The Red Handkerchief...

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

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.

Reasonably, they would have been a minority. But just how much of a minority is something that is up for grabs, methinks. And at the end of the day, that question gets different answers depending on how much we crave before we regard somebody as well-clad or respectable. We should make a mental note of the fact that the Eastenders witnessing about these men may not have had very high demands to accept that someone WAS well-clad. Maybe a jacket and a clean shirt took care of that.
It would have been radically different if the witnesses were upper class themselves, but they are not.

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.

What I donīt know, I donīt speculate about in a case like this. Or deny. All I know is that generalizations are often dangerous. Iīll sign off with a translated wisdom from Tage Danielsson, a Swedish comedian and humanist:

"All generalizations are dangerous. This one too."

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

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

Think we are going to have to live with that.

The best,
Fisherman

Fair enough, Fish.

[Sally]

Really?

Yep.

Isn't that theorizing?

Not really. That's observing that remarkably similar accounts were reported by, apparently, several different women. That is an observable fact. There is more than one explanation for it. You may choose to favour whichever you like.

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

Kindly point out where.

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.

Again, perhaps you would like to explain which 'side of the fence' you believe that is.

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

True - so out with it then: How long have you believed that Druitt was Jack The Ripper?

You have an unfortunate tendency to resort to personal slight when your perceptions are challenged Jon. Perhaps its time to reconsider your approach.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

What I donīt know, I donīt speculate about in a case like this. Or deny. All I know is that generalizations are often dangerous.

It's just common sense. I fail to see what is dangerous, or particularly speculative, about the suggestion that most middle/upper class men wouldn't have ventured into such a rough area at that time of night in search of sex, or at most times of the day for that matter.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

It's just common sense.

As if sense was common!

I fail to see what is dangerous, or particularly speculative, about the suggestion that most middle/upper class men wouldn't have ventured into such a rough area at that time of night in search of sex, or at most times of the day for that matter.

Then Iīll tell you! If a number of middle or upper class men DID venture into that area at that time of night, then your suggestion is wrong.

And I really donīt exclude that possibility at all, Gareth. I rather think we may bank on an uncertain number of men doing just that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Then Iīll tell you! If a number of middle or upper class men DID venture into that area at that time of night, then your suggestion is wrong.

It's not wrong at all. I can say without fear of contradiction that MOST respectable men would NOT have frequented 1880s Spitalfields to pick up prostitutes.

I rather think we may bank on an uncertain number of men doing just that.

Well, I wouldn't "bank" on it, anymore than I'd bank on an uncertain number of rabbis attending a hog-roast with the sole purpose of eating the meat.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It's not wrong at all. I can say without fear of contradiction that MOST respectable men would NOT have frequented 1880s Spitalfields to pick up prostitutes.

I dare say! I missed your qualifier "most", Iīm afraid - sorry about that.

In essence, we agree therefore - most respectable men would have stayed well away from Spitalfields and the trade.

Not all though - and thatīs my point.

Well, I wouldn't "bank" on it, anymore than I'd bank on an uncertain number of rabbis attending a hog-roast with the sole purpose of eating the meat.

But that means that you ARE saying that not one respectable man would go there in search for sex. And we know quite well that slummers frequently did this. How frequently, I cannot say. But more frequently than rabbis feasted on pork, anyways.

Distinctions, Gareth ...

The typical punter today is a well-off working man with a wife and kids - a wholly respectable man on the surface, drawn to prostitutes anyway. A "respectable" man, looking for sinful vice in neighbourhoods he would not seek out in daytime.

If you think that was an impossibility back then, I think you may be well of the map.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: It's not wrong at all. I can say without fear of contradiction that MOST respectable men would NOT have frequented 1880s Spitalfields to pick up prostitutes.

I dare say! I missed your qualifier "most", Iīm afraid - sorry about that.

Thanks.

Well, I wouldn't "bank" on it, anymore than I'd bank on an uncertain number of rabbis attending a hog-roast with the sole purpose of eating the meat.

But that means that you ARE saying that not one respectable man would go there in search for sex.

No - there may be some maverick rabbis out there, I daresay. But in a distinct minority, and only indulging their forbidden need for bacon on an extremely rare basis.

And we know quite well that slummers frequently did this.

No we don't!!!! Slummers did not "frequently" go in search of Spitalfields molls for sex. They didn't even do it "infrequently".

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

No we don't!!!! Slummers did not "frequently" go in search of Spitalfields molls for sex. They didn't even do it "infrequently".

Right - here it is again, from "Slums and Slumming in Late-Victorian London" by Dr Andrzej Diniejko:

"In fact, for a considerable number of Victorian gentlemen and ladies slumming was a form of illicit urban tourism. They visited the most deprived streets of the East End in pursuit of the 'guilty pleasures' associated with the immoral slum dwellers. Upper-class slummers sometimes spent in disguise a night or more in poor boarding houses seeking to experience taboo intimacies with the members of the lower classes. Their cross-class sexual fellowships contributed to diminishing class barriers and reshaping gender relations at the turn of the nineteenth century."

Admittedly, itīs not Seth Koven, but I managed to find a comment on his book too:

"Koven’s study focuses on the sexual and social politics of the encounter between Victorian philanthropists, missionaries and journalists, and their East End clientele. The East End in his account is a place of opportunity, a locus more of desire than of fear, where the poor figure as ‘erotic objects of elite spectatorship’ but also, frequently, as knowing agents. The slum, experienced as a space ‘free from the inhibitions and prohibitions of middle-class domesticity and conjugality’, could function productively as a crucible for imagining and enacting new social and sexual relations."

