Toffs in Spitalfields

[Sam Flynn]

Hi WK,

It was neither my intention to deny the possibility, nor to chase Nats from the boards. My interest was in the veracity of the "toffs and tarts" idea, not in disproving the Excursions of Mr Astrakhan per se, although I'm as sceptical of his existence as I ever was.

I would still tend to refute even the possibility that any man earning more than 40 shillings per week would have wanted to procure sex with the degraded "unfortunates" of Spitalfields, still less gone there in search of it.

[White-Knight]

Not to divert the gist of you folks' thread, but if I was a "toff", and London was rife with prostitutes in a number of locations, I think I'd prefer to venture into areas where the atmosphere was preferable for conducting business and avoid ,as much as, possible areas where the chances,odds,what gave you, of being assaulted and/or robbed were greater. Common sense,I'd say. Chances are that if I had enough dosh ( as a "toff" would), I'd use it along with my head and steer clear of the East End at nigh

thing is Howard, we're not talking about your sexuality are we? Much of this thread seems to have been concerned with the weight of evidence for creating a generalised picture..and I'm sure yourself, Sam and Ben are right that crass media have created a false impression of toffs commonly slumming it.

I hate to lower the tone ha ha! but...a few years ago a GROUP of men was reported in the german press to have taken sexual solace in nailing each other's scrotums to the floor!...compared to them a toff preferring some 'real rough' ,in a possibly more exciting high risk area, rather than the painted prostitutes of the west end is practically pedestrian in his sexuality, no matter how deviant or unlikely he may seem to us! Are you and the others really so naieve about the potential for the 'inconceivable' in human sexual relations?

I don't know how common Norma really saw what you lads claim to be a somewhat mythical phenomenon, but it seems a shame that by denying her almost any possibity for this having happened, you seem to have chased her off the boards altogether!?

Then again, I'm just a pompous moralizer!.Ask Ally! lol!

regards,

WK.

[Ben]

Agreed wholehearedly, How.

I'm sure I'd do the same!

[Howard Brown]

Not to divert the gist of you folks' thread, but if I was a "toff", and London was rife with prostitutes in a number of locations, I think I'd prefer to venture into areas where the atmosphere was preferable for conducting business and avoid ,as much as, possible areas where the chances,odds,what gave you, of being assaulted and/or robbed were greater. Common sense,I'd say. Chances are that if I had enough dosh ( as a "toff" would), I'd use it along with my head and steer clear of the East End at nigh

[Sam Flynn]

If thats correct... why would anyone assume based on what we know about the times and area, that is wasnt?

I suspect it's because the idea is deeply embedded in Ripper lore, particularly in the "Hollywood" view of the East End of the Victorian Period, and not just those based during the "Autumn of Terror". The image seems to owe as much to Oliver! as it does to innumerable Ripper-based movies and the odd sensationalist book.

[Ben]

If thats correct... why would anyone assume based on what we know about the times and area, that is wasnt?

That isn't so much as assumption, Mike, and a deduction from the existing evidence. Simply put, there were prostitutes throughout London, including hundreds of them "up west", and since any prostitute would be considered "common" to a well-heeled gent, there was no reason for them to venture into a particularly bad pocket of the East End purely for that purpose.

Best,

Ben

By a post Sam made a while back Im assuming that others see the answer to this question as means to validate or discount that the East End was considered a "Red Light district" at the time, one that might attract toffs for the bordellos or the more common street prostitutes.

If thats correct... why would anyone assume based on what we know about the times and area, that is wasnt? Curious.

Cheers

[DVV]

That is incorrect. Hutchinson observed astrakhan for some time. Plenty of time to take in all the details of his dress such as white buttons etc. Hutchinson was within a few feet of the man while standing beneath a light, so weather conditions and darkness would not enter the equation regarding his observing his tie-pin. How long does it take to recognise a horseshoe shape?

I agree that astrakhan is not a "toff" in the accepted sense of the word. To me he seems to be a man of moderate means dressed more for travelling.

I would not consider his tie-pin and watch chain to be particularly opulent. It would only take the closing of his coat to hide these ornaments if he felt he had to. He was also confident enough to look Hutchinson in the face "stern".

