The Red Handkerchief...

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Okay Hutchinson may have lied, he may have invented /copied his description for financial gain, thinking nothing about the consequences about lying to the police..
Having accepted that, can we get on with attempting to find the perpetrator known as 'Jack The Ripper'', because it is not this man, who we have talked about for many moons,
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Not "slumming"

Come on, Gareth, read again! They sometimes disguised themselves if they intended to sleep in a doss-house.

The disguised themselves to avoid being beaten up, mainly. Besides, the practice of "slumming" generally did involve mixing it with the dossers. There were occasionally (daylight) journeys by cab where better-off voyeurs could ogle at the slums, but that wasn't "slumming" in the strictest sense, neither were solo ventures into the warrens of the slums dressed in one's Sunday best.

Read Seth Koven's book, Fish. You won't find too many references to blinged-up gentlemen wandering around the "Blackest Streets" in the dead of night - in fact, you won't find any, if I recall correctly.

Another was the 'swell' who only ventured down the slums for the evening, in his normal attire, to also partake in the sordid nightlife

Are there multiply-attested instances of this, or is it an urban myth? Can't see it happening myself, in a place where even genuine working-class scruffs were "rolled" by prostitutes and their accomplices.

[Sally]

"Demonstrably derivative"?

And I´m the desperate one?

Aha.

Fisherman

Not at all, Fish. It is.

And I don't have a theory/angle whatever to defend here, so no need for desperation. Actually, in this context, neither do you: surely it would suit your Crossmere hypothesis better if Hutchinson had made the whole thing up?

[Fisherman]

The disguised themselves to avoid being beaten up, mainly. Besides, the practice of "slumming" generally did involve mixing it with the dossers. There were occasionally (daylight) journeys by cab where better-off voyeurs could ogle at the slums, but that wasn't "slumming" in the strictest sense, neither were solo ventures into the warrens of the slums dressed in one's Sunday best.

Read Seth Koven's book, Fish. You won't find too many references to blinged-up gentlemen wandering around the "Blackest Streets" in the dead of night - in fact, you won't find any, if I recall correctly.Are there multiply-attested instances of this, or is it an urban myth? Can't see it happening myself, in a place where even genuine working-class scruffs were "rolled" by prostitutes and their accomplices.

To begin with, Gareth, most of the slumming tourism was not organized. The cab journeys were more like exceptions. Most slummers did what they did on their own initiative. And there were all sorts of initiatives.
Some were after cheap thrills, others were do-gooders.
Sometimes they disguised themselves - sometimes being the operative word.
Some of them would go inte the slums in their ordinary clothes. Which did not have to be "blinged-up", but instead just a better set of clothes than the Eastenders normally had. And that´s "normally". We know, for instance, that many of the doctors we get to know in the Ripper saga, lived and worked in the East end. They would not disguse themselves when leaving their homes at late hours.

There were wealthy people living in the East end, keeping servants and such things. They were exceptions to the rule - but they were there nevertheless.

I don´t have to read Seth Koven to know that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi,
Okay Hutchinson may have lied, he may have invented /copied his description for financial gain, thinking nothing about the consequences about lying to the police..
Having accepted that, can we get on with attempting to find the perpetrator known as 'Jack The Ripper'', because it is not this man, who we have talked about for many moons,
Regards Richard.

Entirely plausible Richard - you may well be right. I can't see discussion ending any time soon, though. If it's any consolation, most people interested in the case appear to have very little interest in Hutchinson. I assume that for them, he was simply a time waster with five minutes of fame to his name.

[Fisherman]

... can we get on with attempting to find the perpetrator known as 'Jack The Ripper'', because it is not this man, who we have talked about for many moons,
Regards Richard.

Bingo!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Not at all, Fish. It is.

And I don't have a theory/angle whatever to defend here, so no need for desperation. Actually, in this context, neither do you: surely it would suit your Crossmere hypothesis better if Hutchinson had made the whole thing up?

So you think one thing. I think another.

How does that make you right?

My money is - for empirical reasons - on you being wrong.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

So you think one thing. I think another.

How does that make you right?

My money is - for empirical reasons - on you being wrong.

