J. McDermott

[lynn cates]

O'Brien

Hello (again) Chris. One of Jenkinson's agents was Matthew O'Brien. O'Brien claimed to have a couple of letters that would bring Sir Edward down. Hence, he, too, had a blackmail scheme involving Jenkinson.

O'Brien, according to Campbell, was involved with "Red" Jim McDermott on some entrapment operations. He later opened up a private investigation firm in London. He was involved in the Parnell Commission investigations as an agent for BOTH sides (!).

I say, was this the O'Brien mentioned as a JTR suspect in the Special Branch ledgers?

Cheers.
LC

[Chris]

Hello (again) Chris. One of Jenkinson's agents was Matthew O'Brien. O'Brien claimed to have a couple of letters that would bring Sir Edward down. Hence, he, too, had a blackmail scheme involving Jenkinson.

O'Brien, according to Campbell, was involved with "Red" Jim McDermott on some entrapment operations. He later opened up a private investigation firm in London. He was involved in the Parnell Commission investigations as an agent for BOTH sides (!).

I say, was this the O'Brien mentioned as a JTR suspect in the Special Branch ledgers?

And according to Campbell one of his aliases was "Mr Wilson" ...

[lynn cates]

och!

Hello Chris.

"And according to Campbell one of his aliases was "Mr Wilson" ..."

Good heavens lad, you are right!

What does it all mean?

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Greetings,

The following 1889 article gives a good idea of what they knew of Red Jim.




According to what Chris has researched, it looks like Red Jim was in England during the time of the murders, but I am still at a loss as to how he was a JTR suspect.

Sincerely,
Mike

[lynn cates]

hair lipped

Hello Mike. Thanks for posting that. Yes, he narrowly escaped being shot at one point.

My understanding is that "red" referred to his "carrotty moustache." Frankly, his description sounds a good bit like Blotchy's.

Perhaps some were aware of his links to Sir Ed, even back in 1888?

Cheers.
LC

[TradeName]

A McDermott sighting from 1888:

New York Sun, October 10, 1888, Page 1

[mklhawley]

Excellent find TradeName. Sounds like he had time on his hands while in London during the murders. Idle hands are the Devil's workshop!

Sincerely,

Mike

[Bridewell]

He appears to have had a reputation for lying about his whereabouts, so claims that he was at any particular location in the autumn of 1888 should perhaps be viewed with that in mind.

[IMG]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3091FFC3A5515738DDDAD0994D1405B 8485F0D3

(If anyone can show me how to attach images properly I'll be happy to do that)

[mklhawley]

He appears to have had a reputation for lying about his whereabouts, so claims that he was at any particular location in the autumn of 1888 should perhaps be viewed with that in mind.

[IMG]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3091FFC3A5515738DDDAD0994D1405B 8485F0D3

(If anyone can show me how to attach images properly I'll be happy to do that)

Hi Bridewell,

He certainly used lying as a tool of the trade. The above article has Mr. Mitchell witnessing, which we can probably have more faith in.

Uploading a photo: Click on the paperclip and when the small window appears click on the brouse. Once you found the photo, hit upload. I then exit, followed by clicking on the paperclip again and the photo will show. Then just click on the photo and it will appear in your message where your cursor is.

Mike

[lynn cates]

Blotchy

Hello Trade. Thanks for posting that.

Looks like this places Red Jim in London within a month of the MJK event. So he could still be "Blotchy Man."

Cheers.
LC

[TradeName]

McDermott's testimony from 1880 in the case of Kenward Philp, who was accused of forging a letter allegedly written by General Garfield, who was then a candidate for President:

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 29, 1880, Page 2

EXCITING

Dramatic Scenes in Court in the Philp Case

[…]

James McDermott Called.

The next witness called to the stand was Mr. James McDermott. He testified as follows in answer to Mr. Bell’s questions.

Q. What is your name? A. James McDermott.

Q. Mr. McDermott where do you reside? Brooklyn.

Q. Where do you live? A. Brooklyn; 71 Third avenue.

Q. How long a period of time have you lived in Brooklyn? A. On and off for twenty years.

Q. Do you know Mr. Philp? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you known him? A. Eight or nine years.

Q. Have you known him intimately? A. Very

Q. Seen him frequently? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What have been your relations, social, business, or both? A. Both.

