Toffs in Spitalfields

[miss marple]

Theatre

There is no evidence that John McCarthy's knew Marie Lloyd as early as 1888. In 1888 she was 18. McCarthy's son Steve[ who had a theatrical career] was 14 in 1888 and did not marry the music hall star Marie Kendall till 1895. From previous threads on the subject, it was said Steve did not meet Marie Lloyd till the 1890s, she was a friend of Kendall's, and any acquaintance with John Mccarthy was well after the ripper murders.
Miss Marple
Norma,Its irrelevent whether the inhabitants of Hanbury St were respectable or not, I'm sure many of them were, but they were still poor, not toffs.

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

I agree with you on much of this,Nemo----I also think Abberline may well have posed the questions---Were the man"s eyes dark or light in colour?

Ah, but can you imagine him asking the questions:

What colour were the man's eyelashes?
What colour were the buttons on the man's button boots?
What shape was his tie pin?

You see where I'm going with this? The specificity and detail of Hutchinson's observations strongly point away from the notion that he was subjected to leading questions.

Unfortunately yours is the rational and commonsense approach to the facts which have been handed down to us.

Utter nonsense, Jez.

It's simply the opinion you agree with. That's all. It doesn't become "the rational and commonsense approach" just because it's the one you happen to subscribe to. I didn't say it was impossible for someone opulently attired to venture into Spitalfields. I said it was incredibly unlikely and convenient for the man observed loitering opposite the court. On the other hand, yes, the alleged ability to notice, memorize and regurgitate all that Hutchinson claimed is impossible. As for whether the Astrakhan man was "waiting for her", it depends which version you wish to swallow; the initial statement where they simply met in the streets, or the press version which suddenly had the man loitering on Thrawl Street.

[Jez]

Hi Nats, Astrakhan man was walking up towards Kelly from the Aldgate direction. He wasn't waiting for her.
With respect, a Ripper "who hid in the shadows" is a little bit last year. It is more likely that the Ripper was somebody personable enough to convince Chapman and Eddowes, for instance, that he was "safe" enough for them to accompany them to a dark place. Rather than a man who jumped out of the shadows, it is more than likely that he would have been seen with some of the victims.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

I read a relevant article in which it described a "cats' meat man" who unerringly washed and changed into his best attire after his return from work every day.

Here it's obviously prudent to consider what just how good the "best attire" of your average "cats meat man" was likely to have been. The chances are strong that very few items in his wardrobe could possible have given the false impression that either he or his garments belonged to the middle or upper classes.

I have never thought Hutchinson's testimony to be inaccurate solely due to the "detail" described.

Nor have I. That's one of the many factors that point towards his testimony being "inaccurate" at the very least, but it's far from the only one, or even the most important one.

It was very common to wear a gold watch chain and tie-pin.

It depends where you were wearing it, and where you were seen wearing in. It might have been very common to wear one to the opera, yes, but the chances of anyone wearing one at 2.00am in the morning in one of the worst localities in London, when press and public were clamouring for the arrest of anyone remotely out-of-place on account of a serial killer roaming the district were far slimmer. If you're wearing a dark coat, with another dark jacket over that, what are the realistic chances of your gold watch remaining visible through those layers? Try it yourself.

The light waistcoat and buttons etc would be the first thing to be noticed at a glance.

Well, not really.

You can only take in so much within the space of a "glance" in poor weather conditions at night time, let alone commit them to memory, let alone regurgitate them upon command with near exactitude several times. If you spend your "glancing" time focussing on one aspect of the man's appearance, it isn't possible for you to notice a myriad of other tiny details pertaining to the man's appearance, which is why common sense is urged when contemplating the suggestion that anyone can seriously notice and memorize the minute particulars of the man's upper body at the the same time as noticing and memorizing the minute particulars of the man's lowe body. It may bother Jez, who seems unusually anxious for a discredited statement to represent the pure unembellished truth, but the above is beyond the realms of possibility.

Considering that "astrakhan" looked him in the face at close quarters I also do not think it unreasonable for Hutchinson to have noticed the colour of his lashes etc - especially in terms of light or dark.

Eyelashes??

At 2.00am at night in miserable conditions in London Victorian darkness?

No, again, people are forsaking their reason when they swallow such things, and again, if you're focussing so intently on the region of the face, it will inevitably be at the expense of noticing other minute, fiddling details, such as "button boots over button boots".

and upon reading or considering his description he thought it inaccurate to describe the moustache as dark and pointed this out upon which it was deleted from the statement.

