Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 6 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 55 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by j.r-ahde 2 hours ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by jmenges 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by MrBarnett 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (82 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (20 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (12 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Jack's early inspiration? - (2 posts)
General Discussion: IWEC members - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-10-2017, 02:36 AM
richardnunweek richardnunweek is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,214
Default

Hi,
The police believed[ at least initially] that the Millers court murder was committed in Daylight,, even though the medical opinion said otherwise,
''Why''?
Was that based on one witness Maxwell, or did they form that opinion from other sources?
They were the investigation at the time, they were there, so surely we should not dismiss easily..
With reference to Millers court being a brothel. I would say not with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs McCarthy,
Regards Richard.

Last edited by richardnunweek : 01-10-2017 at 02:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-10-2017, 05:50 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary_Jane_Kelly View Post
He had lost his job, through theft, so its clear he wasnt able to support them both and there is no evidence that he was supporting them both anyway. She was a known prostitute who was even sharing her room with other prostitutes and that was the reason he left her, this is fact. Whether or not she didnt walk the streets for a short period whilst she was with Barnett is neither here or there.
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of why Joe lost is job. Any sources?

Joe said he gave Mary money when he could, after they split up. This could have been an attempt to show he wasn't living off immoral earnings, I suppose. But if Joe knew that Mary was walking the streets whilst she lived with him, why would another prostitute staying for a couple of days have upset him enough to leave?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-10-2017, 07:45 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,387
Default

Telegraph 10 Nov
Mrs Prater interview: it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.....Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a living

However, in the same paper, "The landlord emphatically disowns any knowledge of his tenement having been used for improper purposes"

And yet, the Daily News 10 Nov says;
"Mr. McCarthy, the proprietor of this shop, has no hesitation in avowing his knowledge that all his six houses were tenanted by women of a certain class. They were let out in separate rooms "furnished," that is to say, there is in each of them a bed and a table, and, perhaps, one or two odds and ends, all of the roughest and most trumpery description, since if any of the things had any appreciable value in the market they would be certain to disappear."

I think McCarthy would have been well aware of how the women of the court earned their rent money (at least on occasion), but turned a blind eye, for legal purposes and possibly more. He may even have seen himself as something of a benefactor - check out his defence of Dorset St a decade or so later;
http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...in-london.html
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:00 AM
Mary_Jane_Kelly Mary_Jane_Kelly is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardnunweek View Post
Hi,
The police believed[ at least initially] that the Millers court murder was committed in Daylight,, even though the medical opinion said otherwise,
''Why''?
Was that based on one witness Maxwell, or did they form that opinion from other sources?
They were the investigation at the time, they were there, so surely we should not dismiss easily..
With reference to Millers court being a brothel. I would say not with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs McCarthy,
Regards Richard.
Hi Richard,

Yes there was more than one witness to her being seen he next morning I think, at least too many to just completely refute the idea. The was that tailor so came forward to seeing her twice the next morning and someone else came forward to say Mary and Joe were in the horn o plenty pub the day after. I believe there was more.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:05 AM
Mary_Jane_Kelly Mary_Jane_Kelly is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of why Joe lost is job. Any sources?

Joe said he gave Mary money when he could, after they split up. This could have been an attempt to show he wasn't living off immoral earnings, I suppose. But if Joe knew that Mary was walking the streets whilst she lived with him, why would another prostitute staying for a couple of days have upset him enough to leave?
Yes there are a few sources it isnt hidden knowledge. I think he even mentioned it himself at the inquiry. He was a fish porter (or something similar) and lost his job through theft in early August/September.

He may have given her money 'on occasion' but there is nothing to say he supported her fully. Knowing Mary was a prostitute is one thing, living in a small room with her and other prostitutes is another, it was probably the last straw for their relationship (they were known be be a volatile couple).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-10-2017, 08:22 AM
Mary_Jane_Kelly Mary_Jane_Kelly is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Telegraph 10 Nov
Mrs Prater interview: it was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased.....Kelly was, she admitted, one of her own class, and she made no secret of her way of gaining a living

However, in the same paper, "The landlord emphatically disowns any knowledge of his tenement having been used for improper purposes"

And yet, the Daily News 10 Nov says;
"Mr. McCarthy, the proprietor of this shop, has no hesitation in avowing his knowledge that all his six houses were tenanted by women of a certain class. They were let out in separate rooms "furnished," that is to say, there is in each of them a bed and a table, and, perhaps, one or two odds and ends, all of the roughest and most trumpery description, since if any of the things had any appreciable value in the market they would be certain to disappear."

I think McCarthy would have been well aware of how the women of the court earned their rent money (at least on occasion), but turned a blind eye, for legal purposes and possibly more. He may even have seen himself as something of a benefactor - check out his defence of Dorset St a decade or so later;
http://www.casebook.org/victorian_lo...in-london.html
If Mcarthy was involved in the illicit goings on it would make sense, but would that mean that the 'rent' he was collecting was inflated and he wouldnt want his exploitation of the situation known.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-10-2017, 11:10 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary_Jane_Kelly View Post
If Mcarthy was involved in the illicit goings on it would make sense, but would that mean that the 'rent' he was collecting was inflated and he wouldnt want his exploitation of the situation known.
I don't think McCarthy's rent demands were inflated. He was charging Mary and Joe 4 shillings and sixpence a week for a furnished room - less than 8 pence a night - which is actually cheaper than a double bed in a common lodging house. Plus he was prepared to let her get in arrears, when he could have simply evicted her. The possibility remains that he was exploiting his tenants somehow, but if so he seems to have kept his nose clean...or had friends in high places;

Irish Times 10 Nov
"Mr M'Carthy is spoken of by the police as a most respectable man, and was recently awarded a prize for collecting money for the hospitals. He is naturally much distressed at the terrible tragedy which has occurred literally at his door."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:11 PM
MysterySinger MysterySinger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 401
Default

I wouldn't necessarily label Miller's Court a brothel at all. There were far more people living there than are immediately apparent from the reports and this includes families. Suspect it wasn't much different to other similar courts around or other areas where accommodation needed to be cheap.

I would refer to you to previous discussions about the residents of Miller's Court which starts to provide lists of the residents as far as possible.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=millers+court
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-10-2017, 03:36 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary_Jane_Kelly View Post
Yes there are a few sources it isnt hidden knowledge. I think he even mentioned it himself at the inquiry. He was a fish porter (or something similar) and lost his job through theft in early August/September.

He may have given her money 'on occasion' but there is nothing to say he supported her fully. Knowing Mary was a prostitute is one thing, living in a small room with her and other prostitutes is another, it was probably the last straw for their relationship (they were known be be a volatile couple).
Maybe you could post the part of the inquest where Joe says he list his job because of theft.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-10-2017, 04:14 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary_Jane_Kelly View Post
Was Millers court a brothel?

Nearly every resident was a prostitute, Mary Kelly was known to let other girls stay/work with her and the other prostitutes living in the court might have let girls stay with them too. From the reports and resident interviews at the time it looks like prostitutes were still in abundance here for some years after. Seems like a lot of prostitutes residing/working from the same location. Is this a coincidence or was it a known place of prostitution?
Quite possibly. Does it matter? Does it get us any closer to solving the Ripper murders?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.