Toffs in Spitalfields

[Cap'n Jack]

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

[Ben]

Immitation fur, I think, AP.

[Cap'n Jack]

Two of the victims wore astrakhan.
Does that make them toffees?

[Ben]

The material also originated in Russia, and would have been just the ticket for anyone wishing to pin the blame on "foreigners" for whatever reason.

Cheers,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

As the eastend was the centre of the tailoring trade and even in the 19th century astrakhan cloth was being made, which was a good imitation of the real thing. It very possible for a small tradesman to possess such a coat. Also astrakan was very flash, an english gent would not have worn it.

Thank you Miss Marple. So an astrakhan coat didn't have to be the real deal. It could be a knock-off. Worn by a local flash.

Roy

[Ben]

There's no compatiblity between the two

Whoops.

Substitute for incompatibility, or "mutual exclusivity" or any other synonym that takes your fancy.

[Ben]

George Hutchinson could have been one of a number of grasses or "look out "men for the police who were watching out for muggers/burglars etc

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?"

As far as dressing up in toffs attire goes----well that is the Forester story isnt it?

No, because you're reading "toff" into "well-dressed", which is a dangerous trap to fall into. Your local milkman can purchase a perfectly decent suit from BHS, wear it of a Friday evening and be described as "well-dressed", but that wouldn't make him a toff.

Maybe Mr Astrakhan was just one of her regular clients who also happened to be a wide boy?

I doubt there was such a thing in 1888. There's a difference between wide-boys and suicidally insane and stupid boys, and I'd cheerfully lump "Mr. Astrakhan" into the latter category were it not rather obvious that he was conjured up in Hutchinson's imagination to deflect suspicion away from himself. Short of a miracle, we can forget alibis as far as Hutchinson is concerned. Hardly anyone was capable of an alibi surviving six weeks, especially not occupants of 400-strong lodging houses. If quizzed about his alibis for previous murders, all Hutchinson had to say was "I was asleep at the Vic, as usual", secure in the knowledge that were was no possibility of contradiction.

So you have now changed your tune, Ben? Not "comfortably off" but "working class"-----nobody in the East End of 1888 was BOTH "working class" AND "Comfortably off".And its NOt what Booth stated either!

No.

"Fairly comfortable" is easily compatible with "working class". There's no compatiblity between the two, and if you examine Gareth's census information, you'll notice that the street was pretty much exclusively working class.

Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

Forget the photographs.

What about the census data that Gareth provided? No toffs whatsoever. Not even remotely close. It was exclusively populated by working class men and women, just as Booth stated.

Doesn't that information rather prove our point and thus put a clear and unambiguous end to any further suggestion that Fournier/Church Street was occupied by "toffs"?

So you have now changed your tune, Ben? Not "comfortably off" but "working class"-----nobody in the East End of 1888 was BOTH "working class" AND "Comfortably off".And its NOt what Booth stated either!
The photographs tell the truth about the priceless carvings in the hall way.Never a slum or a working man"s house,that particluar palace

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Ben;60277]That's one heck of an odd mentality for a mugger, Norma! Blimey O'Riley.

The very reason the hypotherical mugging victim suffered the fate he did was because he was imprudent enough to advertise his wealth in the worst possible area. Why would the mugger then follow the imprudent example of his victim? I can't imagine too many criminals reasoning it all out:

Hey, let's mug that toff!

Nah, Cyril, that ain't no toff, that's just one of our lot fresh from a mugging and now using his victim's clothes and accessories to dress like one.

Oh. Right. Shall we still mug him anyway?

Ben,
As you know,crime in the East End has been well documented over the years.George Hutchinson could have been one of a number of grasses or "look out "men for the police who were watching out for muggers/burglars etc .He could have been known to some of them and had an alibi for the nights when Polly,Annie,Liz and Kate were murdered----
As far as dressing up in toffs attire goes----well that is the Forester story isnt it?
Maybe Mr Astrakhan was just one of her regular clients who also happened to be a wide boy?

[Ben]

Norma,

Forget the photographs.

What about the census data that Gareth provided? No toffs whatsoever. Not even remotely close. It was exclusively populated by working class men and women, just as Booth stated.

Doesn't that information rather prove our point and thus put a clear and unambiguous end to any further suggestion that Fournier/Church Street was occupied by "toffs"?

[Natalie Severn]

The Cambridge Music Hall was a little further north, Nats - I posted a map excerpt yesterday that showed its location, fronting Commercial Street, but wedged between Hanbury and Great Pearl Streets.

Fine---thanks Sam.The map I read on the site was tiny and it appeared further south to me.

[Natalie Severn]

I posted a link to the 1891 Census, Nats - give it a click. While you're there perusing the endless shoemakers, charwomen, potmen, barmen and hat-blockers, perhaps you can think of an ingenious reason as to why the Fournier Street's demographic content changed so radically in the 2 years or so that separated the Census and Kelly's death in November 1888.

And, by the way, I don't think anyone's said that Fournier Street was a "slum", only that its occupants weren't perhaps as well-heeled as some might like to believe.

I will just repeat what I asked from Miss Marple Sam.Can you wait a few days while I dig out the photos.The house I was shown round was quite unique,its silk tapestries,carved sculptures all intact ......and next door was the rectory---also opulent in carvings,marble fireplaces etc etc

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
Monica,-poor Monica for she is now dead ,was no "high class hooker!

She was picked up in Mayfair's Shepherd Market, though, wasn't she, Nats? Not Soho, Tower Hamlets or Hoxton.

[Ben]

Its just possible Mary"s Mr Astrakhan man was "known to her" and was kitted out in stolen goods fresh from such a mugging!

That's one heck of an odd mentality for a mugger, Norma! Blimey O'Riley.

The very reason the hypotherical mugging victim suffered the fate he did was because he was imprudent enough to advertise his wealth in the worst possible area. Why would the mugger then follow the imprudent example of his victim? I can't imagine too many criminals reasoning it all out:

Hey, let's mug that toff!

Nah, Cyril, that ain't no toff, that's just one of our lot fresh from a mugging and now using his victim's clothes and accessories to dress like one.

Oh. Right. Shall we still mug him anyway?

Don't see why not. Still the same gold watch.

Joking aside, though, I wouldn't attach much signifance to the term "well-dressed". You can be a butcher, lodging house keeper, grocer, candlestick-kaer, and still dress onesself "well".

Cheers,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Sam,
Monica,-poor Monica for she is now dead ,was no "high class hooker" ---and that is what the scandal was all about!The truth about the matter was "known "throughout the news rooms but didnt surface for many years until someone snitched on him!