where do you stand?

[Wickerman]

Off the main streets of 1888 Whitechapel/Spitalfields (even on them) I wouldbnt give a man in white tie and tails more than five minutes.

But what people forget is the HUGE gulf between even lower middle class people in that period (and later) and the lower orders:

* in the way they spoke, not just accent but the words they used, modulation and tone of voice etc (think Eliza v Higgins and Pickering). Each public school had its own identifiable "accent" more a matter of the way words were said and setences phrased in speech that a vowel sort of thing. That is VERY difficult to overcome.

* in the way they moved;

* in the way they smelled (even though perfume for men was only just coming in - they bathed. (As an example: the rather snobbish suopernatural novelist, Dennis Wheatley wrote in "The Ka of Gifford Hilary" that the difference between upper class people and lower class people was that the latter bathed once a week, the former once a DAY!! That may well have been even more true in the 1880s.)

* their expectations of how people would respond in conversation etc - I would anticipate a member of the middle class being somewhat condescending to the lower orders. They would expect deference, meekness and respect - it was the way they met their inferiors in shops etc;

* their response to smell - the privy in No 29would almost certainly have made a middle class man puke at ten yards. They weren't used to it. Oh, they lived in a mcu more odiferous society than do we, but the extremes would rarely have intruded into a middle-class home.

* even in "diguise" I don't think a middle class man could have kept his origins hidden - he's either have seemed like a play-actor or been obvious - its the little things that give it away.

I don't believe for a moment that "Jack" worked in disguise. Just my assessment, but there you have it.

Phil

Good post Phil.

There's a lot of sound observations there, though we must bear in mind the "middle-class" person who you envisage to puke at nauseous odors, is not there by mistake, he choose to investigate these warrens of neglect.

It would be a mistake to assume all middle class people would avoid such places, many a man with middle class origins wound up in the East end due to falling on hard times.
William Fishman (East-end 1888) provides examples of a number of cases where men who had been doctors, lawyers, and in general, middle-class to upper middle-class found themselves among the doss-house dwellers.

Then, there's the select few who find their own entertainment in the back streets of the East end. They choose to fulfill their illicit desires in the grimy alley's and filthy rooms of Whitchapel, they are there by choice.

The idea of the Ripper being a Toff, or dressing like a Toff, is probably inspired more by the contemporary theatrical drama, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, playing around London at the time.
It does present a visual treat, top hat, cane, little black bag & cape swirling through the midnight fog. Who can resist such a romantic figure.

Instead, we have repeated sightings of a man in a morning suit or cutaway coat, wearing either a deerstalker, a peaked cap, or a billycock hat. Typically about 5' 6-7" height, moustache, and aged about 30-40.

This man is respectably dressed, but still not a Toff. Whether he had a condescending view of these poor creatures who lived off the streets is anyone's guess, but he probably was a local man, just not one that lived directly among them.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

We can see from contemporary press articles that common people used "afternoon" to describe times which extended well into the evening.
There is no conflict, just the usual error of modern readers trying to impose modern interpretations on 19th century society.
Just because "we" no longer use afternoon to describe evening or night, means no-one else ever did. Well, clearly that assumption is wrong, and in this case we have the proof to back it up.

I wonder if this is the same kind of issue as the clock bells. People reported time as the most recent bells they'd heard, or their best guess, and that was apparently good enough-- or every event in the 1880s happened on the quarter of an hour.

By the same token, people took terms like "afternoon," and "evening" more literally, to describe how much light there was, or whether it was after the sun was at its highest point.

I know I have heard people get into discussion that are almost arguments in recent years, when one person will say "afternoon," and another will say "but it's 6pm; that's 'evening,'" and the first person will counter with "It doesn't get dark until 8:30 this time of year."

If so, "evening" in the winter would come earlier than "evening" in the summer.

You'd think I'd know this, I've read enough Victorian novels, but I guess there aren't that many occasions where an author has paired a word like "evening" with an exact time.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
Your "tally" is a very immature argument, and only made worse by its total wrongness. For starters, you treat all alleged sightings as equal regardless of such issues as credibility,

Well, of course you will take issue with descriptions published by police, you know best, I think that comes across loud and clear.

