Toffs in Spitalfields

[White-Knight]

Many thanks for the consideration, all!

Come back, Norma..these boys and girls ain't so bad!

WK.

[Ben]

It should be remebered that Hutchinson may have seen astrakhan on the Sunday following the murder of Kelly. This may have given him a further opportunity to scrutinise the man.

When he was wearing exactly the same clothes and wearing exactly the same accessories, Nemo? It doesn't ring true to me, I'm afraid.

Then there's that rather humerous incongruity between Hutchinson's claim to recongnise the man "anywhere", and his subsequent claim that he "fancied" that he saw him again on Petticoat Lane (Oooh, where the Jews live and congregate!) but "could not be certain". The fact that the description was disjointed from the text is mere officialdom on the part of police, and not an indication that he or they were incorporating two sightings.

Hutchinson may well have taken heed of Maxwell's claims that Kelly was alive on the Friday morning so he would not have wished to introduce himself into the investigation unnecessarily

Unnecessarily? What was unnecessary about reporting his observations about the movements of Mary Jane Kelly which he claimed took place an hour or so before the more commonly accepted time of death, nearer to 3:30am? Maxwell made her observations known, but it was obvious that her evidence was in the minority of opinion, when compared to those of Lewis, Prater et al, and as such, it's very unlikely that anyone reading the inquest evidence could possibly have arrived at the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence (medical or eye/ear-witness) indicated a later "Maxwellian" time of death. In any event, why wait to read (hear?) Maxwell's testimony before coming forward? What's wrong with coming forward as soon as he heard of the murders?

If he wanted to divert attention from himself, I would suggest that he would give a vague description and not contend that astrakhan lived in the area and could be identified.

On the contrary, if he wanted to divert attention away from himself, what better than to wheel in the generic popular scapegoat? The surly Jewish, parcel-clutching embodiment of the public's anxiety with regard to the ripper's likely appearance? Remember that the reason he gave for his professed interest in the court was the unusual appearance of the suspect in comparison to Kelly - a reason that would be invalidated if the description was only "vague".

Just because no-one else saw astrakhan does not mean he does not exist - that is at the very least an unreasonable assumption. The same could be said for blotchy and others if that were the case.

That doesn't follow at all. Blotchy was incredibly inconspicious for the district. If he passed along the alleyways and thoroughfares in the murder districts, he'd be unnoticed as Mr. generic Joe Average. Astrakhan, by contrast, would have stood out a mile, bedecked as he was in his finery which would have been incredibly conspicuous for the district.

I still hold that numerous smartly dressed men frequented the East End at all times of day or night and that there was much activity on the streets, especially the main thoroughfares.

But on what basis are you "holding" to that belief? It has been satisfactorily established from this thread, that no evidence of toffery parading into the East End occured, and the reasons for this absence of toffery had been given equally good thread-time.

There is no reason why a prospective client on the Commercial Rd could not be persuaded by Kelly to walk a short distance along Dorset St. to her room.

I know, but then there's no evidence that anyone remotely as opulently-attried was the Astrakhan man venturing into a known slum during the Autum of Terror simply to procure a prostitute, for reasons enumerated more than enough times in this discussion.

When astrakhan arrived at the court entrance, he may have had some misgivings - hence the delay before he actually ventured into the court.

Of course he'd have misgivings. He'd accompanied a prostitute to the very worst street in the entirety of greater London with evidence of his wealth on ostentatious display, and he'd done so in the certainty that a total stranger had clocked him at close quarters and who had then followed him all the way to his intended destination. Why good would a "delay" do to ennervate any "misgivings"? For all he knew, Hutchinson could have been a ripper-hunting zealot or a mugger, and yet he decided to ensconce himself in a one-exit room.

[Nemo]

In reference to my previous post

...Commercial St. (sorry) not Commercial Rd

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Thanks for answering my question earlier....but the answers did remind me that "toff" might need qualifying, unless I misunderstand the usage. My impression is that anyone fairly well dressed among those in tatters would be considered a "tad better off", and might be mistaken for someone with means he does'nt possess.

I suppose that in every city... since people started gathering in them rather than the rural tribe culture that dominated prior to socialization,.... you will find a depressed area economically. Within those areas, there is prostitution. And there is also something else that might appeal to people who seek prostitutes...anonymity.

The term "slumming" pre-dates these conversations certainly, and might well be something we would see in a culture that is obsessed with what we now call "Victorian Morality",... long skirts, no plunging necklines, almost fully dressed just to go swimming....prudish behaviours.

Where might a working man, someone who had neat, new clean clothes, but not endlessly deep pockets, go to discreetly behave badly...without taking a risk he would meet anyone that knows him?

Best regards.

[Ben]

That's just it, Mike.

A "toff" was someone from the upper-class, not just someone better off.

Where might a working man, someone who had neat, new clean clothes, but not endlessly deep pockets, go to discreetly behave badly...without taking a risk he would meet anyone that knows him?

London's a huge place, Mike. If a respectable fella from out West wanted to procure prostitutes without fear of being recognised by his mother or his girlfriend, his solution was a simple one - seek out another location in the West End away from any potential dobbers. Job's a goodun. No need to venture into the very worst slum in London purely for the sake of preserving your anonymity.