All the best,
Fisherman

Lovely, you go off and put your money wherever you like. I'll continue to rely on what I can see, printed at the time and in black and white, I think.

I don't care much for theorising.

[Fisherman]

Lovely, you go off and put your money wherever you like. I'll continue to rely on what I can see, printed at the time and in black and white, I think.

I don't care much for theorising.

What you can see?

Or what you can interpret?

There´s a whole lot of reading between the lines going on here, Sally. And I´m not the one doing it.

I can see the likenesses, of course. But I can also see that many an affair between punter and prostitute are alike.

I´m not sure that´s theorizing.

Fisherman

[Sally]

What you can see?

Or what you can interpret?

There´s a whole lot of reading between the lines going on here, Sally. And I´m not the one doing it.

I can see the likenesses, of course. But I can also see that many an affair between punter and prostitute are alike.

I´m not sure that´s theorizing.

Fisherman

We've been through this Fish.

There is no reading between the lines. The lines are all there.

Yes, you are of course correct - man an affair between punter and prostitute are alike.

That is not the point. There is no mileage in trying to theorise a set of general circumstances in response to a highly specific occurrence.

I repeat: unless you wish to argue that Kelly had more than one encounter with a well dressed man on the night of her death; which was witnessed and subsequently reported by an 'associate'; in which the exact sequence of events is repeated [not a generic transaction at all] - you are left with the only obvious conclusion; which is that Hutchinson's story was inspired by earlier versions of the same.

And it's not as if we don't have other examples that look suspicious, is it? The stories of 'Mrs Kennedy' and 'Sarah Roney' are almost verbatim that of Sarah Lewis. The idea of cashing in on something read in the papers seems to have enjoyed some popularity at the time.

.

[Sam Flynn]

Some of them would go inte the slums in their ordinary clothes. Which did not have to be "blinged-up", but instead just a better set of clothes than the Eastenders normally had.

At two in the morning, in the roughest part of one of the worst slums in England? And, no, you can't use doctors going about their business as a counterexample - what we have here is something quite different. Hutchinson described an extremely well-dressed man who was evidently a "punter" looking for sex in Spitalfields at the dead of night. I'd suggest that men like that were as rare as hens' teeth, if not non-existent.

[Fisherman]

At two in the morning, in the roughest part of one of the worst slums in England? And, no, you can't use doctors going about their business as a counterexample - what we have here is something quite different. Hutchinson described an extremely well-dressed man who was evidently a "punter" looking for sex in Spitalfields at the dead of night. I'd suggest that men like that were as rare as hens' teeth, if not non-existent.

I´ve seen Ben use the exact same expression about the exact same thing, Gareth.

Nobody is contesting that Astrakhan man was rare.

Neither am I suggesting that scores of Astrakhan men, spats, jewels and all, habitually visited Dorset Street.

I am saying that well-clad men, or respectably clad men if you like, would have been around in Dorset Street too.

In that respect, doctors, businessmen, dosshouse owners etcetera are very useful examples, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

We've been through this Fish.

.

Yes. Somehow, we leave the show through different doors.

Think we are going to have to live with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I am saying that well-clad men, or respectably clad men if you like, would have been around in Dorset Street too.

But not in great number (especially at that time of night) with the express purpose of "scoring" with the gin-soaked floozies of Flowery Dean, Dorset Street and White's Row.

In that respect, doctors, businessmen, dosshouse owners etcetera are very useful examples, I think.

They're not. Most of them would have been safely tucked up in bed or, if they wanted to indulge their peccadilloes, in a more upmarket - and safer - setting than Commercial Street after 2AM.

[Wickerman]

I don't care much for theorising.

Really?

The idea of cashing in on something read in the papers seems to have enjoyed some popularity at the time.

Isn't that theorizing?

I'll continue to rely on what I can see, printed at the time and in black and white, I think.

And, considering in the last 24hrs you have tried to change "what was written", I have to wonder about your subsequent claim....

...And I don't have a theory/angle whatever to defend here...

Au contraire, you may prefer to keep it hidden as best you can, but your tendency to stick to one side of the fence has been openly demonstrated.

There's no shame in admitting your preference, but there may be shame in persisting with this charade of impartiality.