Credibility, begins with the police, and not with you.
Unless the police claim a witness has no credibility then we have no reason to second-guess them especially when it is known the police had no issues with the witness.
The issue, as always, is your myopic view of the case.

We dispense straight away with the discredited "evidence" from the Kelly murder (bye-bye Mr. Astrakhan, zero points for you),

Well, you have always maintained no such man existed, even though we both know Joseph Isaac's dressed in such a coat, and apparently (thankyou Mike) lived right around the corner from Dorset St.

Hutchinson claimed the man was about 34-5, and Isaac's was 30. Isaac's can quite readily be described as "of Jewish appearance", but no, you claim such a man did not exist.

Whether Isaac's was our Astrachan, right age, right neighborhood, right height, and wearing the distinct coat, can only be posed for consideration.
What cannot be claimed, is that such a man did not exist - clearly he did, and lived near enough to be Kelly's neighbour.

Isaac's is the best contender, but that does not make him her killer.

And I'm not about to repeat the tally, it spoke for itself. I suspected you would feel cornered and attempt to refute it, 5-1 stands firm. We all know what the police published, regardless of how you choose to dismiss this, or that, to align with what suits you.

Why on earth would Bowyer use the expression "evening" to describe an earlier sighting of Kelly, but use "afternoon" to describe a later one?

Bowyer only claimed to see Kelly once, not twice. Bowyer's own words were "afternoon", but we don't know what time that was. It was the press report, using the reporters own words, not Bowyer's, thats where the "night" comes from.

We can see from contemporary press articles that common people used "afternoon" to describe times which extended well into the evening.
There is no conflict, just the usual error of modern readers trying to impose modern interpretations on 19th century society.
Just because "we" no longer use afternoon to describe evening or night, means no-one else ever did. Well, clearly that assumption is wrong, and in this case we have the proof to back it up.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

Two points, curious4:

a) it is one thing to dress up to pass unnoticed in a crowd (a form of camoflage), another to pretend to be something you are not;

b) the incident with the coin (which I think comes from Philip Magnus' biography of the King) indicates how the then Prince acted spontaneously, even though pretending to be something he was not.

Incidentally, whatever the truth of the room on Watling Street, has anyone ever found any actual evidence that Edward did watch fires in the East End?

Phil

[curious4]

Disguise or change of clothes

Hello,

According to the Jack the Ripper encyclopaedia by John Eddleston, the Prince of Wales and his friends kept a room Watling street in which to change their clothes while out "firewatching".

I also remember reading about the prince being shocked and appalled by the poverty in the east end and attempting to pull out some gold coins from his pocket to give to a poor family. Fortunately his companion had more sense and stopped him, saying that they would be torn to pieces.

Regards,
C4

[Phil H]

Off the main streets of 1888 Whitechapel/Spitalfields (even on them) I wouldbnt give a man in white tie and tails more than five minutes.

But what people forget is the HUGE gulf between even lower middle class people in that period (and later) and the lower orders:

* in the way they spoke, not just accent but the words they used, modulation and tone of voice etc (think Eliza v Higgins and Pickering). Each public school had its own identifiable "accent" more a matter of the way words were said and setences phrased in speech that a vowel sort of thing. That is VERY difficult to overcome.

* in the way they moved;

* in the way they smelled (even though perfume for men was only just coming in - they bathed. (As an example: the rather snobbish suopernatural novelist, Dennis Wheatley wrote in "The Ka of Gifford Hilary" that the difference between upper class people and lower class people was that the latter bathed once a week, the former once a DAY!! That may well have been even more true in the 1880s.)

* their expectations of how people would respond in conversation etc - I would anticipate a member of the middle class being somewhat condescending to the lower orders. They would expect deference, meekness and respect - it was the way they met their inferiors in shops etc;

* their response to smell - the privy in No 29would almost certainly have made a middle class man puke at ten yards. They weren't used to it. Oh, they lived in a mcu more odiferous society than do we, but the extremes would rarely have intruded into a middle-class home.