Cheers,
Ben

[White-Knight]

'the worst slum in London'

Ben..your failure to even admit the possibility that this could actually be PART OF THE ATTRACTION, inspite of all the possible evidence presented to you, combined with THE FACT of individual sexual deviancy, as opposed to general pictures of the toff herd, is staggering!

Come over to my place and I'll introduce you to the heady thrill of nearly having your watch nicked!?

apart from that, you're great! lol!

WK.

[perrymason]

Thanks for clarifying the parameters Ben, because I could see working and employed slumming where people arent working, but perhaps not the "muckety-mucks".

As you say, with those kinds of means there would be far preferable sites....in a classy West End bordello for one.

However, WK's idea that the decadence might be an attraction in and of itself is plausible.

Cheers Ben, all.

[Ben]

Hi WK,

Ben..your failure to even admit the possibility that this could actually be PART OF THE ATTRACTION, inspite of all the possible evidence

I love the term "possible evidence".

Despite the various "could haves" (an argument that could be used to defend any manner of unlikely theories and suspects) the actual likelihood of toffs venturing into such a veritable abyss as 1888 Dorset Street was slim to non-existent. As Miss Marple's point illustrated, the sexually deviant toffs had arenas aplenty in the BIG West End to act out their fantasies without the unwelcomed distraction of muggers, police officials, vigilante committe activitists and zealous ripper-hunters presenting a threat to the acting-out of their depravities. We need to get away from this chasm some of us have constructed in our minds between the imagined squeaky clean "painted" prostitutes of the West End where you only had decent, pucker sex, and the exciting, decadent East which constituted a toff's playground. The reality was very different in both locations.

apart from that, you're great! lol!

Thanks, WK.

Regards,
Ben

[White-Knight]

Ben,

'possible evidence'..well if we are to believe the rippersaurs ALL evidence suggests varying degrees of possibility only!? Even your preciuos 'primary sources' can be flawed, subjective or just plain inaccurate...!

'used to defend any number of unlikely theories'...quite right too!

I'll settle for likelihood 'slim' but not 'non-existant'

'pucker sex' v 'toff's playground',
well I was never suggesting things were THAT polarised, merely that an element of these sorts of distinctions was in some cases ,and in some points of the LVP, quite possible. I don't think its a chasm...a biggish hole, maybe....?

I have found exact figures on prostitution in London for the period hard to find. Perhaps you can help me? I am assuming in the meantime you would dispute the PRIMARY source of Greenwood,for example, who, in 1869 drawing up statistics based on MET findings has Whitechapel and Spitalfields at the apex of London's prostitution figures.!? ,with FOUR TIMES the number of prostitutes on the ground than in Drury Lane and ST Giles, and TEN TIMES the number in Chelsea and surrounding area..Now do you really imagine that this demographic would have no effect whatsoever on pricing, the willingness to perform more ,shall we say 'unusual' acts and even the likelihood of the use of make-up? How's that for 'possible' evidence!?

load of rubbish?

respect,
WK.

[claire]

Safe to enter the room again?!

White Knight, I'd suggest the figures you quote regarding prostitutes on the ground are a reflection of the increased numbers of street prostitutes, rather than prostitutes per se. In the other areas you mention, I'd imagine there were proportionately more girls working in brothels, private rooms and so on. Our area was 'home' to more women who did not have any permanent accommodation, as well as those who 'diversified' into prostitution when needs required, hence the increased numbers of street workers. It's (still) nigh on impossible to gauge the extent of prostitution, since few people would give it as an occupation on the census, so we need to go by crime figures, which tend to pertain almost exclusively to street prostitutes, since those are the ones who are invariably arrested.

As for pricing, you can be perfectly sure that street girls charge less. Things change slowly in the oldest profession, after all. But whether they would provide 'unusual' services would be hit and miss (a lot of them didn't offer full sex), and many sexual proclivities would more or less demand a room rather than a space against a fence.

This is a funny old thread, since ironically, to argue that the place was a popular venue for the well-dressed aristocracy would argue against Hutch taking the time to note the minutiae of detail on Mr. A. If he was truly an unusual character, it seems more plausible that Hutch's attention would be doubly drawn to him. Personally, though, I think that the presence (or otherwise) of well-dressed, wealthy Jews (not too many of whom were, in fact, 'toffs' [dreadful word]), is an issue quite aside from Hutch, whose account is suspicious for a whole host of reasons.

It's all jolly interesting stuff, though...

[White-Knight]

Infact, Claire, the claim is that those working in brothels etc ARE incorporated and the same proportions noted, as are the numbers of such establishments themselves, the figures given for which, suggest exactly the same imbalance.
Also mention is made of the vast variance in nature or quality of such establishments.....
though I agree with you on the difficulties of gathering such data and am not entirely convinced by its accuracy myself..
its only POSSIBLE evidence after all! lol.

'would more or less demand a room'..preferably with a wooden floor to drive the nails home!..though don't underestimate what can be 'achieved' in dark corners, outside, eh?

