Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect.

[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]

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.

[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:

[Joshua Rogan]

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

[Richard Patterson]

Thank you Joshua for the link to the wonderful map.

[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/

[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??

[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.

[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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

Hi Richard,

The Tablet followed the fortunes of the refuge for decades.

One report from 1888 talks of the addition of 150 beds for the 'most desperate' scooped up off the streets by their night workers. Another gives precise details of the application form, including a question on why an applicant left his last employer.

Another talks of a separate 'men's wing'.

Many of them make the point that no genuine applicant was ever turned away, although in something like 30% of cases the references did not pan out and the initial 5 days accommodation was not extended.

All Thompson had to do was convince a nun that he was deserving of charity and he would have been through the door.

I'm away from my books at the moment, but my recollection of Walsh's version of events is that Thompson was saved from rock-bottom by his Chelsea prostitute. After living at her flat (room) for a period it's likely he had cleaned himself up a bit, and he would have had the name of a recent landlord he could have given the Refuge as a referee.


Gary

[MrBarnett]

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.

The door may not have been locked, but surely there was a night porter of some kind. Otherwise anyone could have wandered in off the street.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard,

The Tablet followed the fortunes of the refuge for decades.

One report from 1888 talks of the addition of 150 beds for the 'most desperate' scooped up off the streets by their night workers. Another gives precise details of the application form, including a question on why an applicant left his last employer.

Another talks of a separate 'men's wing'.

Many of them make the point that no genuine applicant was ever turned away, although in something like 30% of cases the references did not pan out and the initial 5 days accommodation was not extended.

All Thompson had to do was convince a nun that he was deserving of charity and he would have been through the door.

I'm away from my books at the moment, but my recollection of Walsh's version of events is that Thompson was saved from rock-bottom by his Chelsea prostitute. After living at her flat (room) for a period it's likely he had cleaned himself up a bit, and he would have had the name of a recent landlord he could have given the Refuge as a referee.


Gary

Thanks Gary. The Tablet does have many articles on Providence Row. It is possible that Thompson may have given the Row the name of the landlord of his Chelsea prostitute, although I wonder if him referencing a Prostitute's landlord would have been the best way to introduce himself to a nun if he wanted entry. Here is the link for what it's worth to the 1926 Darkest London book by Mrs Chesterton which details conditions at the Row. The link is for the relevant chapter.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...ew=1up;seq=245

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary. The Tablet does have many articles on Providence Row. It is possible that Thompson may have given the Row the name of the landlord of his Chelsea prostitute, although I wonder if him referencing a Prostitute's landlord would have been the best way to introduce himself to a nun if he wanted entry. Here is the link for what it's worth to the 1926 Darkest London book by Mrs Chesterton which details conditions at the Row. The link is for the relevant chapter.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...ew=1up;seq=245

Hi Richard,

All he would have had to do would have been to come across as 'deserving' and provide answers to the questions below. He would then have gained acess to the refuge, which is all that he would have needed to have written a first-hand account of it. If the references didn't pan out, he would have been asked to leave after his initial 5-day stint.

The Tablet, 1885

A Sister, seated between the tables, was busy taking down answers to the questions put to those seeking relief and refuge. I was allowed to look at these questions. The following are taken from the printed form :
1. Name and age of applicant.
2. Nationality and state of life.
3. Business or occupation.
4. Name and address of reference. N.B.—If an employer, the reference must be within six months, and not of less than one month's duration.
5. Length of engagement.
6. When terminated.
7. Cause of leaving.
If for some reason reference to an employer cannot be given, state particularly the case, and then the reference may be taken to the landlord of the last residence, if within six months, and for a period of not less than one month. N.B.—No reference to a common lodging-house to be accepted.
8. Name and address of referee.
9. Any further statement which the referee can confirm.
10. Any additional particulars it may be considered expedient to mention.
Pending such inquiries as may be requisite to satisfy the active committee, a white card is given to the applicants bearing this inscription: "Providence-row Night Refuge, Crispin-street and Raven-row, E., Women under Investigation." This ticket is available for five nights, and if all is satisfactory as to references, and the case is still urgent, then a fresh ticket is given to the applicant with "Admit Bearer," the number of nights being inserted accordingly.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Gary,

Yes. You are right. Thompson could have appeared deserving all through his time in London and been able to stay for at least five nights. Interesting. I will edit my book to take this into account for future readers. Much appreciated. I wonder, if this is what happened if, he could have done this more than once and have stayed on multiple occasions or if they kept some kind of record of dubious prior applicants.

Richard.

[MrBarnett]

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

If you look at Joshua's map you will see the Raven Row side of the Refuge had 2 storeys as opposed the 3 on the Crispin Street side.

This (again from The Tablet, 1898) speaks of an additional storey being built on the 'men's wing':

... the Committee hoped by next winter to have placed another floor on the men's wing, which would enable them to have a loftier refectory, a permanent soup kitchen, and a drying room for clothes in wet weather. In conclusion, Mr. Purssell paid a tribute to the efforts of Mr. Lane, the superintendent of the men's section.

I very much doubt that Thompson was ever able to gaze through the Crispin Street windows towards Millers Court.