Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thomas Fogarty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    I wonder if it could be related to M A Fogerty's venereal disease shortly before she died?
    I wondered that. Who infected whom, I wonder? (Assuming they didn't both bring that particular gift to the wedding feast.)

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't think I've posted this snippet before. It concerns the 1888 incident, which, of course, may not have involved our particular violent blind East End hawker.


      image.jpeg

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
        My guess is that he went to an asylum or infirmary where, without his wife to supply info and without a clear mind to answer questions with, he could have been listed under a badly misspelled name.
        I have trawled the STGITE and Whitechapel deaths indexes from '02 to '10 without seeing anyone who looks promising. I'll have another go later. I tend to use FreeBMD for such purposes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
          My guess is that he went to an asylum or infirmary where, without his wife to supply info and without a clear mind to answer questions with, he could have been listed under a badly misspelled name.
          I think he would have been fairly well known in SGITE at least. Less so in Whitechapel or further afield, perhaps. And as Ed said, in one of his rare lucid moments, if he just dropped dead in the street somewhere, he could have been registered under anon.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
            I think he would have been fairly well known in SGITE at least. Less so in Whitechapel or further afield, perhaps. And as Ed said, in one of his rare lucid moments, if he just dropped dead in the street somewhere, he could have been registered under anon.
            But he made it to the St George East Infirmary from the workhouse on 1 November 1902, he just doesn't seem to have been discharged at all! Unless I missed him. The SGE Infirmary records aren't transcribed so it's a case of trawling. There's an untranscibed index for the records each year in book form but there's no 1902 index! It's a conspiracy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
              But he made it to the St George East Infirmary from the workhouse on 1 November 1902, he just doesn't seem to have been discharged at all! Unless I missed him. The SGE Infirmary records aren't transcribed so it's a case of trawling. There's an index for the records in book form but there's no 1902 index! It's a conspiracy.
              Stolen by jealous Lechmerians, I shouldn't wonder.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                But he made it to the St George East Infirmary from the workhouse on 1 November 1902, he just doesn't seem to have been discharged at all! Unless I missed him. The SGE Infirmary records aren't transcribed so it's a case of trawling. There's an untranscibed index for the records each year in book form but there's no 1902 index! It's a conspiracy.
                Do you remember the little squirell who couldn't remember what had a hazelnut in every bite - until the very end?

                Bit like me sometimes.

                It does seem very likely that Foggy never made it out of the infirmary alive after his Nov., '02 admission. So Nov/Dec '02' may well be when he was reunited with Poll?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                  Stolen by jealous Lechmerians, I shouldn't wonder.
                  Sod it - hes onto us, Edward!
                  "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Gary:

                    In post 17, why couldn't the perp have been Foggerty ?
                    Just curious.....
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      Gary:

                      In post 17, why couldn't the perp have been Foggerty ?
                      Just curious.....
                      I was thinking that Foggy might not have lost his sight until 1887/8. There was a TF admitted to the STGITE infirmary (I think) in 1887 who gave his address as 9, North East passage and his occupation as a labourer. The address looked good for our guy, but he was unlikely to have been blind if he had been currently a labourer. The perp in post 17 was convicted in '81, I think.

                      Of course, he may have given an old occupation and the vicious blind man may have been partially sighted enough to wield a shovel.

                      Obviously, it's early days with this guy.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Sorry, How, I should have looked at the post you were referring to before responding. My comment below was about the man named Frederick Feehan, convicted in 1881.

                        We just don't know the name of the man who carried out the 1888 attack. Or the victim for that matter.

                        There could have been more than one angry blind beggar/hawker in the East End at the time.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          I was thinking that Foggy might not have lost his sight until 1887/8. There was a TF admitted to the STGITE infirmary (I think) in 1887 who gave his address as 9, North East passage and his occupation as a labourer. The address looked good for our guy, but he was unlikely to have been blind if he had been currently a labourer. The perp in post 17 was convicted in '81, I think.

                          Of course, he may have given an old occupation and the vicious blind man may have been partially sighted enough to wield a shovel.

                          Obviously, it's early days with this guy.
                          That's not the Sept 1888 Spitalfields later nr Buck's Row attack?! It sounds exactly the same.

                          Fogerty was admitted to Raine St workhouse in 1887 and was listed as a match seller living at Queen Court so that occupation fits with being blind although it doesn't specifically say he was.
                          His marital status can also be used as a guide. He's single before 93, married 93 to 96 and widow after that.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                            Sod it - hes onto us, Edward!
                            Have been for years, but too much of a gentleman to mention it. ;-)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                              Sorry, How, I should have looked at the post you were referring to before responding. My comment below was about the man named Frederick Feehan, convicted in 1881.

                              We just don't know the name of the man who carried out the 1888 attack. Or the victim for that matter.

                              There could have been more than one angry blind beggar/hawker in the East End at the time.
                              I thought it was a bit too similar!

                              It's probably my fault, It was me who first mentioned this story up on the other thread. As soon as you mentioned Fogerty was blind and living with a woman named Mary Ann Connolly possibly Pearly Poll, the incident sprung to mind as no one had ever found who the victim in that was, despite several researchers looking through the LH records.
                              It's ingrained on my mind because Susan Ward was ruled out by me and I've always wanted to find who it was.

                              Anyway, the victim can't have been Pearly Poll if there was any link to Fogerty as she entered St George in the East Infirmary on Aug 27th 1888 and wasn't discharged until Oct 6 1888 as I posted on the old Pearly Poll thread.

                              Someone asked me this question very recently and I thought it worth asking here just to be certain: Once someone was admitted to an infirmary or workhouse , what were the chances they were able to come and go as they pleased during that timethe time of their recorded stay at that institution? I don't think someone under treatment in an infirmary would be allowed to leave the premises but does anyone know for certain or have a different opinion on this?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                                That's not the Sept 1888 Spitalfields later nr Buck's Row attack?! It sounds exactly the same.

                                Fogerty was admitted to Raine St workhouse in 1887 and was listed as a match seller living at Queen Court so that occupation fits with being blind although it doesn't specifically say he was.
                                His marital status can also be used as a guide. He's single before 93, married 93 to 96 and widow after that.
                                Yes, it is Debs, but the location varies in different reports. In one it's in Spitalfields Market, in another between Hanbury Street and Buck's Row, and in yet another in Buck's Row itself.

                                I thought I'd seen post '95 entries where he was recorded as single?

                                When did Poll first start using STGITE parish amenities (couldn't think of a better word)?

                                If her Foggy is who I think he is, then he was basically a STGITE man. I was wondering whether we might get a clue about when the two first hooked up from her movements.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X