Q. Have you seen him write? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Often? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How often? A. A good many times.

Q. Are you familiar with his handwriting? A. I think I am.

Q. Look at these exhibits, beginning at “A” and running down to “K,” and state in whose handwriting these papers appear to be? A. “A” and “B” and part of “C” are in Mr. Philp’s handwriting. The latter portion of C is, in my opinion, in the handwriting of William H. Muldoon, of the New York Star.

Mr. Brooke—Mr. Daggett swore it was all Philp’s,

Witness—I am not responsible for what he swore.

Mr. Bell—Exhibit D is an editorial. In whose handwriting is that, sir?

Mr. McDermott—General Garfield’s. I mean—

This slip of the tongue caused an uproar through the Court that the officers could not succeed in suppressing for several minutes.

Witness—I mean in the handwriting of Mr. Philp.

Mr. Stoughton—Are these yellow pages in the handwriting of Mr. Philp? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bell—Mr. McDermott, do you know what Philp’s employment is? A. He is, I believe, one of the editors of Truth.

Mr. Brooke—You were asked if you knew[,] witness. A. Yes, I know it.

Mr. Bell—Well, your Honor, allow the witness to look at the Morey letter and state in whose handwriting it is?

Mr. Brooke—Which paper?

Mr. Bell—The Morey letter.

The letter was shown, and after looking at it Mr. McDermott said. “If that was shown to me without the signature I should say that it was Mr. Philp’s handwriting.”

Mr. Brooke—Do you believe on your honor and on your oath that it is in Mr. Philp’s handwriting? Do you believe on your conscience and your honor, knowing Mr. Philp, that it is in his handwriting? Do you believe it on your conscience, on your honor and on your oath? A. The only answer I can give is that it resembles his handwriting.

Q. Do you believe that he wrote that letter? A. Well, it looks to me as if he did.

Q. Do you believe that? A. I never saw it before, but I believe it now more than ever I did.

Q. Well then you did believe it before you saw it? A. I suspected; when I saw the publication in Truth; I said at once that it resembled Philp’s hand writing, and I thought it was one of his practical jokes; I so said in Brooklyn, and I compared it with his hand writing in Brooklyn.

Mr. Brooke—You assert that fact, do you, that you believe that it is in the hand writing of Philp. A. I have not said so.

Q. Well I want you to say so.

Witness—I will say it if you want me to do so; I say that it resembles Mr. Philp’s hand writing, and that is as near as I can go.

Mr. Brooke—Do you on your honor and conscience believe that Mr. Philp wrote that letter?

A. I cannot answer that question; I say on my honor and conscience it is as near Philp’s hand writing as anything could be possibly, except the handwriting itself if I were looking at it; I won’t swear that it is in the handwriting of Philp, but I believe it.

Q. Do you know how that editorial came into the possession of the prosecution? A. I have not the remotest idea.

Q. Have you seen it before? A. Not till I saw it lately. I recognize the manuscript here as having seen it.

Mr. Brooke—There is a personal letter addressed to you attached to the papers in this case. How did it come into the possession of the District Attorney. Do you know? A. I do not know.

Q. To whom did you give it? A. I gave it to nobody.

Q. It was received by you, was it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When? A. I should judge some time in November a year ago.

Q. To whom did you give it? A. I gave it to nobody. I exhibited it with the publication in Truth.

Q. When? A. I did not know that it was out of my possession until now when I see [sic] here. Q. Do you mean to say that you did not know that letter was out of your possession until you saw it now, on this occasion?

Mr. Ball—He was surprised when he saw me with it.

Mr. Brooke—Oh, yes, we know Mr. McDermott as well as you do, if not better.

Q. Now, Mr. McDermott, have you ever said to anybody that it was absurd to charge Mr. Philp with anything of the sort. A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever assert to Mr. Daggett or anybody else, that the handwriting of this fac simile in Truth was more like yours than Mr. Philp’s? A. No, sir; for it isn’t.

Q. Did you ever say that? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever assert assert [sic] that you knew more about that letter than Mr. Philp did? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever assert that you knew from private sources that it was a genuine letter from General Garfield? A. I never suspected that it was a genuine letter.

Q. You were a member of a Republican club in the City of Brooklyn? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The Third Ward association? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you leave it? A. They put me out of it. (Laughter.)

