Suggested annotations for Hallie Rubenhold's book "The Five" (2019)

[Jose Oranto]

I haven't tried this particular archive, Jose, but I was recently interested in accessing another archive looked after by an order of Catholic nuns, from which I had read some interesting information referenced in a church pamphlet to that particular archive, but I found that even the archives catalogues was only accessible to those granted special permission to visit the archives and look through it and this opportunity was apparently open only to academics and serious researchers with a letter of introduction . Maybe a similar thing would apply with the archive you are interested in?

Perhaps, in my case, it does not depend on the way of requesting it, but on who requests it... HR could see it

[Debra Arif]

Forgive me for bringing up a question I asked a long time ago about Spelthorne Sanatorium in the post 'Annie Chapman's Background'. This, from my point of view, is one of the most important statements I've seen in that book so far (I haven't read beyond Annie's chapter, though). The information is so accurate that it is hard to believe that it is not true. As I said, in May I contacted the alleged HR source, the Community of St Mary the Virgin, where the log books where Annie was registered seem to be located, but unfortunately I received an email from one of the sisters of the convent rejecting my request. This answer didn't even help me to know if those books really exist... although I suspect that they do. Has anyone else tried to trace this track? It would be decisive to be able to complete Annie's background.

I haven't tried this particular archive, Jose, but I was recently interested in accessing another archive looked after by an order of Catholic nuns, from which I had read some interesting information referenced in a church pamphlet to that particular archive, but I found that even the archives catalogues was only accessible to those granted special permission to visit the archives and look through it and this opportunity was apparently open only to academics and serious researchers with a letter of introduction . Maybe a similar thing would apply with the archive you are interested in?

[Jose Oranto]

Forgive me for bringing up a question I asked a long time ago about Spelthorne Sanatorium in the post 'Annie Chapman's Background'. This, from my point of view, is one of the most important statements I've seen in that book so far (I haven't read beyond Annie's chapter, though). The information is so accurate that it is hard to believe that it is not true. As I said, in May I contacted the alleged HR source, the Community of St Mary the Virgin, where the log books where Annie was registered seem to be located, but unfortunately I received an email from one of the sisters of the convent rejecting my request. This answer didn't even help me to know if those entries appear in the books... although I suspect that they do. Has anyone else tried to trace this track? It would be decisive to be able to complete Annie's background.

[Gary Barnett]

I’m rereading the MJK section of The Five and finding lots of dubious stuff. One thing I spotted was that Hallie described Maria Harvey as an unmarried laundress. Is there anything to support that?

I’m intrigued by the possibility that Kelly’s Maria Harvey may have been the widowed washerwoman of that name found by Debra in the STGITE workhouse admissions register.

[Chris Phillips]

It's funny you should make that last comment, because Pat Marshall just sent me another "detained box" story (which I hope she'll be posting) that struck me as remarkably similar to this one found by Jurriaan:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...lly-equivalent

For some reason it made me wonder whether the dealings between Mary and her former employer could have been more commonplace, and the stories of a high-class brothel and trips to Paris could have been romances of her invention.

Pat has now posted the report. For some reason it wasn't visible originally, but the problem has been corrected now:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...ent#post597505

[Gary Barnett]

It's funny you should make that last comment, because Pat Marshall just sent me another "detained box" story (which I hope she'll be posting) that struck me as remarkably similar to this one found by Jurriaan:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...lly-equivalent

For some reason it made me wonder whether the dealings between Mary and her former employer could have been more commonplace, and the stories of a high-class brothel and trips to Paris could have been romances of her invention.

I think there may have been another such story we discussed some time ago. Marcus A may remember. I imagine that holding on to a misbehaving employee’s goods and chattels may have been quite common.

[Gary Barnett]

As I say, it could be a genuine mistake (she’s made plenty of them) but it elevates the unattributed dresses story to one told by someone who can be identified and just happens to be Mrs Buki’s sister-in-law (brother-in-laws partner).

[Chris Phillips]

Hallie R. tells us:

Mrs Felix recalled an incident that she claimed occurred shortly after Mary Jane arrived at 79 Pennington Street.

And that incident was the repossession of Kelly’s expensive dresses from the ‘French Lady’ in Knightsbridge.

Of course, Mrs Felix said nothing of the sort. The story of the repossession of the dresses was uncovered by a Press Association reporter who visited Breezer’s Hill/Pennington Street on either the 11th or the 12th November. The way his report reads, he made contact with ‘Mrs McCarthy’ but not with Elisabeth Boekee. So it seems he heard the story second hand. The question then arises, where did Mrs McCarthy hear the story? Was it from Boekee, from Kelly or someone else?

It’s quite conceivable that the French lady/French trips/riding in carriages/expensive clothes etc were entirely fictional.

It's funny you should make that last comment, because Pat Marshall just sent me another "detained box" story (which I hope she'll be posting) that struck me as remarkably similar to this one found by Jurriaan:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...lly-equivalent

For some reason it made me wonder whether the dealings between Mary and her former employer could have been more commonplace, and the stories of a high-class brothel and trips to Paris could have been romances of her invention.