I'm not arguing that it was a popular destination,just that for some it MAY have been.. yes he would have been v.unusual,and hence memorable, but people can be, not that I believe a word of that testimony in the first place actually.

safe as houses (of ill repute!) in here ,Claire!

many thanks,

WK.

[Ben]

Even your preciuos 'primary sources' can be flawed, subjective or just plain inaccurate...!

Except none of the primary souces myself and others have been referencing in this thread have been any of those things, WK. In fact, we've learned from modern evidence that Booth's observations about the occupancy of a particular street under contention were wholly oaccurate. No need to wrap the word "primary sources" in quotation marks, incidentally, as that is irrefutably what they are.

I don't think its a chasm...a biggish hole, maybe....?

Prostitution ran rampant throughout London, and all prostitutes would have been considered "rough" by the upper echelons. Hundreds of rough, grubby prostitutes elsewhere in London that precluded the necessity to venture into the East End.

Claire has addressed your point about demographics. Suffice to say I agree entirely with her observations. Pricing was obviously irrelevant if the prostitute-seeker was a wealthy toff, and any prostitutes soliciting them would have been willing to perform all manner of usual acts for that reason. Arguing that the East End had the monopoly on either is just wrong. Another observation worth making is that, even if we consider the strictly hypothetical premise of toffs deliberately seeking out East-End prostitutes - all the well-heeled nitwits had to do was wait in their carriages in the City on the periphery of the East for the prostitues to come to them. No need for any of them to seek out the prostitutes where they lived.

Best regards,
Ben

[claire]

Yes, it's the difficulties in data collection (jeepers! there's a sanitised phrase!) that I was thinking of...and I don't know how obvious or open brothel owners would have been (mind you, you gets what you pays for luv)

goodness me, I didn't even think of wooden floors and nails (mind you, I'd heard it was planks of wood they were using; I didn't realise that said planks had once been part of the floor. Adds a whole other dimension to it...)!..I was more thinking about grown up public school boys and the sorts of things they're reputed to enjoy in said establishments. Anyhow! Mind you, if I was off for a bit of how's yer farver with an exotic flavour (wie ist ihre Vater?/como es su padre?), I'd be keeping a very low profile indeed. After all, why pay more than you need to?

[White-Knight]

Ben, (and Claire)..

'primary' they may be in the sense of contemporaneous, which I know is the common definition..I was drawing trying to draw attention to their true value and status..but I'm not going to get into an argument about Booth with you..yes I agree, in the instance you cite, he may well have been accurate.
Do you think he was every single time,though,..no prejudice, no conjecture...!? I'm not going to start arguing about Booth though.

I think with that , as with this we will just go around in circles ....
I can see I'm never going to convince you that the place, as well as the 'lowest sort' of prostitute, who I still believe more likely lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields (the poorest slums SURELY did contain perhaps only marginally , the grubbiest prostitutes) than other parts of London was ,perhaps, part of the attraction, for SOME, but not the majority of 'toff' type individuals. Incidentally, I am not arguing that the east end had the monopoly, just an increased likelihood..

Equally you aren't going to convince me that the picture was the same all across london, for ALL toffs and ALL those turning tricks or that pricing ,irrelevant to the majority of the well heeled perhaps, could well have played a part..the appeal there too potentially lying well beyond the common-sensical.

This inspite of what YOU call sound evidence for your part and I admit as only 'possible' evidence on mine.

I'll prefer me biggish hole, but if you want to say I'm looking into a chasm ,that's fine!

why pay more (or less!) than you need to? what people do or don't pay and for what is a still more nebulous mystery but as I've said already...anomolies to the norm could be all part of the degredation, all part of the 'fun'.

Many thanks,

best wishes,

WK.

[Ben]

Hi WK,

Do you think he was every single time,though,..no prejudice, no conjecture...!?

Makes no odds, really, since we know for certain that whatever prejudices or conjectures he may have harboured about certain topics, he is proven 100% correct in his assessments as to the distribution of wealth and the class representation in certain areas. Modern research informs us as much.

I can see I'm never going to convince you that the place, as well as the 'lowest sort' of prostitute, who I still believe more likely lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields

It depends what sort of desires and tastes you want to plant on the hypothetical toffs who you claim ventured into the district. You think that maybe they had a specific preference for low prostitutes. I say that low prostitutes could be located throughout London, and could be secured with ease without the unwanted side issue of the local populace mugging or otherwise bothering you (most probably on account of the serial killer scare) before you could acheive that goal. I'd also suggest that if low prostitutes were your bag, it was a better bet to secure them where they were least likely to reject you because you were a conspicuous outsider, i.e. anywhere other than the concentrated pocket of the East End where prostitutes were being butchered.

You could even go so far as to argue that a hypothetical toffs just might relish the prospect of not only procuring prostitutes in a concentrated, circumscribed region where a serial killer was active, but also getting mugged and possibly beaten up in the process. You could make tham claim quite easily on the basis that "a man with weird tastes just might...", and I couldn't rule it out as an "impossibility" in the strict sense. It wouldn't make it any more plausible, though, and I feel a line ought to be drawn somewhere.

Best regards,
Ben