Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[Richard Patterson]

If I were warden of the Night Refuge I would be alarmed he stayed out all night selling matches THAT night.

I thought it might interest you that Providence Row, as described in the book In darkest London, by Mrs. Ada Cecil Chesterton, was one of the few homeless refuges, if not the only refuge that had a policy of not locking resident inside at night. As Chesterton writes.

'Moreover, and
this is a point I would urge on the Metropolitan
Asylum Board for due consideration, the door
of the dormitory remains unlocked, and its
occupants are free, if they so wish, to walk
about in the cold. Strange to say, they do
not seem to desire this peculiar form of
recreation, and unless one of them be ill,
they all stay in the bunks till the morning
bell rings.'

If this were true in 1888 and for the men's section then the warden would not be alarmed if Thompson left at night because he would not have known.

[Richard Patterson]

Thanks Gary for the snapshot of the December 1888 Tablet article on Providence Row. Know where does it state in the article that the most destitute were given overnight accommodation, only that they were helped with clothing and being fed. I suppose though this was the inference. Why it is not stated explicitly might be because that would be counter to the rules of the institution. I also do not see any mention of references needed, but the entire piece is rightfully very favourable to the charity. Perhaps the inclusion of red-tape and paperwork would seem to mitigate the praise.

Richard.

[Abby Normal]

moving over from the other thread..

Thanks Richard for the reply. Can you elaborate a little on where he was living during the autumn of terror? when mary Kelly was murdered he was living on her street?

I though he was basically homeless, living in rags on the street, during the WC murders in the fall of 88??

[MrBarnett]

http://britishlibrary.georeferencer....vf7H/visualize

Thanks, Joshua. If you compare that to the photo of the two entrances, it seems fairly obvious how the male and female areas were segregated.

There are photos of the women's dormitory on here (link below) which show a 3 - 2 - 2 window arrangement that matches the Crispin Street elevation perfectly.

So unless they kept men and women separate initially and then let them mix after admission (which sounds unlikley, this was an adjunct to a convent let's not forget) it would seem that the men's windows looked out over Raven Row and not Crispin Street.

http://spitalfieldslife.com/2013/10/03/farewell-to-the-crispin-st-night-shelter/

[Richard Patterson]

Thank you Joshua for the link to the wonderful map.

[Joshua Rogan]

http://britishlibrary.georeferencer.com/map/NUs2HVOIYMXZUVbJvFb5CE/201401161136-GQvf7H/visualize

[MrBarnett]

In regard to references to enter Providence Row. I looks like I might have revised my book prematurely. Ada Chesterton, in her 1926 book Darkest London devotes a chapter on Providence Row, In it she states the reference required proof of employment. (Something Thompson would not have been able to prove until when it opened in November 1888) Of course 1926 is not 1888, but it interesting none the less.

From The Tablet December, 1888:

[Richard Patterson]

In regard to references to enter Providence Row. I looks like I might have revised my book prematurely. Ada Chesterton, in her 1926 book Darkest London devotes a chapter on Providence Row, In it she states the reference required proof of employment. (Something Thompson would not have been able to prove until when it opened in November 1888) Of course 1926 is not 1888, but it interesting none the less.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,

Have you looked at the Goad Map of the Refuge? It appears to me to show two distinct sections, one overlooking Raven Row and containing the men's entrance, and one overlooking Crispin Street and containing the women's entrance.

Later photos of the women's dormitory are clearly on the Crispin Street side of the building.

Gary

I have seen the Goad Map, and somewhere I have a copy of the plans, but I can not track it down. I know that somewhere on a Thompson thread somebody kindly put it up, but I am not sure where to find it. I understood that the the men's dormitory ran along the first floor facing Dorset Street, but I may well be wrong. In that case I would be only be able to state that the building that Thompson stayed in looked down to Dorset Street which had the covered passage leading to Mary Kelly's room. Leaving out the room that had his bed.

Without wanting to appear trivial, but compared to other suspects, that we are trying to determine if he could or could not look out a particular window to where a victim stood certainly seems to have narrowed down the precision in regard to placement of a suspect for these crimes.

[Richard Patterson]

Richard,

The Refuge actively sent people out to find homeless people on the streets, some of whom were so 'ragged and dirty' that bus conductors threw them off buses. These were a distinct group from the ordinary occupants of the refuge. This was not an individual warden taking pity on a particular applicant, it was clearly the policy of the Refuge to seek out the 'most wretched objects' that could be found - hundreds of them - and provide them with overnight accommodation.

Elsewhere you have stated that the refuge only accepted those in employment. That was not the case. They very often helped people find employment, and one of the ways in which they did that was to provided them with respectable-looking clothing. So appearances alone would not have been a barrier to entry.

The Catholic publication The Tablet printed numerous first hand reports of how the Refuge functioned. The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.

Gary

It looks I will ho revise what I said about the refuge only allowing employed into its premises. Thank you educating me. There is still no means for Thompson to have gained a reference though before November 1888. Also the rules were that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night" which is what Thompson was until the November of 1888.

I am aware that at the worst I might be left only able to state that Thompson stayed in the heart of Spitalfields and had an association with that area. I will be happy just for that. Thompson was homeless from late 1885 until late 1888. If he was in Providence Row at anytime during those years then I am left with a suspect that knew the East End regardless. The earlier in that 3 year span that Thompson can be shown to have been in the Row then the longer he knew Spitalfields.