[Jonathan Menges]

Great stuff, Gary.

She really has created a group of fictional characters.
"Rescued" from reality.

JM

[Gary Barnett]

Whether this was a genuine mistake or a deliberate one, it’s obviously better to be able to put a name to your corroborative source.

The comparison between this, which she accepts without blinking, and her rejection of the idea that Kelly had a brother in the Scots Guards is very telling. She wants Kelly to have had an exotic French interlude and she also wants her to have had a romantic interlude with a Guards officer in the West End. So she accepts the story about the dresses and misattributes it, and she misleads her readers about what kind of lads were recruited into the SG and neglects to mention that the 2nd Bn were based a few minutes away from Pennington Street at about the time Kelly was there.

[Gary Barnett]

Hallie R. tells us:

Mrs Felix recalled an incident that she claimed occurred shortly after Mary Jane arrived at 79 Pennington Street.

And that incident was the repossession of Kelly’s expensive dresses from the ‘French Lady’ in Knightsbridge.

Of course, Mrs Felix said nothing of the sort. The story of the repossession of the dresses was uncovered by a Press Association reporter who visited Breezer’s Hill/Pennington Street on either the 11th or the 12th November. The way his report reads, he made contact with ‘Mrs McCarthy’ but not with Elisabeth Boekee. So it seems he heard the story second hand. The question then arises, where did Mrs McCarthy hear the story? Was it from Boekee, from Kelly or someone else?

It’s quite conceivable that the French lady/French trips/riding in carriages/expensive clothes etc were entirely fictional.

[Gary Barnett]

Yes, a good spot by Debs.

In December of that year, she was arguing furiously with Conway.

Where did she obtain that info from?

[Chris Phillips]

Just going back to Polly's visit to the workhouse, said to be at Easter 1880, another thing that's not clear to me about Rubenhold's treatment is why she specifies it was Renfrew Street workhouse she went to - "she went directly to Lambeth Union Workhouse on Renfrew Road" (p. 44). The examination she cites just says "Lambeth Workhouse". According to information at workhouses.org.uk, Renfrew Gardens was relatively new (opened in 1874). Princes Road was the original workhouse, and was closer to the historical centre of Lambeth.

But judging from the records, for some reason Princes Road was admitting very few people at this time, and continued to admit very few until 1885. Rubenhold does refer to Polly's absence from the 1880 records for Princes Road. Should we conclude that she was aware of the situation, and assumed it must be Renfrew Road?

In fact the examination record says "I went direct into Lambeth Workhouse", not just "to" the workhouse. There was a casual ward at Renfrew Road, but the LMA has no records listed for it. I wonder if the answer could be that she initially went into the casual ward, and therefore avoided the workhouse proper at that time.

[Chris Phillips]

The workhouse admission records don't indicate Eddowes was pregnant. I believe this is a mis-interpretation of the layout of the record. Catherine and her children were discharged from Woolwich Road workhouse on 6 September 1877.The workhouse register has the format of left hand page for admission and facing right hand page for discharge with the first two columns of the discharge page actually the last two columns of the admission page carried over and are headed 'Date of the order of admission' and 'cause of seeking relief.' So the right hand discharge page for Catherine Eddowes and her children appears like this with the words 'destitute and pregnant opposite Catherine Eddowes name

That's a good spot. If she searched on Ancestry, went straight to the page and hadn't seen that record format before, she would have had to notice the slightly thicker vertical line dividing the admission entries from the discharges. Evidently she didn't.

[Debra Arif]

In the chapter about Catherine Eddowes:

"The situation would only worsen. In December of that year, she was arguing furiously with Conway again. Shortly before Christmas, she had left him and taken nine-month-old Frederick with her to the casual ward for the night." 9

Footnote 9 -"Workhouse admission records also indicate that Kate was pregnant during the summer and autumn of 1877 for the sixth time. There is no indication that the pregnancy was brought to term or resulted in a live birth."

The workhouse admission records don't indicate Eddowes was pregnant. I believe this is a mis-interpretation of the layout of the record. Catherine and her children were discharged from Woolwich Road workhouse on 6 September 1877.The workhouse register has the format of left hand page for admission and facing right hand page for discharge with the first two columns of the discharge page actually the last two columns of the admission page carried over and are headed 'Date of the order of admission' and 'cause of seeking relief.' So the right hand discharge page for Catherine Eddowes and her children appears like this with the words 'destitute and pregnant opposite Catherine Eddowes name :




The first two columns opposite Eddowes name actually relate to the admission information (and are divided visually by a thicker black vertical line) on the left hand page for a woman named Charlotte Massey, admitted 6 September, 'destitute and pregnant'. Eddowes admission details appear higher up on the right hand page in line with her name on the admission page and show she was admitted on 5 September as 'destitute,' with her infant son Frederick.