Toffs in Spitalfields

[Ben]

Immitation fur, I think, AP.

[Cap'n Jack]

In poor light one could always make the mistake that mutton was lamb.

[Ben]

Absolutely, and a real thick gold chain could just as easily be confused for a fake one.

I doubt any would-be mugger would make the necessary discerment, though.

[miss marple]

Astrakhan

Astrakhan is made from lambs foetus, which is why it was so expensive, and only used in small quantities for collars and cuffs. A full astrakhan coat would be a kings ransom, but the fake astrakhan cloth is excellent and made collars and coats. I have examples of a real astrakhan collar and astrakhan fabric coats,[ which were fashionable in the fifties]You can see the difference when they are side by side, real astrakhan is softer and irregular curly. The fake stuff is harder , more regular and stiffer.
Cheers Miss Marple

[Cap'n Jack]

Interesting that the Teddy Boy culture that exploded out of the East end of London in the 1950's was typified by the lads wearing fake astrakhan collars.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Ben;60289]No, Norma.

That cannot possibly have been the case, or else Abberline would have made reference to this in his private, internal report intended for police circulation only, rather than introducing Hutchinson as someone who was very clearly new to them. There was no hint of "Here's a witness statement from that helpful dobber we stationed in the district to report on dodgy behaviour, remember him?"





Quite true Ben.


However,Abberline"s lesser known activities appear to have involved work in Special[Irish] Branch on Fenian issues. Here the policy sometimes included these detectives using local informants esp. in Fenians pubs. Sir Edward Jenkinson"s private files -which Jenkinson destroyed by burning after Monro and Anderson got rid of him,included using local men and women who hung out in pubs and kept their noses to the ground,receiving a little remuneration for their snouting.Anderson ,in his dual roles , kept highly secretive his own information when wearing his "SpyMaster" hat [ on local Fenian activity] and as the maestro of "disinformation" nothing was as straightforward as it may seem-please dont come back on Anderson here---its purely an illustration of the secrecy that surrounded many East End informants activities---nothing to do with Anderson and the Ripper case.
On another tack,the City of London Police were allowed in pubs by Henry Smith ,at the time of the ripper scare, to "listen out" for-even join , local gossip ,so as to pick up clues about the ripper, but Warren would not allow the Met.police to even enter a pub,so that particularly after the Goulston Street graffiti fiasco ,Henry Smith as Chief Commissioner of City Police and Warren of Scotland Yard were very far from singing from the same song sheet -and this persisted when Monro/Anderson were put in charge .So we have a clear example of starkly contrasting police procedures right next to each other geographically.Therefore, we do not know,will probably never know, whether ,for example,George Hutchinson was "known" by the City Police but not by the Met or EVEN that Abberline himself later acquired information on Hutchinson from "somewhere other than official files " that eventually led to the Hutchinson testimony being discarded.





With regard to Mr Astrakhan.Ever heard of Arthur Harding?A local villain, he eventually led an East End gang-he was the man who remembered McCarthy as a bully/pimp.Reading about him in another book on the East End by Ed Glinert its clear some gang leaders dressed themselves up very smartly indeed -the Krays did too actually -but in a later,1950"s pre-Armani type style.Some of the gangland bosses certainly seem to have dressed very smart according to Glinert ---gold chains ,smart suits -known and feared by the local villains -especially if they knew them to be carrying knives.


re Fournier Street I thought it was you yourself and Sam who quoted Booth as saying "comfortably off"---those were the words used.That doesnt mean "working class" to most people ! Anyway, lets leave it for a few days- I want to check a few things out.

Best
norma

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting that the Teddy Boy culture that exploded out of the East end of London in the 1950's was typified by the lads wearing fake astrakhan collars.

I thought that Teds' collars usually had a fake silk trim, AP, rather than astrakhan.

[Cap'n Jack]

That's what I'm trying to say, Sam, but when they struck rich they got astrakhan.
But in the dark who gives a damn.

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting that the Teddy Boy culture that exploded out of the East end of London in the 1950's was typified by the lads wearing fake astrakhan collars.

---and always carrying a large chain---of various metals!

