Francis Spurzheim Craig

[Sally]

9 Marcellus Road and 80 Orpingley Road

9 Marcellus Road and 80 Orpingley Road were both cited by Francis Craig as brothels in the occupation of Ellen McLeod in 1885

In 1885, 9 Macellus Road was occupied by William George Laws, an Optical Turner. Laws was married to Mary Jane 'Jenny' [nee Lomax], who was born in Ireland and they had two young children, Alicia Jane and William at the time.

80 Orpingley Road - originally cited as 40 Orpingley Road but amended by Francis Craig to 80 in the divorce petition dated 8th March 1886 - was occupied from at least 1881 by William Luker, a Lath Render, his wife Isabella [nee Whinham] and their four young children, William, David, Matilda and Ada.

Houses on both Marcellus and Orpingley Road were mainly in multiple occupancy by 1911, as let rooms, apartments and flats. Looking at those which were in single occupancy, they look as though they were originally 3 bedroom houses, probably with 2 ground floor rooms and a kitchen.

I don't know how Craig's claim that these houses were operating as brothels works with the surviving documentary evidence relating to these properties. Both houses seem to have been occupied by working men and their young families in 1885.

Craig gave an address at Mile End Road during the divorce proceedings, but the electoral rolls show that he was not registered at that address [as pointed out by Ed on JTRF]. Presumably Craig was able to use the address at Mile End Road, which I believe was the office of the East London Advertiser at the time, as a correspondence address at the least. Perhaps he wanted his divorce to be a discreet affair.

There are a lot of questions here, I think

[Robert]

The Orpingley Rd one had a policeman living there in 1881.

[Sally]

Ah, so it was in multiple occupancy then. I saw that in 1911 - probably divided into flats.

Even less room for a brothel. Unless of course, it was partially occupied by Ellen McLeod by 1884.

[Prosector]

Hi Sally and others. I am going to withdraw from the Message Boards for a bit until after the book is published and in the bookshops and people have had a chance to read it it in full. However, a couple of quick comments - Craig and EWD were married on Christmas Eve 1884 so definitely before MJK appeared in the East End. I have no way if verifying if the premises mentioned by Craig in the Petition were actually brothels but there seems to be no doubt that Ellen Macleod did run brothels and had some sort of connection with these addresses (or possibly the private detectives didn't do a very good job in identifying them). The Monmouth Hotel and Coffee House in Drummond Street was a tall multi-storey building and premises of that kind did often serve as a front for brothels. One problem is that Craig was talking about the year 1885, mid way between censuses so they may have changed hands several times in that period.

Wynne

[Sally]

Hi Wynne

Thanks - the only thing I'd add is that 53 Tonbridge Street, also cited by Craig certainly seems to have been a brothel. I located a press report from 1889 [IPN 3rd August] concerning the prosecution of a John Hennessey for running a 'disorderly house' [that old euphemim] It wasn't Hennessey's first fine for this offence and on this occasion he was fined £40 - no mean sum.

He said his landlord lived in Watford. I think that possibly 53 Tonbridge Street had been a brothel for some years, as I found a series of adverts starting in around 1873 for young, single women/girls with experience of the private hotel business.

The coffee house/private hotel business was rife with prostitution and I think that was common knowledge. Legitimate adverts of the tiem for coffee house staff often make specific reference to duties, closing times etc. - presumably to make it clear to any potential applicants that they wouldn't be working as prostitutes.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Sally and others. I am going to withdraw from the Message Boards for a bit until after the book is published and in the bookshops and people have had a chance to read it it in full. However, a couple of quick comments - Craig and EWD were married on Christmas Eve 1884 so definitely before MJK appeared in the East End. I have no way if verifying if the premises mentioned by Craig in the Petition were actually brothels but there seems to be no doubt that Ellen Macleod did run brothels and had some sort of connection with these addresses (or possibly the private detectives didn't do a very good job in identifying them). The Monmouth Hotel and Coffee House in Drummond Street was a tall multi-storey building and premises of that kind did often serve as a front for brothels. One problem is that Craig was talking about the year 1885, mid way between censuses so they may have changed hands several times in that period.