The fact that a serial killer was on the loose may have attracted more curious people to the area than kept them away. Also, the increased presence of the police would have caused visitors to the area to feel safer.

I suspect that astrakhan was not too familiar with the area - probably having arrived via train for the holiday - and was persuaded by Kelly to enter Dorset St. with the promise that he would be comfortable. Otherwise he may well have continued up the main thoroughfare seeking any "entertainment" that came his way.

There was still quite a lot of activity in the streets at 2am so it is not as if he was wandering in an otherwise deserted Whitechapel in the small hours with gold on display.

Hi Nemo,
if Astrakhan Man had ever existed, why was he only noticed by Hutch?
Many newspapers have reported Hutch's account, but nobody came forward to confirm it, though the description was detailed enough.
Where was he before 2.00 ? Where was he when he left Kelly?
Nowhere.
'Cause he never existed.
Amitiés,
David

[Ally]

Less plausible, yes.
Impossible? No.

[Ben]

Hi Ally,

It is incorrect to say that it is impossible to pick up several small details in a person's appearance in a split second.

I'd have to disagree. Here we're not just talking about several details being committed to memory within a fleeting second in very poor light conditions. We're talking about items there were very unlikely to have been noticed in the first place, let alone memorized and churned out in a neat order several times thereafter. Noticing things like the colour of people's eyelashes, the shape of their tie pin, and the style and colour of the buttons on their boots with a fleeting moment in dark Victorian London and bad weather was bad enough, but claiming to have memorized them is even less plausible.

Not even tests for so-called photographic memory have those expectations.

All the best,
Ben

[Ally]

Ben,

It is incorrect to say that it is impossible to pick up several small details in a person's appearance in a split second. Many people are able to lock in and remember in detail things that they see in a split second, without further study.

Whether Hutchinson was such a person possessed of this talent, I don't know, whether the light was sufficient for him to see those things, I don't know. And I doubt he saw the man he claimed to see.

But the statement has repeatedly been made that people can't pick up on more than one specific detail at a time, and that is false.

[Ben]

That is incorrect. Hutchinson observed astrakhan for some time.

No, it isn't incorrect.

The only interval of time Hutchinson had to notice any minor accessorial detail relating to the appearance of "Mr. Astrakhan" was the fleeting second when he allegedly passed him at close quarters near a gas lamp, and you can't notice, let alone memorize, a whole array of detail all at once. Before and after that fleeting moment, he would have been a man in dark clothes and hat with something in his hands. He certainly couldn't have noticed any white buttons as he followed him from behind, and before then he was too far away.

Hutchinson was within a few feet of the man while standing beneath a light

Actually, I don't recall any such distance being specified. It can't have been a wall lamp attached to the pub, since Hutchinson specified that he stood against the lamp itself, not a wall, and the only street lamp we know about in that locality was several yards into Fashion Street.

so weather conditions and darkness would not enter the equation regarding his observing his tie-pin.

Of course they would. We're talking about a Victorian gas lamp, the light of which was many feet above the ground and emitted only a very dim glow. That certainly wasn't sufficient to notice a horseshoe tie pin even on a starry night at the height of summer. In fact, short of a torch being shined directly on the man's torso after requesting that he stand still for a period, there's no chance that such a small item could have been noticed, especially if he's also claiming to have noticed many other equally minor details within the space of that same fleeting moment.

How long does it take to recognise a horseshoe shape?

About as long as it would take for the Astrakhan man to pass under the gas lamp. Too bad Hutchinson was concentrating on his face at that time.

To me he seems to be a man of moderate means dressed more for travelling.

Hardly. Horseshoe tie-pins, thick gold chains, and tightly-grapsed parcels don't really announce the seasoned "traveller" to me, let alone one who ventures into a known crime hotspot.

I would not consider his tie-pin and watch chain to be particularly opulent. It would only take the closing of his coat to hide these ornaments if he felt he had to.

A thick gold chain on proud display seems pretty opulent to me, and I can't think of a better incentive to button up that when venturing into the worst area in London at a time when twitchy vigilantes were all anxious to nab the ripper, who they believed to be Jewish, sinister looking, possibly a doctor. Not that I really believe that a thick gold chain and seal would be visible under two overcoats.