Q. You were expelled? A. Yes, sir.

Q. For what? A. For offering a place to a man in the Custom House for a vote.

Q. For bribery? A. That is, perhaps, what you would call it. (Laughter.)

Q. Was there any money in connection with it? A. I think there was a hundred dollars; they said—(Laughter.)

Q. You have been the subject of prosecution for libel? A. I believe it was.

Q. Have you any doubt about it? A. I think I have not.

Q. You have been indicted, too? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What for? A. For assault.

Q. Felonious assault? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Felonious assault on whom? A. I don’t recollect his name. (Laughter.)

Q. Were you indicted in New York, too? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What for? A. Assault.

Q. Felonious assault? A. Yes, sir.

Q. With a pistol? A. Yes, sir; with a pistol.

Q. How many shots did the indictment say were fired? A. Only one.

Q. You were arrested for stabbing a man, in Brooklyn? A. That is the same one you have just referred to.

Q. Have you ever had any indictable experience in Oneida County, in this State? A. I was never in Oneida County.

Q. Did you ever so state yourself? A. Never; that is a jest in Brooklyn.

Q. Indictment in Oneida County is a jest? Did you ever say you were indicted there? A. I may have jocularly stated it.

Q. Were you ever a fugitive from Brooklyn in connection with any matter? A. (Loftily) Never. (Laughter.)

Q. Not even in jest? (Laughter.) A. Never.

Q. What is your business? A. I am superintendent of the New York Life Insurance Company in Brooklyn, L. I.

Q. Isn’t Mr. Daggett the superintendent? A. His is the manager.

Q. Who superintends, the manager or the superintendent? (Laughter.) A. I guess I do most of the work. He does all the heavy looking on. (Laughter.)

Q. You are an active Republican? A. I do my duty simply as a citizen ought to.

Q. Not by shooting or stabbing or by getting expelled? A. Yes, sir; even by that. It is my duty as a citizen to protect myself, and I will do it if necessary.

Q. In the multitude of your duties and the infinitude of your employment as an insurance agent (laughter) have you overlooked any little indictments against you anywhere? A. No, sir, I have not. I wish to state that I never was indicted for libel. Mr. Henry C. Bowen sued me for $50,000 and he never got it. (Laughter.) That was in connection with the Beecher scandal. I was a reporter of the EAGLE, and he sued me, and that is the sum and substance of it. As to the other things, I simply say that the jury acquitted me, and they did right. (Laughter.)

Q. Did the jury in New York acquit you? A. Yes, sir; without leaving their seats, and Recorder Hackett directed them to do it.

Q. You served as reporter on the BROOKLYN EAGLE? A. Yes, sir?

Q. When? A. Up to and including the time of the Beecher trial.

Q. Employed as a reporter on the BROOKLYN EAGLE? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Brooke—That is all.

Witness—May I keep this letter (holding up the original Morey letter)? (Laughter.)

Judge Davis—Oh, no. (Laughter.)

[...]

---end

From http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org

This article indicates that Philp was ultimately cleared.

New York Times, March 30, 1881, link

MOREY LETTER CONSPIRATORS.; O'BRIEN TO BE PUNISHED FOR PERJURY-- THE OTHERS TO BE DISCHARGED.


Article about the stabbing incident:

New York Times, November 28, 1877, link

SERIOUS STABBING AFFRAY

"JIM" M'DERMOTT IN TROUBLE AGAIN--DISCUSSING POLITICS IN A BAR-ROOM--"JIM"COMMITTED TO RAYMOND-STREET JAIL.

[lynn cates]

brawler

Hello Trade. Thanks for posting this. He looks even more like a barroom brawler and general blackguard.

Have you found any links to Hurlbert?

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Excellent TradeName. So, McDermott carried a blade and even used it. Wow.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

Looks like this places Red Jim in London within a month of the MJK event. So he could still be "Blotchy Man."

Yes, but so could thousands of other men. Maybe I missed it before, but can you explain (again?) why McDermott could have been in Miller's Court with Mary Kelly?

[lynn cates]

blackmail

Hello Scott. Good question. I am researching precisely why Red Jim comes up in nearly ALL my ripper research.

We know that he was blackmailing Sir Ed Jenkinson. We also know that he was mentioned, likely by rumour, as Jack the Ripper. Why?

Why with Kelly? I would initially suggest, to discuss "business."

Cheers.
LC