Thomas Fogarty

[Roy Corduroy]

You are right Gary you didn't say to not discuss Tom's book. Sorry.

I also do not go along with the wider conspiratorial connections which Tom implied. But wait, don't you have your own Lords of Breezer's Hill you are developing, the Maywood gang? And they have a shill, too, Elizabeth Phoenix. Shades of Tom's idea of dastardly bad actors pulling the strings which you pooed pooed.

Gary, Tom's book had one very unique, new original idea. That Pearly Poll came forward to lie about the soldiers in the Tabram murder because someone put her up to it. And you have found your someone, Fogarty. You have slotted him directly into Tom's scenario. It is the centerpiece of your theory. And there's nothing wrong with that, with building on Tom's original idea.

Here was the exchange before which gave me the distinct impression you didn't want to discuss Tom's book or his theories. It seemed pretty abrupt to me. For a thread which was about Tabram, after all.

click

When I simply mentioned his book to the OP, you replied:

"Tom suggests many things. Much of it is mere guesswork, though, and some of it has been disproved.

His Millous claim should give everyone pause for thought"

Okay I give up. I'm not going to wade through thousands of post in threads I can't find plus the accompanying asides, YouTube videos, Scrapple jokes and all to figure out what you're talking about there about Millous. Before I pause along with everyone else. I'm not pausing. Instead, I'll switch horses. I'll come over to your side, but with some conditions.

Number one, beware of "guesswork" as you put it. Especially the mere kind. Because first of all, you will have to come up with a scenario for Fog meeting Martha on the landing back of George Yard to discuss his $ take on her selling the fobs. Or were they gonna do the nasty. (At least since he's blind, it doesn't matter if it's night or day, he could discuss business or do the assignation. Just gotta find the stairs.)

The ball's in your court.

Roy

[Gary Barnett]

You are right Gary you didn't say to not discuss Tom's book. Sorry.

I also do not go along with the wider conspiratorial connections which Tom implied. But wait, don't you have your own Lords of Breezer's Hill you are developing, the Maywood gang? And they have a shill, too, Elizabeth Phoenix. Shades of Tom's idea of dastardly bad actors pulling the strings which you pooed pooed.

Gary, Tom's book had one very unique, new original idea. That Pearly Poll came forward to lie about the soldiers in the Tabram murder because someone put her up to it. And you have found your someone, Fogarty. You have slotted him directly into Tom's scenario. It is the centerpiece of your theory. And there's nothing wrong with that, with building on Tom's original idea.

Here was the exchange before which gave me the distinct impression you didn't want to discuss Tom's book or his theories. It seemed pretty abrupt to me. For a thread which was about Tabram, after all.

click

When I simply mentioned his book to the OP, you replied:

"Tom suggests many things. Much of it is mere guesswork, though, and some of it has been disproved.

His Millous claim should give everyone pause for thought"

Okay I give up. I'm not going to wade through thousands of post in threads I can't find plus the accompanying asides, YouTube videos, Scrapple jokes and all to figure out what you're talking about there about Millous. Before I pause along with everyone else. I'm not pausing. Instead, I'll switch horses. I'll come over to your side, but with some conditions.

Number one, beware of "guesswork" as you put it. Especially the mere kind. Because first of all, you will have to come up with a scenario for Fog meeting Martha on the landing back of George Yard to discuss his $ take on her selling the fobs. Or were they gonna do the nasty. (At least since he's blind, it doesn't matter if it's night or day, he could discuss business or do the assignation. Just gotta find the stairs.)

The ball's in your court.

Roy

Roy,

Tom’s book has much to commend it, not least that he was the first to concentrate on the early murders. It’s a proper Ripper book.

I wasn’t convinced at the time that Poll was put up to derail the Tabram investigation because it seemed far more likely that her soldier story was basically true, subject to the vagaries of her alcoholic memory and a possible reluctance to reveal the extent of her and Martha’s ‘trade’ that night. Perhaps they did half a dozen soldiers that night, plus an assortment of sailors, dockers, costers etc...

Given the binary choice of embarrassed amnesiac alcoholic or agent of a vast shadowy conspiracy, I plumped for forgetful, ashamed drunk.