Fisherman,
off to bed

[Sam Flynn]

Right - here it is again, from "Slums and Slumming in Late-Victorian London" by Dr Andrzej Diniejko:

"In fact, for a considerable number of Victorian gentlemen and ladies slumming was a form of illicit urban tourism. They visited the most deprived streets of the East End in pursuit of the 'guilty pleasures' associated with the immoral slum dwellers. Upper-class slummers sometimes spent in disguise a night or more in poor boarding houses seeking to experience taboo intimacies with the members of the lower classes. Their cross-class sexual fellowships contributed to diminishing class barriers and reshaping gender relations at the turn of the nineteenth century."

Right - IN DISGUISE, again, and BUGGER ALL about picking up unfortunates in the streets in the middle of the night when decked out in one's Sunday best.

I am sick and tired of this.

[Fisherman]

Right - IN DISGUISE, again, and BUGGER ALL about picking up unfortunates in the streets, especially not when decked out in one's Sunday best.

I am sick and tired of this.

I can understand that - you are arguing a hopeless case, Iīm afraid.

But letīs leave the topic - we will not get any further.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

It's just common sense. I fail to see what is dangerous, or particularly speculative, about the suggestion that most middle/upper class men wouldn't have ventured into such a rough area at that time of night in search of sex, or at most times of the day for that matter.

But, what if the man was just returning home, that he actually lived off Dorset st.?
What choice does he have?

[Wickerman]

....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.

"Not only the criminal, but that curious declasse figure, the gentleman 'slummer', was a frequent inhabitant. Initially drawn to the East End for his first experience of cheap and easy sex, and to savour the colour and vibrancy of the pub and music hall, he stayed, permanently hooked. For instance, we read of 'A Strange Taste' in the East London Advertiser - one of many, though they were usually suppressed to prevent a family scandal:"...etc. etc.
East End 1888, W.J. Fishman, p.28, 1988.

Researcher Fishman alludes to 'frequency' and 'one of many', so the evidence is out there for those interested enough to learn the breadth and depth of the subject.

Sometimes our 'couch-potato' existence inhibits our ability to 'see it happening' in our minds eye.
Nevertheless, it is a part of the social history of the East End.

Just for the record, I don't see Astrachan as being a 'slummer', circumstantial evidence could identify Astrachan as Joseph Isaac's, simply on his way home.

[Ben]

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

According to whose psychic powers or time machine, Richard?

If you accept the possibility that he lied, but also accept that he was outside the crime scene when he claimed to have been, he's a reasonable suspect. A person who lies about their reasons for loitering near a crime scene at about the time that crime was committed is a reasonable suspect for it. To insist otherwise is to disavow history, criminology, and basic common sense. I don't see that I'm stopping you from trying to find Jack the Ripper, if that's your goal, but I'm confused as to why you think Hutchinson discussions are interfering with your own personal Jack hunt.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, the Schwartz stuff.

Drastically off-topic, I’m afraid, and yet you’ve written about 20 lines on the subject. I will admit to getting a little frustrated when you do this sort of thing. I’ll address your points, but then it’s straight back on topic for you, if you don’t mind.

He was asked about the man’s appearance – short jacket, peaked cap, and acting rough and tough. In other words, not an obvious picture of respectability. It wasn’t necessary for Schwartz to summarise BS’s appearance if the clues about his overall “look” were all there in the description, and they were. This is the only reasonable explanation for the absence of that “respectable” detail from the police report. He wasn’t respectable in appearance, and the Swanson report makes that obvious. The idea that a pressman picked up on details inexplicably missed by an experienced police detective is the one we hurl on the skip, as it’s such an obvious nonsense.

“So it is to my eyes a lot more probable that what he said was left out, than it is to think that he was never asked the question.”

So you prefer to accept that Schwartz provided his description of a peaked cap ruffian (in essence), and then added the detail that the man was “respectable”, only for Swanson to omit the latter piece of information, despite it being arguably at odds with the description? (And for good old Mr. Journalist to pop along later and fill in the gaps left by Swanson’s slipshod and incomplete interview?).

“When we have a paper source stating something totally uncontroversial where the police report has mentioned nothing at all, then the paper version is all we have - and we must accept that it is probably correct.”

I ask again. Do you, according to the above reasoning, accept that Pipeman had a knife in his hand because it appeared in the press, and it was not directly contradicted by the Swanson report? You accept the “respectable” detail as gospel because the police report didn’t say “not respectable” (even though it was inferentially obvious, in my opinion), so I assume you accept the presence of a knife in Pipeman’s hand because the police report never said “NO knife in Pipeman’s hand?”. In the interests of consistency, you should.

I just have to wonder how dear ol’ Cross fits into the equation, which is something he’s supposed to do, remember, now that you suddenly accept Stride as a ripper victim. Did he scrub up in his Sunday best for this particular kill, only to re-think his wardrobe and go for a more “rough and shabby” look a few minutes later for Eddowes? Or was he the equally “respectable” pipeman, who would also have needed to dress down pre-Eddowes, in addition to changing his hat and losing a few inches in height.

“I trust you remember the debate?”

You mean the “What’s the compelling feature?” thread? The one I’m going to cut and paste from if I see any more off-topic persistence on this issue (perhaps even cutaway and paste)?

Yeah, I remember.

All the best,
Ben