names are registered but nothing else (at the ordinary doss-houses no particulars of any kind are taken)

Interview with A. Wilké March 1898 Booth B227

(original emphasis)

Character reference from one of the deputies perhaps, but I think we can forget any notions of 'histories' being taken down with regard to the lodgers. The degree to which a lodger was expected to account for himself does not appear to have been great.

[Lechmere]

I assume names were taken each time and maybe a tick put against people when they actually stayed. It depends what you define as histories. You also have to bear in mind that this interview was ten years later.
The full interview (held at the LSE?) would be interesting to see.

[Ben]

Many thanks for that, Sally.

I think we can dispense once and for all with the idea that names were taken of lodgers whenever they entered and exited the building.

[Sally]

I assume names were taken each time and maybe a tick put against people when they actually stayed. It depends what you define as histories. You also have to bear in mind that this interview was ten years later.
The full interview (held at the LSE?) would be interesting to see.

Assume whatever you wish, Lechmere, there is nothing to suggest that it was the case so far as I am aware. I don't think the fact that the interview was ten years later makes a whit of difference in this case. The Victoria Homes were goverened by committee. They had policies, budgets, that sort of thing - if there was any change at all to the policy of taking names - in which they were alone until the emergence of the 'monster' doss houses - then it would have been forward looking, not backwards - since they were always striving to improve. In other words, I could accept that perhaps to begin with they took no details and evolved a policy whereby they did - but certainly not that they once took detailed 'histories' and later decided not to bother.

And anyway - why bother? They didn't admit any known bad characters. They had rules which helped them keep order. They had a team of staff on site to expel anybody causing trouble - taking histories would have been nothing more than an unecessary administrative headache.

I'm writing an article on the homes at the moment - hopefully it will be enlightening.

[Sally]

Many thanks for that, Sally.

I think we can dispense once and for all with the idea that names were taken of lodgers whenever they entered and exited the building.

Ben - I think the purpose of taking names had two main purposes. First and foremost, it was to keep track of the number of beds let. The great majority of lodgers lived there - we see this from the beginning of the Victoria Home's life - so there were a limited number of beds available for casual or transient lodgers.

Secondly, the Victoria Home kept accounts. If a man was expelled for any reason, his lodging money was returned in full. The register of names facilitated this practice.

There is no evidence that the names of lodgers were taken on entry and exit to the building so far. I am researching the homes at the moment - if anything comes up, you'll be the first to know

[Monty]

Sally,

Have you read John Bennetts piece entitled 'The Rookery' in Rip issue 105 (Aug 2009)?

Monty

[Sally]

Sally,

Have you read John Bennetts piece entitled 'The Rookery' in Rip issue 105 (Aug 2009)?

Monty

Thanks Monty - not yet, I'm still looking at contemporary sources. But I'll certainly read it - I'll try to track down a copy.

[Lechmere]

I think I'll have to take a trip down to the LSE to have a look