But when Fogarty heaved into view, I had a rethink. And not to take anything away from Tom in first questioning Poll’s motives, I think the possibility of Poll covering for the violent man who would later become her husband might have occurred to me or others even if Tom hadn’t got there first.

BTW, I’m only considering Foggy for the Tabram killing.

The holy grails of Fogarty research are:

Identifying the blind seller of laces who attacked his guide near Spitalfields Market.

Finding evidence that Poll snd Foggy were an item at the time Tabram was killed.

Proving whether Foggy was soldier 40869, and if he was, discovering the crime for which he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, served largely in civil prisons.

All contributions will be greatly appreciated.����

Gary

[Gary Barnett]

As for the Breezer’s Hill mob: as a group it seems, they upped sticks, left the Highway and set up shop in a red light district in Limehouse, where Johannes Morgenstern carried out a vicious attack on three women, stabbing one, kicking another and then coolly removing his coat and waistcoat to beat a third with a poker. Then there’s the apparent connections between those in Breezer’s Hill and Pennington Street and the Nodings of Station Place. More attacks on women there as well as the axe attack on Lottie Jones back in Pennington Street.

This is extreme violence by the people running these establishments, who had once been MJK’s employers, not just violence occurring around them. Very different from the Lords of Spitalfields, who let out scruffy rooms, liked boxing and ignored some of the irritating rules that got in the way of their businesses. Very different.

[Roy Corduroy]

But when Fogarty heaved into view, I had a rethink. And not to take anything away from Tom in first questioning Poll’s motives, I think the possibility of Poll covering for the violent man who would later become her husband might have occurred to me or others even if Tom hadn’t got there first.

Oh dear.

Tom got there first, period. Whether his add-ons about conspiracy etc were over the top or not. The idea of Pearly Poll coming forward to lie to the authorities because someone put her up to it. Tom thought of that. It was not reverse engineered when Foggy was found. And anyway, wasn't Foggy found when the spotlight was put on Pearly as a direct result of Tom's work.

Gary, I find it hard to believe you can't just honestly say that. You are using Tom's idea and you have gone in a new direction with it.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Roy

[Gary Barnett]

Oh dear.

Tom got there first, period. Whether his add-ons about conspiracy etc were over the top or not. The idea of Pearly Poll coming forward to lie to the authorities because someone put her up to it. Tom thought of that. It was not reverse engineered when Foggy was found. And anyway, wasn't Foggy found when the spotlight was put on Pearly as a direct result of Tom's work.

Gary, I find it hard to believe you can't just honestly say that. You are using Tom's idea and you have gone in a new direction with it.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Roy

I have no problem with giving Tom the credit for having thought of the idea of Poll deliberately trying to derail the Tabram investigation to cover for the murderer (assuming he was the first). Why should I? But the idea that she was an unsatisfactory witness and may not have been straight with the police surely predates TBHM?

I found Fogarty and Poll shacked up together while searching a newly-released Catholic census on FindMyPast. I must have run dozens of case-related names through the Catholic records that were released at that time, but my primary interest would have been those living in and around the Highway and other locations that are of particular interest to me.

I’m pretty sure the name Mary Ann Connelly would have rung a bell with me even if I hadn’t read TBHM - she’s one of the best known characters in the whole saga after all. Then, once you have found a violent, mentally unstable character living among the prostitutes and ne’r do wells of St Geo E and Spitalfields, the idea that he might have had a hand in one or more of the WM is not exactly odd - it’s what we do, isn’t it? And when it turns out that he went on to marry PP, surely the idea that he might have had a hand in the Tabram murder specifically would occur to anyone?

My interest in Foggy, however, is not restricted to his potential as a suspect in the Tabram case. He’s a Ratcliff Highway character of the first order in his own right, the fact that he married Pearly Poll, who has always been one of my favourite characters in the Ripper saga, just makes him more interesting in my eyes. He’s up there in my pantheon of Highway notables for ever more.

I have a rather odd take on things which can be best summed up by saying that in my view MJK didn’t make Breezers Hill famous, it was the other way round. Ditto PP and North East Passage and the Pinchin Street torso. Liz Stride is interesting because of her connection to Princes/Swedenborg Square and Polly Nichols is because she was found near an HB slaughter yard. These all have some family resonance for me, but Tabram’s murder in George Yard Buildings tops the lot. My maternal grandfather, his parents and brother were living there between March, 1888 and December, 1890 when my great grandfather died in the Whitechapel Infirmary. By the time of the 1891 census, his widow and her two sons had moved to Angel Alley. So you see, fascinating as Tom’s book was - and I have acknowledged my debt to it in the past - it was not the source of my particular interest in the Tabram case - that predates TBHM by at least a decade or so.