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

However,Abberline"s lesser known activities appear to have involved work in Special[Irish] Branch on Fenian issues. Here the policy sometimes included these detectives using local informants esp. in Fenians pubs.

I don't doubt that this occured. My point was that it can't have occured in Hutchinson's case, or else Abberline would certainly have mentioned it in his internal police report. It's one thing to withhold details from press and public, but quite another for an inspector to withhold details from his own police superiors.

Therefore, we do not know,will probably never know, whether ,for example,George Hutchinson was "known" by the City Police but not by the Met

If he was an informer for the City Police, but not the Met, it's very unlikely that he'd report directly to the Met in what was obviously Met terriroty, surely?

I'm sure the Krays did arrite themselves smartly but the East End was very, very different in their hey-day, and generally speaking, the sort of loadsamoney Del-boy types didn't exist in the late Victorian period. I'm pretty sure Arthur Harding and his ilk did not parade his flashy bling around the worst pocket of the East End in the LVP at the height of a murder scare.

Booth as saying "comfortably off"---those were the words used.That doesnt mean "working class" to most people !

The terms Booth used to describe Fournier Street was "fairly comfortable", and "good, ordinary wages". There's no mutual exclusivity between wth these descriptions and "working class", and when we examine the occupancy of that street in 1891, we find that it was exclusively populated by working class folk with "ordinary wages".

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

re Fournier Street I thought it was you yourself and Sam who quoted Booth as saying "comfortably off"---those were the words used.

It wasn't me who thus quoted Booth, Nats - not that I mind. You make a useful point nonetheless. That is, if capmakers, barmen and bonnet-wirers constituted the "fairly comfortable" of Spitalfields, then the Fournier Street census to which I linked provides a useful benchmark for Booth's definitions.

[rjpalmer]

Mrs. Marple in her long post about West End molly houses appears to be implying that toffs never entered the East End, because surely any man in his right mind would prefer the clean girls of Mrs. Rose’s Flogging-house.

First of all, though I can appreciate where Mrs. Marple is coming from, it’s an irrelevant observation because the Ripper wasn’t in his right mind, and we can’t assume that Astrakhan was either; second of all, the alleged toff in question is not being accused of sleeping with Mary Kelly’s fleas---only with ripping her into little pieces.


Last of all, the implication is untrue. Victorian England was a very class divided society, but that’s the whole point; what is being undervalued is that some middle and upper-middle class men had a ‘thing’ for working-class women; their very roughness had an erotic appeal--a suggestion of carnality that nice ladies in Mayfair didn’t possess. Recall, for instance, that many men were raised in their nurseries by working-class women while their high-class mummies were in the parlour in ridiculous custumes or entertaining high brow friends at societal dinners. Some of those early yearnings are not easy to forget.

Along with Norma''s mention of Arthur Harding, Ms. Marple can find another example of a very different kind of unlikely ‘toff’ in Francois Barret-Ducrocq’s book, Love in the Time of Victoria, which is an account of foundling hospital admission records in Victorian England. Many of these working-class women describe being seduced (or raped) by ‘gentlemen’ or middle-class employers. Barret-Ducrocqu also quotes at considerable length from the private notebooks of one Victorian literary bloke & lech. In one of Munby’s episodes, he picks up a working-class girl in the Strand, and then walks her all the way back to a shabby lane in Mile-End, in what he describes as a ‘miserable, rubbish-strewn street.” He doesn’t, evidently, sleep with the young woman, or, if he did, doesn’t admit it; he was just curious and liked the company of ‘lower class’ women.

So there you have it, Ms. Marple, a West End ‘toff’ wandering into a backstreet in East London at night and living to tell about it.

But really, folks, what on earth does any of this have to do with the ‘reality’ or ‘unreality’ of Mr. Astrakan?

No one is implying that Martha Tabram didn’t have an occasional flea. But what precisely does that tell us about the truth or untruth of Hutchinson’s story?

Ben & Co.’s whole argument boils down to one thing: the story is untrue because it is unlikely.

Curious logic.

Unlikely things happen all the time. Scatch back the onion peel and you'll find Whitechapel is one huge jumble of unlikely events and people. Further, the very fact that M. Astrakhan is unlikely and reckless and unconcerned may well be an important element in understanding his psychology or even in identifying him.