The further back from November 1888 we can pinpoint Thompson to having used the row than the greater the chance that he may have known Mary Kelly, who is believed to have arrived in London in 1884 and used Providence Row early on. I agree that there is certainly a discrepancy between the way the papers describe admittance to the Row compared to what the Row said were their consideration. I also agree that the reality may be very much different to what even the best dissertations may suggest. Personally i would not be surprised that even if the row officially opened its doors in November 1888, it may have made exceptions and allowed desperate but worthy clients in at other times of the year.

I also feel that Thompson as an ex-priest and strong Catholic religious experience may have been exempted from needing references, but I have to go on what I know. I will update my book removing any claim that an entrant to the row needed to show that they held a paid occupation. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Richard.

[MrBarnett]

Richard,

Have you looked at the Goad Map of the Refuge? It appears to me to show two distinct sections, one overlooking Raven Row and containing the men's entrance, and one overlooking Crispin Street and containing the women's entrance.

Later photos of the women's dormitory are clearly on the Crispin Street side of the building.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

The Ripper Casebook in its dissertation on Providence Row states.

'The rules provided that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night", although the difficulty of off-hand identification of such was obvious. All persons seeking accommodation were supposed to give the names of referees to whom inquiries could be made, and if the replies were unsatisfactory the applicant was told to leave.'

I can assure you and so will any biographer on Thompson that he was too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November 1888. The only time he could have ever gained referees was when he was working for John McMaster, at the Panton Street Shoe-shop, in 1886, but this miles away in Haymarket and during that time McMaster provided lodgings for him. We could assume and speculate that somehow the warden may have taken pity on Thompson but it would be just speculation.

Richard,

The Refuge actively sent people out to find homeless people on the streets, some of whom were so 'ragged and dirty' that bus conductors threw them off buses. These were a distinct group from the ordinary occupants of the refuge. This was not an individual warden taking pity on a particular applicant, it was clearly the policy of the Refuge to seek out the 'most wretched objects' that could be found - hundreds of them - and provide them with overnight accommodation.

Elsewhere you have stated that the refuge only accepted those in employment. That was not the case. They very often helped people find employment, and one of the ways in which they did that was to provided them with respectable-looking clothing. So appearances alone would not have been a barrier to entry.

The Catholic publication The Tablet printed numerous first hand reports of how the Refuge functioned. The Casebook dissertation is an excellent overview, but the reality seems to have been more complicated than it suggests.

Gary

[Richard Patterson]

The idea that Thompson would have been too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November, 1888 is not supported by the evidence.

The Ripper Casebook in its dissertation on Providence Row states.

'The rules provided that "no vagrants, tramps or professional beggars should be admitted even for one night", although the difficulty of off-hand identification of such was obvious. All persons seeking accommodation were supposed to give the names of referees to whom inquiries could be made, and if the replies were unsatisfactory the applicant was told to leave.'

I can assure you and so will any biographer on Thompson that he was too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November 1888. The only time he could have ever gained referees was when he was working for John McMaster, at the Panton Street Shoe-shop, in 1886, but this miles away in Haymarket and during that time McMaster provided lodgings for him. We could assume and speculate that somehow the warden may have taken pity on Thompson but it would be just speculation.

[Richard Patterson]

I was surprised at how little I could find on Thompson when I tried to research him using the 'Net. His two 20th century biographies are getting elderly (the newest is copyrighted 1988), and while the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about Thompson which can be read online, not a great deal more turned up.

One thing I am questioning: the idea that Thompson carried a sharp knife under his long coat. This is generally sourced to the letter he wrote his editor, requesting a razor to shave with. Thompson doesn't (as I understand it), state he currently has a "dissecting knife" with which he shaves, but is half-jokingly saying that the quality of the razor doesn't matter, as he has in the past shaved with a dissecting knife. This is an example of Thompson's wit which I think is misunderstood by some interpreters.

Thompson does certainly demonstrate with with his letter in which he devotes the start to asking for a razor to shave with. I wonder who else shows liked to joke about blades. ‘My knife's so nice and sharp’. So when did Thompson utilise his razor sharp dissecting scalpel?
Here is the pertinent part of his letter written from the monastery soon after leaving London.

‘‘And I want to make a request which looks rather a Luxury, but which I believe to be a necessity in my present position. Can you send me a razor? I shall to shave myself here, I think; & it would of course be saving of expense in the long run. Any kind of razor would do for me, I have shaved with a dissecting scalpel before now. I would solve the difficulty by not shaving at all, if it were possible for me to grow a beard, but repeated experiment has convinced me that the only result of such action is to make me look like an escaped convict…I know this is a very perfunctory letter…there is no cause for uneasiness on that account.’

{Letters of Francis Thompson. John Walsh. page 25}

Thompson uses the words, ‘before now’ Although we could assign the ‘before now’ as being anytime from before the monastery or before 1889, to when he first grew stubble. The most likely however when he would have to improvise would have been when he had no alternative which would have been his homeless years. I believe it is also telling that his main concern as shown in the letter is that he might be mistaken for a wanted criminal, which once again would have been more of a worry while he was homeless on the streets than any other time.

[MrBarnett]

According to The Tablet of Dec., 1888, in the depths of winter the Refuge employed night workers to range far and wide across the city seeking out the truly desperate.

Those located as far away as Stratford or Hyde Park were provided with the bus fare to Liverpool Street, but they were often so 'ragged and dirty that the conductors refused to admit them' and they were forced to walk to the refuge. 'Among them were the most wretched objects that could be seen and the ordinary people in the refuge refused to associate with them'. Occasionally the number of such people was an added 150 on top of the regular 250 beds.

The idea that Thompson would have been too down-at-heel to have experienced the refuge before November, 1888 is not supported by the evidence.