[Gary Barnett]

I’ve just looked at Sugden’s description of Poll’s performance as a witness. He finishes by saying, ‘Yet all this does not necessarily mean that Poll deliberately sabotaged the investigation. That idea has been floating around forever.

[Gary Barnett]

One last thing about TBHM on this thread for now (from me). I don’t agree that the one ‘unique, new original idea’ in the book is that Poll might have been covering for someone. There are quite a few new ideas in the book.

[Edward Stow]

Poor Tom.
Millous was of course mentioned in his second book - Ripper Confidential (was that what it was called?)
A very questionable inclusion on his part on that book and easily shot down.

Both of his books were a spur to further enquiry. Most if not all of the things which brought Pearly Poll''s testimony into question have been effectively disproved so I don't see how she is useful to any supposed case against Foggy.

I suspect the issues Gary wishes to resolve will remain a mystery - except maybe his five year conviction. I don't think there is a great mystery behind his incarceration in a civilian jail as it would have covered until the end of his service and he spent virtually all his service in the glass house anyway.

What we have is a violent (supposedly) blind rogue who married Pearly Poll. Making him a murder suspect is like making any mad East End Jew a murder suspect.
But Foggy is an interesting character in his own right - like Le Grand, Tomkins or Pizer - or Pearly Poll.

Regarding Maywood - he was also clearly a criminal - unlike the 'Lords of Spitalfields'.

[Gary Barnett]

Poor Tom.
Millous was of course mentioned in his second book - Ripper Confidential (was that what it was called?)
A very questionable inclusion on his part on that book and easily shot down.

Both of his books were a spur to further enquiry. Most if not all of the things which brought Pearly Poll''s testimony into question have been effectively disproved so I don't see how she is useful to any supposed case against Foggy.

I suspect the issues Gary wishes to resolve will remain a mystery - except maybe his five year conviction. I don't think there is a great mystery behind his incarceration in a civilian jail as it would have covered until the end of his service and he spent virtually all his service in the glass house anyway.

What we have is a violent (supposedly) blind rogue who married Pearly Poll. Making him a murder suspect is like making any mad East End Jew a murder suspect.
But Foggy is an interesting character in his own right - like Le Grand, Tomkins or Pizer - or Pearly Poll.

Regarding Maywood - he was also clearly a criminal - unlike the 'Lords of Spitalfields'.

Ed,

That would be a violent, mad East End jew with a relationship to a key witness in the case and who probably carried a selection of knives on his person. Surely, anyone not wearing suspect blinkers would have him down in their list of possibles. And surely anyone not wearing Lechmere specs would also acknowledge the similarity between the Spitalfields attack and that on Tabram. And if that had been carried out by a blind beigel seller and your mad Jewish suspect was also blind and sold beigels...

But, of course, no-one ever accused Foggy of being ‘v. decent’, so he doesn’t have your guy’s credentials.

Gary


I’ve found a potential source for info on the GCM - a publication called Allen’s Indian Mail which reported on events in the subcontinent and the wider East.

Unfortunately, I haven’t so far been able to locate an early Jan, 1882 edition that might contain details of Foggy’s court martial. I have seen reports of other GCMs, though, of both officers and enlisted men.

[Gary Barnett]

Here’s an 1878 example from Allen’s:



Foggy’s info is out there somewhere.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Gary, first of all yes I am aware you only stumbled onto us during research into your family history. We're all glad you came and please stick around. I sincerely appreciate that you are so gracious about it and do not lord it over the rest of us, as if you and only you have cred because your ancestors were from East London. It's happened believe me.

All Ripper writers have looked askance at Pearly Poll. In response to the question you posed Gary - yes unequivocally Tom Wescott was the first book writer to go out on a limb carrying an 800 lb gorilla and propose Pearly Poll came forward and knowingly lied to the authorities and somebody put her up to it. Phil Sugden's measured potrayal of Pearly you quoted is apples & oranges compared to Tom's Pearly caper in Bank Holiday Murders.