Wynne

Good bye look forward to speaking to you soon.

[Debra A]

9 Marcellus Road and 80 Orpingley Road were both cited by Francis Craig as brothels in the occupation of Ellen McLeod in 1885

Hi Sally
Does it actually give the name 'Ellen' somewhere in the petition? I thought it said Mr Mc Leod all the way through but may have missed a name being given. If so, that would answer one of my earlier questions about how WWD made the link between the property owner, Mrs Mc Leod, mentioned in the divorce and Helen McLeod nee Maundrell.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Sally and others. I am going to withdraw from the Message Boards for a bit until after the book is published and in the bookshops and people have had a chance to read it it in full. However, a couple of quick comments - Craig and EWD were married on Christmas Eve 1884 so definitely before MJK appeared in the East End. I have no way if verifying if the premises mentioned by Craig in the Petition were actually brothels but there seems to be no doubt that Ellen Macleod did run brothels and had some sort of connection with these addresses (or possibly the private detectives didn't do a very good job in identifying them). The Monmouth Hotel and Coffee House in Drummond Street was a tall multi-storey building and premises of that kind did often serve as a front for brothels. One problem is that Craig was talking about the year 1885, mid way between censuses so they may have changed hands several times in that period.

Wynne

You should stick around man, I remember seeing your posts on the torso killer and being impressed I hadn't realized you were the one doing the book. Hey even if your Kelly wasn't your aunt you still tried and that's what counts

[pinkmoon]

It's a shame you've gone I'm sure people on here might have a few questions to ask over the next few weeks .

[elmore 77]

Hi,congratulations to Wynne on the book,if it's as good as his comments are here,it'll be well worth a look,I'm looking forward to it. Reading Craigs divorce petition on the Telegraph website,it says that Elizabeth was seen entering a house late at night with a young man with all the implication of that.Did I read that this was what had happened to Tumblety,and that this was the source of his hatred of women? I find it amazing that it happened once but here we are(if I remember correctly) with two suspects telling a similar story

[GUT]

Hi,congratulations to Wynne on the book,if it's as good as his comments are here,it'll be well worth a look,I'm looking forward to it. Reading Craigs divorce petition on the Telegraph website,it says that Elizabeth was seen entering a house late at night with a young man with all the implication of that.Did I read that this was what had happened to Tumblety,and that this was the source of his hatred of women? I find it amazing that it happened once but here we are(if I remember correctly) with two suspects telling a similar story

I too expect it to be good read, I just wish he was going to bring evidence not speculation.

If he has an exhumation order for DNA testing, well do the testing then bring out the book, not the other way around.

[RockySullivan]

It's a shame you've gone I'm sure people on here might have a few questions to ask over the next few weeks .

I think that might explain his planned absence

[jmenges]

He answered questions posed by myself, Paul Begg and Robert McLaughlin for three hours yesterday in a recorded conversation. He's not avoiding questions, only the message boards.

JM

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
The message boards are frequented, by members of ''Casebook'', people who have often spent years[ in some cases] not only on this site, but have devoted an interest in this subject, throughout adult life.
To avoid the message boards, is to avoid ''Casebook'' itself..
There is much more to this site , then a selected few on Rippercast, .
Sorry for a rather strong opinion, its just the term..''He is not avoiding questions, only the message boards''. which caused this view.
Regards Richard.

[pinkmoon]

Hi..
The message boards are frequented, by members of ''Casebook'', people who have often spent years[ in some cases] not only on this site, but have devoted an interest in this subject, throughout adult life.
To avoid the message boards, is to avoid ''Casebook'' itself..
There is much more to this site , then a selected few on Rippercast, .
Sorry for a rather strong opinion, its just the term..''He is not avoiding questions, only the message boards''. which caused this view.
Regards Richard.

Very well put Richard