Jack the Ripper: CSI Whitechapel

[John Bennett]

I should like to think that there will be an opportunity in the future to revise the material in this book, should it come in the event of a 2nd edition, or paperback version.

I would certainly like to amend the figures relating to infant mortality and I'm sure Jake, if he is reading this thread, will be double-checking his sources for the street lamps in Buck's Row. There are a few other little bits and pieces too.

Colin's comment about calling Cross by his real name of Lechmere because we must adapt, is a valid one. Because he appears in the witness statements and press reports as Cross, we cannot completely rule out that name, and he may be referred to as such throughout, but reference should be made that he was actually Charles Lechmere.

What certainly won't happen is being drawn into any scrutiny of WHY he gave a different name, as that could start the suspect ball rolling... and this is not that kind of book.

JB

[Lechmere]

John
I am gratified that you have responded so graciously to the criticism which may seem like carping on minor issues to some.
I know that criticism of ones work can be annoying.
If this was a typical ripper pot boiler then it wouldn't be worth picking up these issues - but it is a very good book that I think will be very popular with the general reader - which makes ironing out the few errors all the more important.
Of course it isn't a suspect book so giving any more detail about Charles Lechmere would be out of Place.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi John,

the book is so good i need to buy a coffee table to put it on.

I hope there are many editions to come
Jenni

[Monty]

Part of BBC America Ripper Street promotion.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/ripper-street/photos/jack-the-ripper-books/#317

Monty

[Zena]

I ordered this from Amazon. Supposed to be delivered tomorrow. Can't wait to dive into it!

[John Bennett]

A fairly nice review with 4/5 stars.

http://www.thebookbag.co.uk/reviews/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper:_CSI:_Whitechapel_by_John_Bennett_and_Paul_Begg

[Stevecollins501]

MadE my Xmas got this as my main pressie from my wife .......FANTASTIC

[richardh]

MadE my Xmas got this as my main pressie from my wife .......FANTASTIC

Yep, Me too. Though I don't know why your wife's buying me presents!

[Steve S]

Mine came from my daughter....

[Jason]

I ended up with two copies of this, as well as two other Whitechapel murder books !! Great xmas all round....i have now been granted an additional book to make up for the duplication .....any recommendations ? only Whitechapel related of course. I have only had a brief flick through but it looks fantastic, tthe image overlooking millers court was surreal, absolutely loved that one. I will start the book in the new year. God bless everyone and happy new year to you all.

[Colin Roberts]

I should like to think that there will be an opportunity in the future to revise the material in this book, should it come in the event of a 2nd edition, or paperback version.

I would certainly like to amend the figures relating to infant mortality ...

Colin's comment about calling Cross by his real name of Lechmere because we must adapt, is a valid one. Because he appears in the witness statements and press reports as Cross, we cannot completely rule out that name, and he may be referred to as such throughout, but reference should be made that he was actually Charles Lechmere.

What certainly won't happen is being drawn into any scrutiny of WHY he gave a different name, as that could start the suspect ball rolling... and this is not that kind of book.

"Colin's comment about calling Cross by his real name of Lechmere because we must adapt, is a valid one. Because he appears in the witness statements and press reports as Cross, we cannot completely rule out that name, …

What certainly won't happen is being drawn into any scrutiny of WHY he gave a different name, …"

Rob's and Phil's second edition handles that dilemma quite nicely, John. It reads something to the effect Nichols's body was discovered by a carman named Charles Lechmere that identified himself throughout the course of the inquest as 'Charles Cross', and simply carries on from there.

The small hamlet of Stepney ... in reference to Whitechapel's origins ...?

I believe that I know what was meant by this statement, but it didn't come across in the way that it should have done. Ditto your description of Charles Booth's Life and Labour of the People in London: it simply didn't come across in the appropriate manner. I will clarify my positions here sometime later today, or later this week, i.e. when the necessary amount of time becomes available.

"I will clarify my positions here sometime later today, or later this week, i.e. when the necessary amount of time becomes available."

Better late than never, I suppose.

In the years leading up to the consecration of the Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel, Stepney was anything but a "small hamlet".


Ancient Parochial Establishment of East London, Circa 1300 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

- Yellow: The Ancient Parish of St. John at Hackney
- Orange: The Ancient Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch
- Red: The Ancient Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney
- Green: The Ancient Parish of Bromley St. Leonard
- Purple: The City of London (Inclusive of its Constituent Ancient Parishes)
- Blue: The Precinct of St. Mary Without Bishopsgate
- Gold: The Liberty of His Majesty's Tower of London
- Green: The Precinct of the Holy Trinity

Between ~1329 and 1817 the Ancient Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney dwindled as its constituent hamlets (or various portions thereof) became the following Civil Parishes:

- St. Mary Whitechapel, ~1329
- St. Paul Shadwell, 1670
- St. John of Wapping, 1694
- Christ Church Spitalfields, 1723
- St. George in the East, 1723
- St. Anne Limehouse, 1729
- St. Mary Stratford Bow, 1740
- St. Matthew Bethnal Green, 1743
- All Saints Poplar, 1817

In 1867, the remaining hamlets in the Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney,

- Mile End New Town
- Mile End Old Town
- Ratcliff

… each became (secular) Civil Parishes, at which point the Ancient Parish (i.e. St. Dunstan Stepney) ceased to exist as a unit of civil administration.

Now, with regard to your use of the term "the small hamlet of Stepney", I will concede that St. Dunstan's Church was situated within a small village, in 1329, that was invariably referred to as 'Stepney'; just as the general area continues to be referred to as such, to this day.