Hi Ed,

Most if not all of the things which brought Pearly Poll''s testimony into question have been effectively disproved so I don't see how she is useful to any supposed case against Foggy.

Maybe you put it better than I could, Ed, but yes this is sorta what I was getting at, Gary. Your previous comment on Casebook to proceed with caution on Tom's theoretical underpinnning based on a factual analysis.

Gary, what I'm trying to say is, are we dealing with a case of "you want to have your cake and eat it too." (have you ever heard that expression) You are quick to point out Tom's errors, yet you are using his original idea as the key component in your Foggy scenario. After killing M. Tabram, Fog coerced his sweetie Pearly Poll come to forward to the authorities and lie about the night in question. To be his shill.

Gary, perhaps you have some way where it's all brand new with Fog and Pearl the shill in which the disproving of Tom doesn't matter. I'll check back. I just happened to luck out and peruse this thread at the time you gave your scenario on page 48. Because to be honest Gary, I'm getting so old, that when I check the forum, with the multitudes of threads and posts, and all the asides, YouTube videos, hail marys, Rodin's goatee, train schedules to and fro, hither and yon, who had sausage and who had cornflakes, and all that stuff, the hardy har hars, it gives me a good chuckle and I forget what we're doing here.

And maybe who knows, that is the desired effect

Roy

[Anna Morris]

If Foggy and Pearly and Martha and soldiers were out drinking for an evening, I think someone would remember a blind man with them.

But if said blind man wanted a "date" so to speak, a pre-arranged location could have been chosen and the "date" sent to him. A dark stairwell would have been no problem for him. Perhaps if the "date" made some comment like, "Oh, you are that blind bugger," it would not have gone well from that point. Just a possible scenario. Did Foggy have any special associations with the building in question?

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Roy,

Thanks for that post.

I think I’ve said this before: when it was a binary choice between Poll being an agent for the Cockney Nostra and a ditzy alcoholic who couldn’t remember half of what she had done that night and was embarrassed to fully reveal the other half, I opted for ditzy alky. But when the possibility that she might have been coerced into going to the police by a violent boyfriend came along, that made a lot more sense. I can’t see her as an agent of the ‘Lords’, but I can see her as Foggy’s shill or as a ditzy alky.

It’s not true that the points that support the idea of her being a shill have been disposed of. Possible innocent reasons have been put forward, but there’s no getting over the fact that her performance as a witness was very odd.

Fogarty is a very interesting character who was in the thick of it all, so I intend to follow his trail until it goes cold.

[Gary Barnett]

If Foggy and Pearly and Martha and soldiers were out drinking for an evening, I think someone would remember a blind man with them.

But if said blind man wanted a "date" so to speak, a pre-arranged location could have been chosen and the "date" sent to him. A dark stairwell would have been no problem for him. Perhaps if the "date" made some comment like, "Oh, you are that blind bugger," it would not have gone well from that point. Just a possible scenario. Did Foggy have any special associations with the building in question?

Good points, Anna.

A couple of soldiers accompanied by local women might not have registered, but ditto with blind Tommy in tow is far more likely to have done so.

And just because Foggy was blind, it doesn’t follow that he didn’t have the usual ‘needs’ of a man in his mid-30s. I would imagine he gave a lot of custom to the local ‘unfortunates’. Fast forward to 1893 and he’s living with three of them shortly before marrying his Poll.

As I understand it, GYB were inhabited by poor but economically stable families. My lot who lived there had previously been residents of the Flower & Dean doss houses. The head of the household was variously described as a hawker, coster and general dealer. After his death the family moved to Angel Alley and his widow’s occupation was recorded as ‘bed maker’, presumably she made up beds in the local doss houses. I think Foggy, the hawker, beggar and frequent workhouse resident, was a rung or two down the social ladder from even the poorest GYB tennant.

[Anna Morris]

I have read that military weapons were available for purchase at the time but what about uniforms? Or enough of a uniform that a man could pass as a soldier? There are some men today who scrounge up uniforms at thrift stores, buy fake medals, or even real ones, and spin great yarns about their nonexistent service. What's the chance Pearly Poll's soldiers could have been of this type?