He was also confident enough to look Hutchinson in the face "stern".

Because Hutchinson says so, naturally. But then we get the odd contradiction of the man trying to conceal his face on the one hand, and then staring Hutchinson straight in the face on the other.

The fact that a serial killer was on the loose may have attracted more curious people to the area than kept them away.

During the day time, inconspicuously dressed, in groups, joining the throngs visiting the murder sites, very probably, but solo-trips at night in the ripper's locality during the hours when the ripper was known to be active - markedly less probable. Even the former group were capable of being persued by suspicion crazed-mobs. I don't think anyone would have felt particularly safe on account of the police presence. There were none visible around Dorset Street that night, and it was well known that the killer was continuing his grisly craft in spite on their increased presence.

I suspect that astrakhan was not too familiar with the area - probably having arrived via train for the holiday

So you think he'd want to spend his holiday in one of the worst slums in London where a serial killer was active, and where outsiders became the subject of suspicion just for looking out of place? Wow. As we've discovered from this thread, in any event, the notion that wealthy outsiders went there for fun is a myth that belongs on the skip.

There was still quite a lot of activity in the streets at 2am

Not by most reliable accounts, there wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

[Howard Brown]

Sammy,John,Ben,Roy,& Nats:

My fox in the midst of all the flies( sorry to alter your original phrase in a more better way,Roy ) is that I think it is highly likely that Prof. Frayling's position ( as provided in the documentary, "Shadow Of The Ripper") on Fleet Street "inventing" not only the level of concern or furor over and about the WM among the citizens contemporaneously is applicable to our perception of male 'toffs" waltzing about the area looking for some ringdangdoo... I believe that even those who slummed did so during the early part of the day ( Baroness D'Orczy mentions outsiders slumming somewhere,but I can't find the sumbitchin' source right now).

Don't split,Nats. The thread has brought up a lot of good information and each side of the argument ought to be heard. All sides gain in the long run. ...I'm digging it the most.

[Nemo]

Whether that was true of not, it was still utterly beyond the realms of even vague possibility to notice the shape of a tie pin in darkness and miserable weather conditions in Victorian London, within the space of a fleeting second, in addition to noticing lots and lots of other equally minute details of his appearance elsewhere on his person, let alone memorize all of it.

That is incorrect. Hutchinson observed astrakhan for some time. Plenty of time to take in all the details of his dress such as white buttons etc. Hutchinson was within a few feet of the man while standing beneath a light, so weather conditions and darkness would not enter the equation regarding his observing his tie-pin. How long does it take to recognise a horseshoe shape?

I agree that astrakhan is not a "toff" in the accepted sense of the word. To me he seems to be a man of moderate means dressed more for travelling.

I would not consider his tie-pin and watch chain to be particularly opulent. It would only take the closing of his coat to hide these ornaments if he felt he had to. He was also confident enough to look Hutchinson in the face "stern".

The fact that a serial killer was on the loose may have attracted more curious people to the area than kept them away. Also, the increased presence of the police would have caused visitors to the area to feel safer.

I suspect that astrakhan was not too familiar with the area - probably having arrived via train for the holiday - and was persuaded by Kelly to enter Dorset St. with the promise that he would be comfortable. Otherwise he may well have continued up the main thoroughfare seeking any "entertainment" that came his way.

There was still quite a lot of activity in the streets at 2am so it is not as if he was wandering in an otherwise deserted Whitechapel in the small hours with gold on display.

[miss marple]

I know Norma is feeling attacked at the moment, but I must take issue on her comment Census records lie. I have done a lot of genealogical research and mistakes are made, usually wrong age, place of birth, wrong spelling of name, particularly foreign names. sometimes people lie about their age, or its estimated, sometimes not every birth place is checked, but in conjunction with other records and BMDs, things work out.
What has never happened is wholesale substitution of one social class for another, a complete fantasy.To suggest so is complete nonsense and flies in the face of all the evidence.
Lets just forget facts and primary evidence and believe in flying saucers shall we.
I suggest Norma, instead of reading secondary sources all the time you, look at primary sources yourself.
Miss Marple