Speaking technically, however, …


St. Dunstan's Church, Hamlet of Ratcliff, 1873 OS (Formerly the Parish Church of St. Dunstan Stepney, - 1867) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

- Green: The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- Red: The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- Blue: The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse

… St. Dunstan's Church was situated, in 1329, in the Hamlet of Ratcliff, which bordered the Hamlet of Mile End to its north.

There was, as yet, - as far as I have been able to gather - no distinction between Mile End Old and New Towns, as the impending creation of a Whitechapel Parish was the mechanism that eventually separated the two respective areas. And there was – again, as far as I have been able to gather – no Hamlet of Limehouse, so to speak, - at least not to the extent that it would have encroached upon the back yard of St. Dunstan's Church – as the area that is color-shaded blue in the above imagery was originally part of the Hamlet of Ratcliff.

It should be noted that certain areas of distinction such as …

- 'Stepney' (an area that straddled portions of the Hamlets of Mile End Old Town and Ratcliff, and the Parish of St. Anne Limehouse)
- 'Hoxton' (an area that straddled portions of the Parishes of St. Luke and St. Leonard Shoreditch)
- 'Haggerston' (an area within the Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch)
- 'Bow Common' (an area that straddled portions of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town and the Parish of Bromley St. Leonard)
- etc.

… were not only labeled on the Ordnance Surveys of the early 1870's and early-to-mid 1890's, but were also mentioned in the Census Records of the same general timeframe, even though they had no defined boundaries. I believe these areas are best described as each having been an Ancient Settlement, a term that I believe would have been much more appropriate than "small hamlet of Stepney", in this particular instance.

I know this must sound incredibly nit-picky, but the political geography of the time was what it was, and it should not be forgotten.

I believe that the following is also relevant to the CSI: Whitechapel description of the origins of the term 'White Chapel'.

I will return later this evening to briefly touch upon the reference to Charles Booth.

St Mary's Matfelon

Personally, I would not use the 'Matfelon' tag, in reference to either the Parish or Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel.

On the basis of everything that I have been able to gather thus far; I am thoroughly convinced that it was merely a colloquial - and therefore, technically incorrect - carryover from the dedication of the Chapel of Ease, i.e. the 'White Chapel', that belonged to the Ancient Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney, until its consecration in ~1329, as the Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel.

While you are technically correct, 'Matfelon' was used, ...

I have seen many instances of its use during the Victorian era, Roy.

But I would argue with utmost conviction that each of them was colloquial.

Even in cases of documentation that would seemingly have called for 'official', if not completely 'formal' usage, such as the one, which you have cited above; I would contend with the same degree of conviction that any reference to 'Matfelon' was neither 'official', nor 'formal', but indeed 'colloquial'.

On the basis of everything that I have been able to gather thus far, I am thoroughly convinced that the St. Dunstan Stepney Chapel of Ease that came to be known as the 'White Chapel', was dedicated to 'St. Mary Matfelon'¹; but that upon its consecration as a Parish Church in ~1329, it was rededicated - simply - to 'St. Mary', and accordingly consecrated as the 'Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel'.

¹Matfelon being, presumably, the name a major benefactor of the chapel.

If the 'Matfelon' tag was not dropped upon the church's 1329 consecration, then it was most certainly dropped before the onset of the nineteenth century. Of that, I am certain!

Even so, I am inclined to believe that there was never a Parish, or Parish Church, ... of 'St. Mary Matfelon Whitechapel'.

While my inclination is based upon a variety of Parish Baptismal & Matrimonial Registers, Parish Boundary Markers, Census Records, tabulated Census Reports, etc ...; its single most significant basis is the multitude of Ordnance Surveys and other similar cartographic sources of information that we are fortunate enough to have at our disposal.

The 1870's series and 1890's series of the Ordnance Survey both clearly delineate an abundance of Parishes of ... St. Mary Something-or-Other ... Some-Place-or-Other:

St. Mary Abbotts Kennsington
St. Mary Stratford Bow
St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey
St. Mary Magdalen Woolwich
St. Mary Aldermary (City of London)
St. Mary Mounthaw (City of London)
St. Mary Somerset (City of London)
St. Mary Colechurch (City of London)
St. Mary le Bow (City of London)
St. Mary Bothaw (City of London)
St. Mary Woolnoth (City of London)
Etc ...

But, in the case of Whitechapel: "St. Mary Whitechapel", i.e. no mention of 'Matfelon'.

However, ...

In the 'Large Scale' versions of each series, the Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel is labeled:

St. Mary's Church
Site of
White Chapel
or
St. Mary Matfelon

I believe that we can gather a great deal from that description.

[Esther Wilson]

I am anxiously awaiting my copy of this book which should be arriving today.

[Cogidubnus]

When it reaches you Esther, you'll not be disappointed...despite any niggling little criticisms here, I still reckon it's easily the best general "entrance" into the case I've seen!

All the best

Dave

[Esther Wilson]

I've only just read 20 pages but I am really enjoying it so far. I love the CGI photos and for me that is the highlight of the entire book. Can't wait to read further.

[PhiltheBear]

I've only just read 20 pages but I am really enjoying it so far. I love the CGI photos and for me that is the highlight of the entire book. Can't wait to read further.

I'm afraid I was disappointed with the CGI - largely because, presumably to give atmosphere, they've all been rendered as night time scenes. In turn that means that what could have been useful depictions of sites leaves them still shrouded. The rest of the book is very good and a useful introduction to the whole JtR story.