* even in "diguise" I don't think a middle class man could have kept his origins hidden - he's either have seemed like a play-actor or been obvious - its the little things that give it away.

I don't believe for a moment that "Jack" worked in disguise. Just my assessment, but there you have it.

Phil

[Sally]

So, is it reasonable, or unreasonable to think that if JTR were, in general, a "toff," he would wear his best clothes to a situation where there was a good chance of getting them, umm, unpresentable to the point of having to dispose of them? If he were the sort of person who went in for dressing, or overdressing, and putting on airs, would we expect that on this particular occasion, knowing what he had planned for the evening, he might dress down a little?

If he valued his safety and possibly his life, then yes. Wandering about the streets of Whitechapel in toff's togs would've been asking for trouble. 'Respectably' dressed probably doesn't amount to the same thing - it's all relative.

[RivkahChaya]

It means 'Posh'. Or, in other words, it means a person who gives themselves airs and graces. It's a colloquial term, and not as commonly used today as it was in the 19th century.

So, is it reasonable, or unreasonable to think that if JTR were, in general, a "toff," he would wear his best clothes to a situation where there was a good chance of getting them, umm, unpresentable to the point of having to dispose of them? If he were the sort of person who went in for dressing, or overdressing, and putting on airs, would we expect that on this particular occasion, knowing what he had planned for the evening, he might dress down a little?

[Sally]

It means 'Posh'. Or, in other words, it means a person who gives themselves airs and graces. It's a colloquial term, and not as commonly used today as it was in the 19th century. It is, as Wikipaedia says, mildly derogatory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toff

My issue (if you can call it that) with 'Jack' being a toff, is that I think it might have been more difficult for him to gain the trust of his victims - particularly as time went on. Yes, he could've worn 'shabby genteel' clothes and what have you to blend in; but it isn't only clothes that make the man. The victims would have been more likely to trust a person whom they perceived as coming from their own social class in my view.

[RivkahChaya]

OK, someone is going to have to define "Toff" for me. I though it somehow was derived from the term "Show-off," or "Show-it-off," and was someone who was especially concerned with appearance, dress, and grooming, and had at least the financial means to indulge it, so while being a "toff" might be out of the reach of the lower and working classes, anyone who either made a good living at a trade or profession, or had some family money, even if it didn't come with a title (like Bertie Wooster) could indulge in being a "toff."

There was a sort of fad for a while where men in general were getting pedicures and expensive haircuts, and tailored suits, and wearing hats, and the term was "metrosexual," a portmanteau of "metropolitan" and "homosexual," even though it was mainly a heterosexual trend. They were men who, fifteen years earlier would have indulged in a different kind of conspicuous consumption, and bought sports cars, and big houses, and been called Yuppies. It was sort of a backlash against grunge, along with not being able to buy sports cars and SUVs anymore because gas was so expensive, and people were giving the hairy eyeball to anyone who bought anything that got less than 30mpg. I kinda pictured these guys as being sot of like toffs, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little off-the-mark.

Can someone who is actually British, and knows how to use the word in conversation, define it for me?

[Fisherman]

But onto far more important, far more interesting matters:



All wonderful stuff, Fish.

Your cabinet warrants some serious raiding by the sound of it! I'd make room for Bowmore too, another delicious Islay malt. The Laphroaig is my favourite too. I only recently discovered the Quarter Cask version, and it's even better than the original (saying a great deal!).

I will certainly look out for Mackmyra!

All the best,
Ben

Bowmore, yes - and, being interested in the Ripper case, I of course favour the "Enigma" ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But onto far more important, far more interesting matters:

And if itīs not a good and preferably peaty whisky, then thereīs no space in that cabinet for it. Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Caol Ila, Talisker ... love it.

All wonderful stuff, Fish.

Your cabinet warrants some serious raiding by the sound of it! I'd make room for Bowmore too, another delicious Islay malt. The Laphroaig is my favourite too. I only recently discovered the Quarter Cask version, and it's even better than the original (saying a great deal!).

I will certainly look out for Mackmyra!

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Thanks Neil.
I guess 'beat' is just assumed, if the PC was out on the street and working then....

