Romford

[jason_c]

"That's right miss. And I usually wear my horseshoe pin so's yer could see it right above me vest, but I've misplaced it you see, going down to Romford."

"But, But, But."

Excellent find.


So much for all our experts opinion on men's vintage clothing in this thread.

[The Good Michael]

Thanks Jason. I do find it appalling how people can just push off everything as nonsense that doesn't fit their suspects. It disgusts me totally.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

I do find it appalling how people can just push off everything as nonsense that doesn't fit their suspects. It disgusts me totally.

Yes, Mike, but many people do exactly that. I call it Mad Scientist Syndrome in which facts are moulded to fit the theory, Of course there are loads of not too bright people here who do just that, but also some accepted experts do it as well, albeit in a more sophisticated manner.

[The Good Michael]

Yes, Mike, but many people do exactly that. I call it Mad Scientist Syndrome in which facts are moulded to fit the theory, Of course there are loads of not too bright people here who do just that, but also some accepted experts do it as well, albeit in a more sophisticated manner.

Stephen,

I agree. Some omit arguments and some bring up arguments against their suspects in a very superficial way in order to dismiss them. In books and articles, that is expected. In this forum, it is is somewhat insulting to be dismissed outright. We see that with Hutchinson a lot where there are so many possibilities and absolutely no one says it's impossible that Hutch was the ripper, yet the refutations are on such a nitpicky and intellectually retarded level that soon there is no point to any of it. It is reduced to absurdity at an unamusing level.

Mike

Mike

[jason_c]

Stephen,

I agree. Some omit arguments and some bring up arguments against their suspects in a very superficial way in order to dismiss them. In books and articles, that is expected. In this forum, it is is somewhat insulting to be dismissed outright. We see that with Hutchinson a lot where there are so many possibilities and absolutely no one says it's impossible that Hutch was the ripper, yet the refutations are on such a nitpicky and intellectually retarded level that soon there is no point to any of it. It is reduced to absurdity at an unamusing level.

Mike

Mike

Off topic slightly. But you have hit a nerve for me with this. There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.

Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London. It is middle class posters unable to comprehend the mind of an addict, or an ulterior motive from such posters.

[Fisherman]

Jason:

There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.
Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London."

I think there are three main suggestions:

1. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer was let in by her.
2. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer sneaked in as she slept.
3. Kelly went back out on the streets, met her killer, and took him home.

It´s anybodys guess what happened, but none of the scenarios can be dismissed.

On the whole, very little can be dismissed in the whole Ripper saga. Therein lies both the fascination and the frustration...

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night.

Yes indeed and with no evidence whatsoever.

[jason_c]

Jason:

There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.
Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London."

I think there are three main suggestions:

1. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer was let in by her.
2. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer sneaked in as she slept.
3. Kelly went back out on the streets, met her killer, and took him home.

It´s anybodys guess what happened, but none of the scenarios can be dismissed.

On the whole, very little can be dismissed in the whole Ripper saga. Therein lies both the fascination and the frustration...

The best,
Fisherman

I agree the arguement cannot be dismissed.

Its simply that some folk are incredulous that anyone would go outside at 3 o'clock in the morning. If anyone would walk the streets at 3am it would be a prostitute with an alcohol problem, serious rent arrears, and a bed that was welcoming for more clients.

Yes, it does lead to both fascination and frustration with the case.

[Wickerman]

....Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London. It is middle class posters unable to comprehend the mind of an addict, or an ulterior motive from such posters.

I don't know about "middle-class", but you are spot on with "unable to comprehend".

Consider back to the exchange reported between Astrachan & Kelly, one line:

"She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable "

That sounds very much like an invitation to bed, not just a quicky under her raised skirt. And of course, in bed is where she was found.

Anyhow, with respect to Romford. We don't know who this George Hutchinson was, whether he originated from Romford and had been to see family. Or, was he working for someone back in Romford?
One of the lodginghouse owners lived in Romford, I think it was William Crossingham, but don't quote me on it, was he working for Crossingham? Possibly of no significance, scores of people in Whitechapel may have had connections to Romford.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Grave Maurice]

One of the lodginghouse owners lived in Romford, I think it was William Crossingham, but don't quote me on it....

Oh, we can quote you alright, Jon. Crossingham was born in, retired to, and was buried in, Romford. It's possible, I suppose, that he never actually left and simply popped into town to buy up property. But, as you say, it was within easy walking distance, so many East Enders may have had a connection to the place.

[Lechmere]

Romford wasn't and isn't in easy walking distance - you wouldn't want to do it every day. That is not to say that it was a terrible trek would have left someone (Hutchinson) exhausted and drained to the point of collapse (as some would have it).

I don't think 'comfortable' holds any implication for length of stay.
She wouldn't have said:
"Come back to my place. It's a dump but who cares you'll be done in 5 minutes".

[The Grave Maurice]

I didn't mean to imply that people would go back and forth every day. I was saying that, if someone wanted to move from Romford to, say, Spitalfields, and stay there, it wasn't much of a schlep.

[Lechmere]

I would have said schlap

[Wickerman]

Romford wasn't and isn't in easy walking distance

Google Earth shows the distance as 14 miles.
(Tower of L - Romford)

I don't think 'comfortable' holds any implication for length of stay.

Where did 'length of stay' come into it?

Jon

[The Grave Maurice]

I would have said schlap

Well, then you would have been wrong...again.