Sorry, where is all this coming from? There's no evidence that he described the colour of the moustache, but then decided to have it deleted from the statement.

I think Abberline believed Hutchinson saw "astrakhan" but that astrakhan was not the Ripper.

On the 12th November he may have believed so, but as should be painfully apparent, the statement was clearly dismissed shortly thereafter - not just by Abberline, but by all accounts the seniority of the Met - and Hutchinson dropped off the map. There is no way that he'd be excluded from further witness ID parades on the assumption that somebody else arrived after Mr. Astrakhan. That would make a nonsense of police work. If they seriously believed that Hutchinson had told the truth in the long run, they had no reason to rule Astrakhan out, and were obligated to keep Hutchinson in the frame for future ID attemps for that reason.

But they didn't.

They use a Jewish witness instead, despite no Jewish witness claiming to have acquired a sighting anywhere near as strong as Hutchinson's, with Macnaghten effectively nodding in acquiescence. It's only circumspect to acknowledge that they must have had sounder reaosons for doing that than "Maybe Hutchinson told the truth but didn't see the killer".

As for other toffs - toffs were more than capable of defending themselves in the age of swordsticks and the like - and though the Ripper managed to elude the police patrols

That doesn't make any difference.

I'm more than capable of defending myself, but that doesn't mean I'd ever venture into Harlem with an "I Hate ******s" sign strapped to my chest, and anyone venturing into the worst slum in London bedecked in finery would have been equally incautious. No protestations of "Advance, ye blackguards, I'll take you all on", was going to avail him much when the local populace mugged him and pursued him on suspicion of being the killer - and let's face it, the Astrakhan man was a walking-talking, convenienet amalgamation of all the public's fears as to what the villain might look like.

I see no reasons why many toffs (or at least reasonable wealthy gentlemen)would not be wandering looking for entertainment during the night before a holiday.

Except the reasons discussed in this thead:

1) No evidence that toffs went there, let alone "in droves".

2) The full and certain knowledge that that particular locality had a reputation as one of the worst in London for its "vicious, semi-criminal" element.

3) The full and certain knowledge that the introduction of a serial killer in the district had made wannabe vigilantes very twitchy indeed when it came to newcomers.

I'm afraid the notion that any wealthy Jew had only the option of a locality known to be especially hostile towards Jews as a means of procuring prostitutes is equally untenable. If a wealthy Jew was after some action, he was well advised to step away from a locality where the generic out-of-place Jew was already the scapegoat.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Errr... Hutchinson's man didn't seem wary of being seen?
Read it again.

Not really Jez.He lowered his face etc but he was allegedly at the corner of Thrawl Street waiting....then he walked arm in arm with her to her place----that doesnt sound like the Ripper to me somehow----the ripper hid in the shadows I think---he didnt stand for an hour in full view of Millers Court and Dorset Street OR at the corner of Thrawl Street---thats just my opinion, though.

[Jez]

Errr... Hutchinson's man didn't seem wary of being seen?
Read it again.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree with you on much of this,Nemo----I also think Abberline may well have posed the questions---Were the man"s eyes dark or light in colour?-his eyebrows thick,bushy....or you didnt notice them?etc Like you I dont think this man or Hutchinson for that matter were the ripper though-----I honestly dont believe the Ripper would have behaved like either of these men in a public place----much more wary of being seen than that.
Cheers Nemo
Norma

[Jez]

Quite so, Nemo.
Unfortunately yours is the rational and commonsense approach to the facts which have been handed down to us.
Ben will continue to say that it was IMPOSSIBLE for Astrakhan man to be on the streets, dressed in that finery, at 2 am. He will not even concede that it was UNLIKELY.
Ben will continue to say that the details of the description are impossible - which, of course, they're not.
And so it goes around and around.

[Nemo]

Hi all

I read a relevant article in which it described a "cats' meat man" who unerringly washed and changed into his best attire after his return from work every day.

His best attire could at the least be described as "shabby genteel". Some men of this trade (and others) lived in the East End yet had a good wage and decent clothes.

I have never thought Hutchinson's testimony to be inaccurate solely due to the "detail" described. It was very common to wear a gold watch chain and tie-pin. The light waistcoat and buttons etc would be the first thing to be noticed at a glance.