Let me ask you, we read in the Chapman murder...
Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street.

Why is an Inspector on duty in Commercial St.? - I mean what duty would that have been, any ideas?

Regards, Jon S.

Re White. He must have been in plain clothes when conducting this alledged surveillence, also he was H division.

Commercial St was a station and a section house, therefore there would have been a mixture of men working (on the ground floor and basement) and resting/relaxing and sleeping (1st & 2nd floor). On duty means carrying out Police work and not off duty which is obviously relaxing/resting. Its not a sole reference to beatwork. He could have been filing reports, compliling order books etc.

So basically Chandler was coducting his duties.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Your "tally" is a very immature argument, and only made worse by its total wrongness. For starters, you treat all alleged sightings as equal regardless of such issues as credibility, and the likelihood of them being of the actual ripper. We dispense straight away with the discredited "evidence" from the Kelly murder (bye-bye Mr. Astrakhan, zero points for you), leaving us only with Blotchy if we restrict ourselves to the reliable inquest evidence. So 1-0 goes to the argument that the killer apparently came from the labouring classes. Then working backwards to the Eddowes murder, we get double points for Lawende's sighting of a "rough, shabby" man in a peaked cap and red neckerchief. I say double points because it was evidently taken very seriously by the police, and was used in later identity attempts with suspects. It was also the closest in time to the actual murder, making it a near certainty that the man in question was the ripper. At the very least, it meets the non-discredited, inquest-presented criteria that reasonable standards demand. So 2-0.

Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, but we know from internal police commentary that his evidence was taken seriously. Swanson's report mentioned nothing about the man having a well-dressed appearance, and I reject the later press detail that the did, just as I reject the other embellishments, such as the claim that pipeman had a knife. As for Smith and Marshall, nothing remotely problematic about their evidence, except inasmuch as neither of them saw the likely ripper. They were observed with Stride earlier in the evening, and clearly neither was the intoxicated broad-shouldered man seen afterwards in the act of attacking Stride. Indeed, it is clear that she spent time in the company of several men on the night of her death. In addition, neither man could have been the shabby, red neckerchief man (i.e. the actual ripper) seen with Eddowes shortly before her body was discovered...unless he changed his clothes between the "double event".

So you have a tenuous case for the clerkly man being responsible for the Stride murder only, and a non-existent case for him being the ripper.

It was not a blue-collar worker seen by Mrs Long (1-0)

Ermmmm...no.

It could easily have been a blue collar worker, and probably was. You've probably misunderstood the "shabby genteel" reference, and took it to mean respectable, whereas actually it referred to shabby clothes that might have been good once. In other words, clothes that had been pawned several times over. Should there be any doubt over this, I would draw your attention to the very rough looking man from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub, who witnesses also described as "shabby genteel" and who gave no appearance of belonging to any class above the impoverished masses.

So you LOSE that tally, Jon, as the eyewitness evidence in favour of a Joe Average is far greater, and far more reliable than the "well-dressed" sightings which were either discredited or unrelated to the appearance of the real killer.

You should notice, the question about 'Wednesday' was posed by a Juror. Which was basically off-topic with respect to the immediate inquiry and why Bowyer was summoned.

I think you'll find the issue of when Kelly was last seen was very much ON-topic with respect to this particular inquiry, as was the question of men seen in her company. Why on earth would Bowyer use the expression "evening" to describe an earlier sighting of Kelly, but use "afternoon" to describe a later one? It makes no sense, and had he really seen Kelly with a man, it would certainly have come up at the inquest. The article is bogus.

And speaking of bogus, the description attributed to White is possibly the worst of the bunch. "Long tapering fingers", "eyes like luminous glow worms", pointy devil horns and pitchfork, diabolically evil laugh, a snake for a tongue...and so on. All a tinsy winsy bit implausible, and - surprise, surprise - appeared AFTER White's death.

Regards,
Ben

[curious4]

I believe he was checking with under-cover policemen who were watching certain places which the police thought might be of interest, not walking the beat.

Best wishes,
C4

Oops, of course, sergeant!