Yes, Norma; your commonsense is appreciated. Fred Abberline knew more about what happened in the backstreets of H-Division than any modern day historian. It seems odd, then, for some to argue that Hutchinson's story is self-evidently bogus.

[Ben]

Hi Roger,

First of all, though I can appreciate where Mrs. Marple is coming form, it’s an irrelevant observation because the Ripper wasn’t in his right mind, and we can’t assume that Astrakhan was either

To be fair - and with due respect - it does come across as a slight cop-out to justify unlikely behaviour on the grounds that the ripper was a crazy, and a crazy person just might..." This type of reasoning takes us away from what we know of serial killers, the majority of whom are not conspicuous and go to great pains to avoid capture, never drawing unnecessary attention to themselves unless they perceive an advantage in doing so, and there was absolutely no advantage whatsoever in attiring onesself in a manner that was onlly likely to attract attention from thieves, coppers, vigilant committe members, over-zealous informers and enraged members of the puplic eager to linch anyone even slightly out of place.

what is being undervalued is that some middle and upper-middle class men had a ‘thing’ for working-class women; their very roughness had an erotic appeal--a suggestion of carnality that nice ladies in Mayfair didn’t possess.

Yes, but practically all prostitutes were "working class woman". Mayfair had prostitutes, and if the hypothetical toff was concerned about being seen on the prozzie-prowl in Mayfair, there were many other better-heeled locations in London which also boasted a generous share of "low-class" prostitutes, which once again eradicated any need to venture into the very worst area of London purely for that purpose. It really wasn't a black and white choice between society debutantes in Belgravia or a cluster of prostitutes in a very dodgy and very specific region of the East End.

It was never in dispute that West-End toffs used prostitutes, even East End ones occasions. What is under heavy - and frankly successful - dispute is the notion that they would parade their wealth in the most ostentatious manner imaginable in what was known to be one of the worst slums in London. "The ripper was crazy and crazy people do crazy things" just doesn't cut it. If it did, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of nonsensical theories from Lewis Carrol to Billy Gull.

You can apply that logic to any theory and any suspect, but ultimately, it takes us away from what we know to be true about most perpetrators of serial crime, and accepting that such an unlikely happenstance as the walking, talking encapsulation of everything that press and public feared suddenly waltzing into view as if to say "Yes, I was the picture-perfect bogeyman you all thought I would be" is a step in the wrong direction.

Unlikely things happen occasionally, true, but likely things crop more frequently, and if we're getting into the specifics of what likely event happened here, my money's on some deeply dodgy bloke wheeling in the silliest scapegoat imaginable when he became concerned that he might be fingered.

Fred Abberline knew more about what happened in the backstreets of H-Division than any modern day historian. It seems odd, then, to argue that the story is self-evidently bogus.

Well, the account was clearly dismissed as having little or no value shortly after it appeared, so Abberline can't have buffaloed too drastically in the end.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Roger and AP,
Yes-the matter of "dress" and "puttin on the style" is particularly apt with regards to some of the the East End gangs and the gangster!Tarantino"s "Reservoir Dogs" are all kitted out in "Agnes b" -the French cult designer"s sharply tailored black suits worn with white shirts and shades !And this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned Ed Glinert"s book on East End Gangs-including Victorian ones,and how some of these gangs were very much the precursors to the 50"s Teddy Boys with their fake Edwardian gear , DA haircuts, astrakhan trims , sparkling knuckle dusters and glittering chains.Some of them certainly culivated quite the dramatic style!

Drama and dress code were [and are often ]fundamental to gangland "uniform"- and the East End gangs knew how to put on the style.
Norma

[Ben]

I mentioned Ed Glinert"s book on East End Gangs-including Victorian ones,and how some of these gangs were very much the precursors to the 50"s Teddy Boys with their fake Edwardian gear , DA haircuts, astrakhan trims , sparkling knuckle dusters and glittering chains.

Hi Norma - So you've examples of East End gangs from the Victorian era wearing Astrakhan coats and fake gold "glittering" chains and knuckle dusters? If not, I'm afraid we're in danger again of venturing into "questionable relevance" territory, as we are with Reservoir Dogs.

Ben