Considering that "astrakhan" looked him in the face at close quarters I also do not think it unreasonable for Hutchinson to have noticed the colour of his lashes etc - especially in terms of light or dark. Indeed, unless the policeman taking the statement had written "dark" in error and scribbled it out, I think it points to the fact that Hutchinson was trying hard to remember the exact description - and upon reading or considering his description he thought it inaccurate to describe the moustache as dark and pointed this out upon which it was deleted from the statement.

I think Abberline believed Hutchinson saw "astrakhan" but that astrakhan was not the Ripper. Abberline almost certainly would have accepted the time of death as in the early morning hours and so too much time had elapsed for astrakhan to be the killer. I think Abberline had a pre-conceived idea of how the Ripper would conduct himself and he thought that he would not wait an hour or more in the presence of his intended victim before the deed was done.

As for other toffs - toffs were more than capable of defending themselves in the age of swordsticks and the like - and though the Ripper managed to elude the police patrols, they were still extant in the area and able to be called upon by the law abiding citizens.

I see no reasons why many toffs (or at least reasonable wealthy gentlemen)would not be wandering looking for entertainment during the night before a holiday. The reason astrakhan and others were been in Whitechapel may have been because they are Jews or similar immigrants who only certain prostitutes would deal with, so the high class brothels were technically out of bounds for them.

[Natalie Severn]

Miss Marple,

I am not arguing that Hanbury Street wasnt over crowded and that there were not lots of poor people living there but large numbers of these people were perfectly respectable, hard working people.Mrs Richardson the landlady-she would have rented the property, probably from the mega rich and "old rich" Henderson"s who owned most of Spitalfields over crowded houses and lodging houses.She is described by journalists ,using inquest material,as a "devoutly religious person" and this Mrs Richardson ,strapped for cash though she was, took in a destitute elderly lady and gave her care and a room .This type of generosity and" looking out" for each was very ,very common in the East End at the time-----Mrs Richardson actually stated at the Inquest that "she never locked her doors because "she knew all her neighbours" and historians have noted this good neighbourliness was widespread in the East End .A really brilliant social historian on all this is Jerry White, who uses all the local govt archived material from 1888 etc.His book, " London in the 19th century", is second to none,as is his book on the Rothschild Buildings.Everything is backed up by 1888 source material.

Best Wishes
Norma

[Ben]

er Ben....wait a minute...WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH TO REFUTE MINE?

I'm not refuting your research, Norma. I've already thanked you for your efforts in that regard. I'm refuting the conclusions that you're arriving at from it.

You've referred to an event in which a number of outsiders with more money than the "poorer" residents of the district descended on the building. That's interesting, but it was obviously made the headlines because it was out-of-the ordinary, since the people's palace was primarily intended for the entertainment of ordinary folk in the district.

Cheers,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

er Ben....wait a minute...WHERE IS YOUR RESEARCH TO REFUTE MINE? Can you please give the detail that refutes what I am claiming?
Please can you quote the actual words from the "exposure campaign" by the East End Advertiser that began on 29th September 1888 ,entitled "People"s Palace Exposure" -a letter by AJC began the ball rolling-and the "exposures" continued on 6th October 1888 and went on to December at least.


The criticism noted that at the kennel club "only 50 out of upward of 450 entries were local WITH ALIENATION COMPLETE at the price of the Kennel Club catalogue" -so even the 50 "POORER VISITORS were unable to study the animals by book etc etc etc


SHEESH! Why are you contradicting absolutely everything I say?

[Ben]

a very posh toff Ben!

Never said he wasn't, Norma.

But there's no evidence that he wore Astrakhan, and no evidence that he visited that part of the East End (or any part, so far as I'm aware). The absence of a collar refers to his shirt collar - that would be the obvious inference. If you think those articles of clothing and effects are "posh", you should see some of the items recovered from the bodies of Titanic and Lusitania victims.

Ben

[Natalie Severn]

It doesn't now, but it did then.

Actually, as a sideline, Johnny Cooney was also the owner of Cooney's Lodging House at 55 Flower and Dean Street, where Catherine Eddowes lived with John Kelly. 1888 trivia moment!

Well not such trivia John.Very interesting actually!

[Natalie Severn]

Ben ,WHAT?

see following--

5 Jan,1889,Actin Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette:
Montague Druitt:

.......body,"fully dressed except the hat and collar[so Ben,nothing whatever to specify a shirt!]
monies/cheques etc


A SILVER WATCH,GOLD CHAIN with SILVER GUINEA attached,

A PAIR OF KID GLOVES

WHITE HANDKERCHIEF


a very posh toff Ben!